subscribe to the RSS Feed

Friday, December 19, 2014

The Appendix: More Evidence That the Creationist Prediction Is Correct

Posted by jlwile on January 6, 2012

The Human Appendix (Gray's Anatomy Image)

For many, many years, evolutionists have called the human appendix a vestigial organ. In their view, our supposed ancestors needed a large cecum for digestive purposes. Over time, however, we evolved so that we didn’t need such a large cecum anymore. However, mutation and natural selection never got around to completely removing the large cecum and, as a result, we have a leftover, useless, small version called the appendix. As one evolutionist put it:1

…we have an appendix (a small remnant of a prior ancestor species’ intestinal sack) which not only is of no use to us but which can sometimes kill us when it gets clogged up and infected! What kind of god or other “intelligent designer” would design organisms with such useless, imperfect, wasteful, and sometimes even harmful physical features?

As I wrote previously, there is strong evidence that this evolution-inspired idea is incorrect. Evidence indicates that the appendix acts as a safe reservoir of the beneficial bacteria that usually populate your intestine. That way, when you have a disease that wipes out those bacteria, they can quickly repopulate your intestine so as to restore your normal level of health. This function conforms quite nicely to a creationist prediction made several years before this evidence began to mount.

Of course, a few pieces of evidence do not make a clear-cut case. As a result, it is important to test the idea that the appendix has a vital function in the human body by making predictions based on that assumption and then seeing whether or not the predictions are confirmed by the data. This has recently happened. In 2007, some medical scientists wrote a paper suggesting that the appendix served as a reservoir for the beneficial bacteria that live in our intestines.2 As a result, they predicted that if specific intestinal diseases were investigated, it should be found that people who have those diseases are better able to fight them if they have an appendix.

Well, a study that tested this prediction was recently published, and the prediction was dramatically confirmed.

The authors of the study investigated 254 patients whose intestines were infected with Clostridium difficile, a bacterium that can cause a wide range of problems from diarrhea to a fatal inflammation of the large intestine. Under normal circumstances, most people don’t have trouble with this bacterium, because it does not compete well with the bacteria that typically live in the human intestines. Thus, if you have a normal complement of beneficial bacteria living in your intestines, you will probably never get a serious Clostridium difficile infection.

However, suppose you have some other infection, and it is treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics. These kinds of antibiotics are generally pretty good at killing the infecting bacteria, but they kill the beneficial bacteria that live in your intestines as well. When that happens, you are susceptible to Clostridium difficile infection, since there are no other bacteria with which they need to compete. So the authors of the study realized that Clostridium difficile infection was a great test of the theory that the appendix serves as a reservoir of the beneficial bacteria that live in your intestines. If that is true, people who get a Clostridium difficile infection should be more likely to get the infection again if they don’t have an appendix.

That’s exactly what they found. Eleven percent of the patients who had an intact appendix ended up having at least one recurrence of the infection. However, 48% of those who did not have an appendix had at least one recurrence of the infection.3 Thus, patients were roughly four times more likely to have a recurrence of the infection if they did not have an appendix. This adds to the growing body of evidence that the appendix is far from useless. Instead, it serves a vital function in maintaining the health of the intestines.

Now please note that the evolutionary idea of a “vestigial organ” has, itself, evolved. Darwin called vestigial organs completely useless, likening them to the silent letters in a word. These letters do nothing in the word, but they can help to explain the word’s origins. In the same way, he thought, vestigial organs do nothing in the organism, but they can help you understand the evolution of the organism.4 Nowadays, many evolutionists understand that there are almost no useless organs in nature. Thus, they have adjusted the definition of a vestigial organ to mean an organ that has a reduced, diminished, or new function compared to the organ found in the ancestor.

An evolutionist, then, can still still call the appendix a “vestigial organ.” He just has to say that the function it plays is either a diminished version of the ancestral organ’s function, or it is a completely new function that evolution has “co-opted” the organ to perform. Most evolutionists will choose the latter in the specific case of the human appendix, saying that while the large cecum performed a vital digestive role in our ancestors, the human appendix is a diminished version of that cecum, and it has been co-opted into its new role of acting as a reservoir for the beneficial bacteria that normally populate the intestines.

Given the vital role we know that our intestinal bacteria play, however, it seems rather unlikely that such a view is reasonable. Studies like this one indicate that the appendix plays a vital role in sustaining beneficial bacteria so as to maintain healthy intestines. To me, that makes it look like an essential organ that was designed to do a specific job in the body.

REFERENCES

1. Ardea Skybreak, The science of evolution and the myth of creationism:
knowing what’s real and why it matters
, Insight Press 2006, p. 104.
Return to Text

2. Randal Bollinger R, Barbas AS, Bush EL, Lin SS, and Parker W., “Biofilms in the large bowel suggest an apparent function of the human vermiform appendix,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 249(4):826-831, 2007
Return to Text

3. Gene Y. Im, et. al., “The Appendix May Protect Against Clostridium difficile Recurrence,” JClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 9(12):1072-1077, 2011
Return to Text

4. R. Lewis, Life 3rd ed., WCB/McGraw Hill 1998, p. 395
Return to Text

Comments

43 Responses to “The Appendix: More Evidence That the Creationist Prediction Is Correct”
  1. W. Brown says:

    One of the hardest parts of being a scientist must be to make statements such as “…we have an appendix (a small remnant of a prior ancestor species’ intestinal sack) which not only is of no use to us but which can sometimes kill us when it gets clogged up and infected!” … only to have them stuffed down your own throat rather forcibly. This applies to both sides, naturally.
    Of course, the easiest way to avoid that is not to jump to conclusions.

    Seeing more studies of the functionality of the appendix as time progresses will be interesting.

  2. jlwile says:

    I actually had a post about that some time ago. At some point, you would think that evolutionists would learn to be less dogmatic in their statements. It doesn’t seem to happen, however.

  3. W. Brown says:

    Thank you for posting the link to that page! Although I thought I had looked through the blog quite thoroughly, I hadn’t seen that article. It’s very true, though. Some things never change.

  4. Dan says:

    Dr. Jay, you wrote in your post:

    Darwin called vestigial organs completely useless, likening them to the silent letters in a word. These letters do nothing in the word, but they can help to explain the word’s origins. In the same way, he thought, vestigial organs do nothing in the organism…Nowadays, many evolutionists understand that there are almost no useless organs in nature. Thus, they have adjusted the definition of a vestigial organ to mean an organ that has a reduced, diminished, or new function compared to the organ found in the ancestor.

    This seems to imply that evolutionists adjusted the definition of “vestigial organ” over time, and that the original definition was a structure that had no function. However, some statements by Darwin and other early evolutionists quoted on this website seem to contradict that. Here is one example from Darwin:

    “… an organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose” (Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species. Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York, p. 603).

    The same website quotes another early evolutionist, August Weismann:

    “But not infrequently the degenerating organ can be turned to account in some other way, and then retrogression either stops just short of actual elimination, as in the case of the wings of the ostrich, or so alters and transforms the structure as to fit it for new functions…” (Weismann, A. (1886), pp. 5-9).

    Another early evolutionist is quoted as saying vestigial organs are “[r]etrogressively modified, the Organs having become wholly or in part functionless, some appearing in the Embryo alone, others present during Life constantly or inconstantly” (Wiedersheim, R. (1893), p. 200).

    From these quotes, it seems that evolutionists have always recognized that “vestigial organs” do not necessarily have to be completely functionless. What is your take on this?

  5. L.W. Dickel says:

    What a shame that you didn’t bother to mention the number of people who suffer from appendicitis and even ruptured appendix’s. And even today many people, including children, die from this.

    And imagine what it must have been like in more ancient times, before the appendix could be removed through surgery. I wonder how many thousands or millions of adults and children died from this little organ. Have you ever wondered why your mighty and loving God didn’t do a little better job of designing the little appendix?

    And as far as the Clostridium difficile infection. Has your creationist mind ever wondered as to the reason that your supposedly mighty and loving God created the astonishing multitude of parasites and bacterias and viruses that have inflicted more suffering and death on human kind than a few thousand Nazi Holocausts could have?

    Heard of the Smallpox virus? It’s responsible for more suffering and death on the human race than any other agent in the history of human kind. Want to know a neat fact about it? It’s a human specific virus. No other creature on planet earth can contract it. Just us. Thank you Jesus!!!!! For giving us our very own special virus!!!! And then sitting up in your blessed heaven and watching as millions of men, women and children die horrible deaths from it!!

    And let’s not forget all of the diseases that specifically affect children!!! And birth defects!!!!!

    Ahh, the deluded religious mind. What sweet, ignorant bliss.

  6. jlwile says:

    Thanks for the question, Dan. I think the quote from Darwin is taken way out of context. It is taken from a portion of Chapter 13 labeled “Rudimentary, atrophied, or aborted organs.” That section starts out this way:

    Organs or parts in this strange condition, bearing the stamp of inutility, are extremely common throughout nature. [Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Penguin Books 1985, p. 428]

    So he seems to be defining rudimentary organs as those that are lacking in utility. He goes on to discuss examples, and then he gives his interpretation of the origin of rudimentary organs. In this discussion, he writes what is quoted in your comment. However, he is giving an example of how an organ might start out as useless but then become functional again. Such organs are no longer a part of the discussion. He is just saying that an organ can be useless for a time. I think this quote, found just one paragraph later, makes it clear that he thinks vestigial organs are useless:

    On the view of descent with modification, we may conclude that the existence of organs in a rudimentary, imperfect, AND USELESS condition, or quite aborted, far from presenting a strange difficulty, as they assuredly do on the ordinary doctrine of creation, might even have been anticipated, and can be accounted for by the laws of inheritance. [Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Penguin Books 1985, p. 432, emphasis mine]

    So he is including useless in the characteristics with an “and,” not an “or.” Also, he states that such organs would be a problem for creation. If they have a function, they would not be a problem for creation. Thus, he does seem to be talking specifically about useless organs. The quote in your comment seems to be talking about how a useless organ might become useful again, but that removes it from what he is talking about.

    I do not have access to the sources for those other quotes, but it would not surprise me if they were out of context as well. Even if they are not out of context, they might represent a minority view at the time. The majority view in evolution used to be that vestigial organs are useless. All you have to do to see that is look at quotes from old biology texts. For example, my old Biology text (yes, I am a nerd – I keep my science texts) says:

    Examples of structures like a pig’s two USELESS toes are found in other animals. Such structures are called vestiges (VES tij uhz), or vestigial (ve STIJ ee uhl) organs, because they are not used. The appendix (uh PEN diks) of humans is a familiar example. [Raymond F. Oram, Biology: Living Systems, Charles E. Merrill Publishing 1973, p. 265, emphasis mine]

    A more recent example is the well-known Miller/Levine biology text. In responding to the criticisms of a parent group called POSH, Miller states this:

    II. Vestigial Organs – False Information

    Page 284 uses vestigial organs as proof of evolution because it is an organ or structure that used to be of use but “whose main function is no longer valuable.”

    Unfortunately, POSH is quoting from an OLD EDITION of our text. IN 1996 WE UPDATED this section to more properly define vestigial organs as those whose size or function are mere vestiges (traces) of those in other organisms:

    Many animals have organs that are so reduced in size or function that they are merely vestiges (“traces”) of similar organs in other species. These vestigial organs may resemble miniature legs, tails, or other structures.

    Why should an organism carry a vestigial organ that has little or no function? As evolutionary change takes place, species may develop new adaptations that make some organs unnecessary. When this happens, the organs may be eliminated or be reduced in size, leaving only a remnant of what once was an important part of the animal. The vestigial organ then serves as a clue to the animal’s evolutionary ancestry. [emphasis mine]

    Note that Miller admits that he used to define vestigial organs as organs whose main function is no longer valuable. However, in 1996, he changed it. Thus, I do think that at least in the majority’s opinion, vestigial organs used to be considered useless (or at minimum, not valuable), but the definition evolved over time because most “vestigial organs” were found to have functions.

  7. jlwile says:

    Thanks for your comment, L.W. You might want to reread the post, however, as I do mention the possible problems associated with the appendix. I mention it in the form of the quote at the beginning of the post. More importantly, however, I think you are confused when it comes to the difference between functionality and pathology. Perhaps I can help clear up that confusion. Do you know what the leading cause of death is in the United States? According to the CDC, it is heart disease. Would you consider the heart a vestigial organ? I most certainly do not! Whether or not an organ can succumb to a pathology has nothing to do with whether or not it is vestigial. That’s the point of the post. The evolutionist prediction that the appendix is vestigial has been demonstrated by the data to be false. The creationist prediction that it has a vital role has been demonstrated by the data to be correct.

    You ask, “Have you ever wondered why your mighty and loving God didn’t do a little better job of designing the little appendix?” I think your question reflects your lack of understanding of the creationist position. In the creationist view, God’s creation was very good, but then something nasty happened. Adam and Eve rebelled, causing the Fall. This cursed creation, causing corruption in the very good design of the biological world, including the human body. When the engine of an incredibly well-designed sportscar ends up wearing out, do we say that the engineers didn’t do a good job? Not necessarily. Even incredibly well-designed systems can be subject to corruption. That’s what we see in heart disease, appendicitis, etc.

    You ask, “Has your creationist mind ever wondered as to the reason that your supposedly mighty and loving God created the astonishing multitude of parasites and bacterias and viruses that have inflicted more suffering and death on human kind than a few thousand Nazi Holocausts could have?” Not only has my mind wondered this, but many, many creationist minds have wondered this over the years. As a result, some excellent creationist research has been done on this point. Indeed, Dr. Peter Borger has a very promising explanation for the origin of retroviruses. This explanation is much better than the evolutionary one, as it overcomes the well-known RNA virus paradox. In addition, other creationists have discussed the idea that microbes and viruses were created as a link between macroorganisms and a chemically rich, but inert, physical environment. After the Fall, most of them continued to do their designed job, and we see that today. However, some were corrupted, and those became pathogenic. Thus, God didn’t create them as pathogenic. Humankind’s rebellion caused them to become pathogenic.

    You might want to learn a bit more about the smallpox virus. While the virus that causes smallpox is, indeed, specific to human beings, there is an entire family of poxviruses that also includes the virus that causes cowpox, the virus that causes monkeypox, the virus that causes bovine papular stomatitis, etc. Indeed, the virus that causes cowpox is so similar to the one that causes smallpox that infection by cowpox causes significantly heightened immunity to smallpox. These viruses all seem to have a common origin. Once again, most likely, they were initially designed to help link various vertebrates and invertebrates with the chemically rich, but inert, physical environment. However, the Fall probably caused one or more of them to be corrupted, and they eventually microevolved into the viruses we see today. Thus, to say that they were given to us by Jesus is simply incorrect. They were given to us by humankind’s rebellion against God.

    From a scientific point of view, the key is to look at the data and see what they are most consistent with. As a scientist, I see an incredibly well-designed world that has been subject to corruption. This is exactly what the creationist view predicts, and it is not what you would expect from a naturalist view. That is why science caused me to give up my atheism and become a creationist.

  8. W. Brown says:

    L. W. Dickel, since your comment would seem to want to support the antithesis of Dr. Wile’s argument, you might want to actually defend your view instead of wantonly attacking his argument whilst using several fallacies (calling a PhD in nuclear chemistry ignorantly blissful? really?) I didn’t really see much in your comment that was pertinent to the conversation. I hate to sound caustic, but all it accomplished was to show that you weren’t terribly well-versed in theology.

  9. L.W. Dickel says:

    First of all Jay, do you really not see the problem with your little analogy of the heart and the appendix?

    How many people do you know that have lived a long and healthy life after having their hearts removed?
    Whatever benefit the appendix may have, it seems far outweighed by the amount of suffering and death that it has caused throughout history. And still causes today.
    And also, heart disease is frequently, though not always, caused by lifestyle choices. (Your loving God frequently allows people to inherit heart problems genetically, including children). Ruptured appendixes in children cannot be explained by years of unhealthy eating habits.

    And Dr. Peter Borger appears to be some kind of specialist in respiratory disorders! Is that your idea of an expert in biological/evolutionary sciences!!!? And a quick google search reveals him to be just another creationist quack who couldn’t get published in a peer reviewed journal if his life depended on it!

    “However, the Fall probably caused one or more of them to be corrupted…”

    Holy mother of Buddha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Mr. Wile, that statement alone makes you a sad, pathetic embarrassment to the scientific community. You are not deserving of being called a scientist in any sense of the word.

    And what, praytell, would your evidence be that the astonishing number of bacterias, parasites, etc. were once beneficial but only became deadly after “the Fall”? But of course, you don’t really need “evidence” when you’re a Christian, do you? It’s all just “God-magic”, right?
    I guess all of those deadly viruses, bacterias, etc., just started out as harmless little flowers in the Garden of Eden, right Jay?

    And I bet that you can find the answer to that question in between the verses in the Bible commanding unblemished testicles for the animals that are to be sacrificed to your mighty god? Or perhaps genetics is discussed right after the talking donkey story! Right? Or maybe in between God’s instructions for selling your daughter into slavery?

    Good grief!! What an incredible waste of a mind.

    Here’s some hard truth for you sir. “The Fall” is a bunch of Stone Age lunacy dreamed up by a group of ancient minded, superstitious, pre scientific, ignorant, uneducated mammals who lived during a time when passing gas was a mystery!!

    [paragraph edited out due to vulgarity]

    And W. Brown, you and your deluded Jesus-nutter brain can go back to reading your Kirk Cameron newsletter!

  10. jlwile says:

    L.W., there are many important organs that a person can live without. In your view, is the spleen vestigial? You can live without it. Is the gall bladder vestigial? You can live without it. Is the ear vestigial? The eyes? The tongue? You can live without all those organs as well. The fact that you live without something has no bearing on whether or not it is vestigial.

    Your point that the appendix does more harm than good is particularly problematic. After all, you are saying that in developed countries at this time in history, the appendix does more harm than good. Even if that were true, so what? The fact is that the appendix helps people recover from intestinal-clearing diseases. Such diseases are still rampant in third-world countries, and they were clearly a major part of humankind’s history. Thus, if you want to try to make the case that the appendix does more harm than good, you need to support your argument with data that come from more than just the U.S. and more than just this time in history. Based on the data that exist right now, it seems that the appendix has a very important job in helping people to recover from certain diseases that were rampant throughout human history. This seems to indicate that it is an important, designed part of human anatomy. Until you can counter those data with data of your own, you can’t effectively make your case.

    You say that, “Ruptured appendixes in children cannot be explained by years of unhealthy eating habits.” Once again, that is not true. In fact, one of the causes of appendicitis is a hard piece of stool that gets trapped there. This, of course, can be the direct result of not eating enough fiber, not drinking enough fluids, or eating hard-to-digest foods. Also, the other major cause of appendicitis is infection, which can also be the result of poor lifestyle choices such as not washing your hands before you eat. It is not at all clear that heart disease is any more lifestyle-related than appendicitis.

    It seems you don’t want to investigate the data, because rather than actually addressing Dr. Borger’s ideas, you simply want to call him names. That might help you feel better, but it certainly doesn’t help make your case. If you want to tell me what you think is wrong with Dr. Borger’s arguments, please do. When you do so, perhaps you could come up with a solution to the RNA virus paradox. After all, if a “creationist quack” can do it, you should be able to as well!

    I find it interesting that because I offered you a very reasonable explanation that is clearly in line with the data, you feel the need to say that I am “not deserving of being called a scientist in any sense of the word.” I think you might want to inform the National Science Foundation about that, since they have given me $200,000 in research grants in order to do scientific research. You might also want to inform such prestigious journals as The Physical Review and Nuclear Physics, since they have published my original research. You might also want to tell that to Ball State University, since they named me a Bene Facta scholar specifically for my scientific endeavors…

    Actually, there is a lot of evidence that pathogenic bacteria were once beneficial. In fact, some of that evidence was discussed in the links I gave you. I wish you had actually read them. First, the number of bacteria that are pathogenic is actually incredibly tiny compared to the number that are beneficial or benign. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that there are more bacterial cells in your body than human cells. This is because you have all sorts of beneficial bacteria that are designed to live inside you and serve as a conduit to the physical environment. Second, some harmful bacteria can be traced right back to those beneficial bacteria. Third, even though you didn’t seem to read the previous links I gave you, I hope you read this one, which details a lot of the evidence you request. There’s no “God magic” here, L.W. Just scientific evidence. I wish you would include some in your comments. That would make them more consistent with the rest of this site.

    You say, “I guess all of those deadly viruses, bacterias, etc., just started out as harmless little flowers in the Garden of Eden, right Jay?” I am not sure where you got such an idea. As I have said, the scientific evidence indicates that they provided a link between the macroorganisms and the physical environment. Thus, they were not harmless little flowers. They were beneficial links to our environment. That’s how many bacteria and viruses perform today, and some pathogenic bacteria can be traced right back to those useful ones. Thus, the scientific data are rather clear. If you actually investigated them, you might be surprised at what you found.

    You say that the Fall is a bunch of “Stone Age lunacy dreamed up by a group of ancient minded, superstitious, pre scientific, ignorant, uneducated mammals who lived during a time when passing gas was a mystery!!” However, you present no evidence for such a statement. As you can see from this blog, we deal with scientific data and evidence here. If you have such evidence, I would love to hear it. Until then, such statements carry no weight around here.

    Please note that I did edit out your vulgar statement, as I want this site to be a clean site. In fact, that’s the main reason I keep all comments in moderation until I have a chance to approve them. Many people who don’t want to address the scientific evidence feel so frustrated that they resort to vulgarities. I will have no part of that.

    Also, while I kept your unwarranted insult to one of the commenters in, I must tell you that once again, it does not help your case at all. In fact, it shows how weak your case really is. When you can’t produce evidence but instead simply insult those who disagree with you, it is hard for anyone to take you seriously!

  11. jlwile says:

    For those interested in accuracy, I need to add another reply to L.W., who says, “And Dr. Peter Borger appears to be some kind of specialist in respiratory disorders! Is that your idea of an expert in biological/evolutionary sciences!!!? And a quick google search reveals him to be just another creationist quack who couldn’t get published in a peer reviewed journal if his life depended on it!”

    Not surprisingly, this statement is demonstrably false. A quick academic literature search reveals that Dr. Borger has been published in The European respiratory journal ["House dust mite extract downregulates C/EBPα in asthmatic bronchial smooth muscle cells," 2011;38(1):50-8], The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology ["Impaired translation of CCAAT/enhancer binding protein alpha mRNA in bronchial smooth muscle cells of asthmatic patients." 2009;123(3):639-45], and Clinical and Experimental Allergy ["Airway epithelium-derived transforming growth factor-beta is a regulator of fibroblast proliferation in both fibrotic and normal subjects." 2008;38(8):1309-17] just to name his three latest peer-reviewed publications. For those who might not understand the titles, these are all genetics-related publications. Obviously, then, he is rather well qualified to talk about the genetic origins of retroviruses!

    I wonder how many peer-reviewed scientific publications L.W. has, given the fact that someone he thinks is a “creationist quack” has three in the past three years!

  12. W. Brown says:

    Although I never stated my personal views, and shall refrain from doing so, L.W, you are, as Dr. Wile said, proving my point. Also, is calling everyone who doesn’t agree with you “not deserving to be a scientist” scientific? Science is not about biases or agreement, L.W, it’s about data. Since Dr. Wile (and many others) believe that the overwhelming evidence is for Creation, does that make them unscientific? No. If everyone always agreed on scientific data or theories, there would be no science. Science is not about everyone agreeing with you, L.W… “But of course, you don’t really need “evidence” when you’re a Christian, do you?” I haven’t seen you post ANY evidence against what Dr. Wile has said. Also, it is evident that you have done little/no research to try to refute him, instead substituting commonplaces and opinions rather than data. Before you jump on me for accusing you of opinions, I must add that while Dr. Wile has stated opinions, he also has backed them up with facts that he claims support his argument. You may want to do the same. If, of course, you have any.
    I must say, though, it is good to have comment diversity on a blog… Although it’s a pity some of the commenters cannot keep a civil tongue in their heads.. or perhaps civil tongues are just for the primitive cave-man era…?

  13. L.W. Dickel says:

    jay,

    Your blathering about the gallbladder, eyes, etc., being organs that you can live without doesn’t address any point that I was trying to make.

    So, jay, you think that the possible benefits of the good bacteria far outweigh the millions of people throughout history who have suffered horrible pain and death due to ruptured appendixes? And do you not think that your loving, all powerful sky-god could not have designed an appendix that served it’s intended function without causing untold suffering throughout human history? (Oh wait, I forgot that the man who picked some magic fruit in the magic garden caused that darned sin to enter the world and corrupt our blessed appendix!!)

    And regarding a “hard piece of stool” getting trapped in the appendix. Did it never occur to you that if the appendix were larger, as it is in many of our animal cousins, then that problem would not even exist!!

    And those diseases that are still rampant in third world countries–does your deluded Jesus brain ever wonder why your loving, invisible sky fairy allows those diseases to ravage all of those poor, starving people every single day!
    Your “Lord” may not provide a meal for all of those hungary children, but he certainly provides them with more than enough sickness and disease!!!

  14. L.W. Dickel says:

    Jay writes “the number of bacteria that are pathogenic is actually incredible tiny compared to the number that are beneficial..”

    Gee, jay, those millions of people who were wiped off the face of the earth by the Black Plague back in the middle ages would loved to have known that! I’m sure it would have give them great comfort as they were dying by the thousands every single day!!

    And google how many people have died from influenza and pneumonia throughout history!! Boy, that darned sin sure did change things!!!!!

    And I’m sure all of the worlds children who are diagnosed with multiple forms of cancer, bacterial and viral infections, and countless other genetic mutations would fell so much better about that little statistic!!! And while we’re at it, let’s share that profound information with all of the precious children who are born with horrendous birth defects every single day–I’m sure their parents would feel so much better!!! (And don’t forget to mention “the Fall”!!!!!!!!)

    Did your loving, all power sky fairy allow all of our blessed bacteria’s and viruses and parasites to exist because of that darned deceitful Eve!!? Is that really your argument?

    And you mentioned “scientific data” regarding “the fall”. Would mind showing me your astonishing scientific data about your magic man and his magic garden? Oh, wait, you must mean Genesis, right? Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!! That’s a real knee slapper!!!!

    And regarding your Dr. Borger, did you not notice that none of the articles that you referenced for him included anything to do with the genetic origins of retroviruses!!!!!! And the earlier article that you referenced was from a creationist website!!!!!!

    Gee, I wonder why you didn’t link to any articles of Dr. Borger from peer reviewed journals regarding his thoughts on the origin of those viruses!!!? The best you could do was a creationist website!!!!

    And you offered no information to back up your claim of being given money for any scientific research, nor did you specify what this supposed research entailed. Nor did you link to any of your published articles–would Mother Goose not allow you to link to them?

  15. jlwile says:

    Thanks for your reply L.W. You say, “Your blathering about the gallbladder, eyes, etc., being organs that you can live without doesn’t address any point that I was trying to make.” What point was that? You seemed to indicate that because people can live without the appendix, it is vestigial. That’s clearly incorrect. Did I misunderstand your point?

    You ask, “you think that the possible benefits of the good bacteria far outweigh the millions of people throughout history who have suffered horrible pain and death due to ruptured appendixes?” No. Once again, I think you are a bit confused. In both your comments, you seem to think that people will find comfort in the scientific facts I am giving. I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the vast majority of bacteria are beneficial to us or the environment. Only a few are pathogenic. This fits in very nicely with the creationist position that the initial creation was very good, and then it was corrupted by the Fall. This, of course, is exactly what science tells us about the appendix. It is designed very well to do its job. However, the Fall corrupted all of creation, which produced negative effects when it comes to some appendixes.

    You ask, “And regarding a “hard piece of stool” getting trapped in the appendix. Did it never occur to you that if the appendix were larger, as it is in many of our animal cousins, then that problem would not even exist!!” The problem is that if the appendix were larger, it would not be able to do its job. Remember to concentrate on what the scientific data say, and then you won’t be as likely to get confused on such matters. The appendix serves as a safe harbor for intestinal bacteria. If it were larger, it would be easier for the infecting agents to get into the appendix, negating its function. Thus, it needs to be small to do its job. That’s why God designed it that way.

    You keep referring to God as living in the sky. Once again, you need to actually learn about Christianity before you start discussing it in a public forum. That way, you won’t have to be corrected so often. God doesn’t live in the sky. He is omnipresent. He is everywhere. In addition, you also seem to be confused about the source of suffering and disease. It is not God’s fault. It is humankind’s fault. Humankind rebelled, bringing suffering and disease into the world. Had humankind simply obeyed God, there would be no disease or suffering now. I think if you learn these two very important points, I will not need to correct you so often.

    You say, “Boy, that darned sin sure did change things!!!!!” You are correct. What you seem to keep blaming on God is the result of humankind’s sin. If you truly understood that, a lot of your confusion would be cleared up right away!

    I have already given you the scientific evidence for the Fall. As I said, the creation was initially very good. The Fall caused it to become corrupted. If this were true, you would expect to see an incredibly well-designed creation that has small, corrupted elements. That’s exactly what you see. The majority of bacteria are beneficial to us or provide very important services to the overall ecosystem. However, some have been corrupted to be pathogenic. The human body is a testament to amazing design, but each important organ (including the appendix) has the ability to become corrupt. It doesn’t happen in the majority of cases, but it happens sometimes. Once again, scientifically, this is exactly what you would expect from a very good creation that was corrupted by the Fall.

    In reference to Dr. Borger, you were the one who said that he couldn’t get a peer-reviewed publication if his life depended on it. Obviously, you were dead wrong on that point. It think that alone speaks volumes about your ability to judge the quality of a scientist! Also, I think you need to look at the papers a bit more closely. As I mentioned in my previous comment, they are all about genetics. His argument about retroviruses is all based on genetics. Thus, the scientific community sees his expertise on genetics as very good, since they are willing to publish his genetic-related papers. As a result, he is clearly qualified to talk about the genetics origins of retroviruses.

    Yes, indeed, the first paper from Dr. Borger that I mentioned was on a creationist website. That’s one reason the science is so solid. When you actually do science from the perspective that the world you are investigating is designed, your science becomes significantly better and more reliable. This, of course, is why modern science is a direct result of Christianity.

    I generally don’t like to spend time discussing all my accomplishments, because I don’t like to blow my own horn. However, since you asked, I am happy to provide the information regarding my research grants and my publications. Before I give them to you, however, I might add that you still have not answered my question regarding how many peer-reviewed publications you have. After all, someone you called a “creationist quack” has them. You said I wasn’t fit to be a scientist, and yet I have both peer-reviewed publications and grants. So how many peer-reviewed publications do you have? How many scientific grants do you have? I eagerly await your reply to those questions!

    Research Grants Awarded:

    “Design and Development of a Cubic 4-pi CsI(Tl) Detector Array” – National Science Foundation and Ball State University – $93,114 over three years (1993 – 1996)

    “Superdeformation Studies in Heavy-Ion Induced Fusion Reactions” – National Science Foundation and Ball State University – $91,896 over three years (1991-1993)

    “Graduate Student Research Grant” – US Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and the University of Rochester – $24,000 over two years (1988 – 1990)

    Peer-Reviewed Publications:

    “Emission of Intermediate Mass Fragments During Fission,” S.L. Chen, R.T. de Souza, E. Cornell, B. Davin, T.M. Hamilton, D. Hulbert, K. Kwiatkowski, Y. Lou, V.E. Viola, R.G. Korteling, and J.L. Wile, Phys. Rev. C54, 2114 (1996).

    “Fragment Emission from Modestly Excited Nuclear Systems,” Y. Lou, R. T. de Souza, S. L. Chen, E. Cornell, B. Davin, D. Fox, T. M. Hamilton, K. McDonald, M. B. Tsang, T. Glasmacher, J. Dinius, C. K. Gelbke, D. O. Handzy, W.-c. Hsi, M. Huang, W. G. Lynch, C. Montoya, C. Schwarz, D. Prindle, A. A. Sonzogni, R. Vandenbosch, J. L. Wile, M. Parker and C. L. Coffing, Nucl. Phys. A604, 219 (1996).

    “Decay Patterns of Dysprosium Nuclei Produced in 32S + 118,124Sn Fusion Reactions,” J. L. Wile, D. L. Coffing, E. T. Bauer, A. L. Michael, M. A. Doerner, S. P. Baldwin, B. M. Szabo, B. Lott, B. M. Quednau, J. Toke, W. U. Schroder, and R. T. de Souza, Phvs. Rev. C48, 2897 (1995)

    “Studies of Intermediate-Mass Fragment Emission in the 3He + natAg, 197Au Reactions Between 0.48 and 3.6 GeV,” S. J. Yennello, K. Kwiatkowski, E. C. Pollacco, C. Volant, Y. Cassagnou, R. Dayras, D. E. Fields, S. Harar, E. Hourani, R. Legrain, E. Norbeck, R. Planeta, J. L. Wile, N. R. Yoder, and V. E. Viola, Phys. Rev. C48, 1092 (1993).

    “Thermal Characteristics of Composite Systems Formed in the Fusion of 28Si with 118Sn and 124Sn Nuclei, J. L. Wile,” S. S. Datta, W.U. Schroder, J. Toke, D. Pade, S. P. Baldwin, J. R. Huizenga, B. M. Quednau, R. T. desouza, and D. M. Szabo, Phvs. Rev. C47, 2135 (1993).

    “Development of a 4-pi charged-particle detector for fusion-evaporation reactions,” C. L.
    Coffing, M. R. Parker, A. L. Michael, J. L. Wile, D. R. Ober, R. T. de Souza, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., 38:1219, (1993).

    “Neck Emission of Intermediate Mass Fragments in the Fission of Hot Heavy Nuclei,” D. E. Fields, K. Kwiatkowski, K. B. Morley, E. Renshaw, J. L. Wile, S. J. Yennello, and V. E. Viola, Phvs. Rev. Lett. 26:3713 (1992).

    “Excitation Functions for Complex Fragment Emission in the E/A = 20-100 MeV 14N + natAg, 197Au Reactions,” J. L. Wile, D. E. Fields, K. Kwiatkowski, S. J. Yennello, K. B. Morley, E. Renshaw, V. E. Viola, C. K. Gelbke, W. G. Lynch, N. Carlin, H. M. Xu, W. G. Gong, M. B. Tsang, R. T. de Souza, D. J. Fields, and Sam M. Austin, Phvs. Rev. C45, 2300 (1992).

    “Mechanisms of Intermediate Mass-Fragment Formation from Threshold to E/A = 100 MeV,” V. E. Viola, J. L. Wile, D. E. Fields, K. Kwiatkowski, S. J. Yennello, H. M. Xu, M. B. Tsang, R. T. de Souza, E. Renshaw, J. Pochodzalla, K. B. Morley, W. G. Lynch, W. G. Gong, C. K. Gelbke, D. J. Fields, and N. Carlin, Nuclear Physics A528, 291c, (1992).

    “Multifragment Emission in Reactions Induced by 0.90 and 3.6 GeV 3He Ions on natAg,” S. J. Yennello, E. C. Pollacco, K. Kwiatkowski, C. Volant, R. Dayras, Y. Cassagnou, R. Legrain, E. Norbeck, V. E. Viola, J. L. Wile, and N. R. Yoder, Phvs. Rev. Lett. 67, 671 (1991).

    “Complex Fragment Emission in the E/A = 60 – 100 MeV/u 14N + natAg, Au Reactions,” J. L. Wile, D. E. Fields, K. Kwiatkowski, K. B. Morely, E. Renshaw, S. J. Yennello, V. E. Viola, N. Carlin, C. K. Gelbke, W. G. Gong, W. G. Lynch, R. T. desouza M. B. Tsang, and H. M. Xu, Phys. Lett. B264, 26 (1991).

    “Trends in Fragment Heating in the Damped Reaction 165Ho + 56Fe at 7.2 MeV/u,” D. Pade, W. U. Schroder, J Toke, J. L. Wile, and R. T. desouza , Phys. Rev. C43, 1288 (1991)

    “A Logarithmic, Large-Solid-Angle Detector Telescope for Nuclear Fragmentation,” K. Kwiatkowski, K. Komisarcik, J. L. Wile, S. J. Yennello, D. E. Fields, and V. E. Viola, Nucl. Istr. Meth. A299 (1990).

    “Search for the Onset of Multifragmentation in the Reaction 3 He + natAg,” E. C. Pollacco. C. Volant, R. Dayras, Y. Cassagnou, S. Harar, R. Legrain, C. Mazur, S. J. Yennello. K. Kwiatkowski, N. R. Yoder, V. E. Viola, R. Planeta, J. L. Wile, D. E. Fields, E. Hourani, E. Norbeck, Nuclear Physics A519, 197 (1990).

    “Excitation Functions for Complex Fragments emitted in 14N-induced Reactions from E/A = 20 -100 MeV,” D. E. Fields, J. L. Wile, K. Kwiatkowski, S. J. Yennello, E. Renshaw, K. B. Morely, V. E. Viola, N. Carlin, R. T. desouza, C. K. Gelbke, W. G. Lynch, M.B. Tsang, H. M. Xu, and W. Gong, Proc. Winter Workshop on Nuclear Dynamics VI, (1990).

    “Multifragmentation Threshold in the 3He + natAg System,” S. J. Yennello, K. Kwiatkowski, V. E. Viola, R. Planeta, J. L. Wile, D. E. Fields, E. C. Pollacca, C. Volant, R. Dayra, Y. Cassagnou, S. Harar, R. Lengrain, E. Hourani, and E. Norbeck, Proc. Int. Workshop on Gross Properties of Nuclei and Nuclear Excitation XVIII, Hirschegg, Austria, (1990).

    “Evidence for Radial-Energy Scaling of Non-Equilibrium Neutron Yield in Damped 139La + 4OAr Reactions,” J. L. Wile, S. S. Datta, R. T. desouza, J. R. Huizenga, D. Pade, W. U. Schroder, and J. Toke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2551 (1989).

    “Excitation Energy Equilibration in Damped 139La + 4OAr Collisions at 15 MeV per Nucleon,” J. L. Wile, S. S. Datta, W. U. Schroder, J. R. Huizenga, R. T. desouza, and D. Pade, Phys. Rev. C40, 1700 (1989).

    “Nonequilibrium Effects in the 139La + 4OAr Reaction at 10 MeV per Nucleon Observed in a Study of Neutron Emission,” J. L. Wile, S. S. Datta, W. U. Schroder, J. R. Huizenga, J. Toke, and R. T. desouza, Phys. Rev. C39, 1845 (1989).

    “Nucleon Exchange in the Absence of Strong Driving Forces: The Reaction 238U + 48Ca at Elab = 425 MeV,” R. T. desouza, W. U. Schroder, J.R. Huizenga, J. Toke, S. S. Datta, and J. L. Wile, Phys. Rev. C39, 114 (1989).

    “Non-Equilibrium Energy Transport in Damped Reactions,” W. U. Schroder, J. L. Wile, D. Pade, S. S. Datta, J. Toke, J. R. Huizenga, and R. T. desouza, Proc. International Conf. on Nuclear Reaction Mechanisms, Calcutta, India, Ed. S. Mukherjee, (Saha Inst. Nuclear Phys), p. 72 (1989).

    “Study of Fusion-Evaporation Reactions using a 4-pi Neutron Multiplicity Meter,” S. S. Datta, W. U. Schroder, J. L. Wile, R. T. desouza, J. Toke, and J. R. Huizenga, Proc. Symp. on Nuclear Physics, Bombay, India, Invited Papers Vol 31A, 200 (1989).

    “Mass and Energy Flow in Damped Reactions, W. U. Schroder,” J. L. Wile, D. Pade, S. S. Datta, J. Toke, J. R. Huizenga, and R. T. desouza, Proc. Svmp. on Nuclear Physics, Bombay, India, Invited Papers Vol 31A, 231 (1989).

    “Apparent Inhibition of Neutron Emission near the N=82 Closed Shell,” J. L. Wile, S. S. Datta, W. U. Schroder, J. R. Huizenga, and J. Toke, Proc. Winter Workshop on Nuclear Dynamics V, Ed. G. Westfall, 1988.

    “Energy Relaxation in Damped Reactions,” W. U. Schroder, S. S. Datta, J. L. Wile, J. Toke, R. T. desouza, J. R. Huizenga, Proc. Texas A&M Symp. on Hot Nuclei, Eds S. Shlomo, R. P. Schmitt, and J. B. Natowitz, (World Scientific, Teaneck, NJ), p. 233 (1988).

    “Massive Heavy-Ion Reactions, J. R. Huizenga,” M. A. Butler, H.Rossner, J. L. Wile, S. S. Datta, R. T. de Souza, D. Hilscher, W.U. Schroder, and J. Toke, Proc. All-Union Symp. on the Physics of Nuclear Fission, Obninsk, U.S.S.R., 1987.

    “Energy Dissipation and Particle Emission in Heavy-Ion Reactions,” W.U. Schroder, S. S. Datta, J. L. Wile, R. T. de Souza, J. R. Huizenga, and J. Toke, Proc. Int. Symp. on Collective Phenomena in Nuclear and Subnuclear Long Range Interactions in Nuclei, Ed. P. David, (World Scientific, Teaneck, NJ), p. 273 (1988).

    “Temperatures, Energies, and Degree of Thermal Equilibration of Fragments in Damped Nuclear Reactions,” J. L. Wile, W. U. Schroder, J.R. Huizenga, and D. Hilscher, Phys. Rev. C35: 1608 (1987)

    “Relaxation of the Mass Asymmetry Degree of Freedom in Heavy-Ion Reactions,” M. A. Butler, S. S. Datta, R. T. de Souza, J. R. Huizenga, W. U. Schroder, J. Toke, and J. L. Wile, Phvs. Rev. C34: 2018 (1986).

  16. W. Brown says:

    I suspect you may not get a response to that post, Jay. The facts are far too startling… a real scientist.. who disagrees with him.. a scientist who has numerous publications in scientific journals… wow.. Mind boggling, hmm?
    I think it’s a disgrace to the evolutionary community to have such a representative. It is rather unfair, being represented here by someone who has a rather high level of immaturity/English grammar issues. I have seen some very good comment debates with other scientists on this blog, but this is a travesty. Of course, I appreciate and respect L.W.’s views (obviously he does not reciprocate to you) and skepticism (Without skepticism what would science be?) but obviously skepticism has to be tempered with actually READING the provided material and also respecting the beliefs of others. Real scientists do all of these things.

  17. jlwile says:

    I don’t know, W. Brown. From the “conversation” that has gone on here, it seems L.W. doesn’t really let facts get in the way of his opinions. Thus, the fact that Dr. Borger and I are well-credentialed, accomplished scientists will mean very little to him. Also, we already know how he evaluates scientists. If they don’t agree with him, they are “creationist quacks” or not fit to be scientists, regardless of their credentials and accomplishments.

    I do agree that serious evolutionists must cringe when they read comments like those that have come from L.W. Such comments make even the wackiest creationist (and there are wacky creationists out there) look like a reasonable scientist!

  18. W. Brown says:

    That’s quite true, I suppose.

  19. Nathy says:

    Dr. Wile,

    I love the blog. Always engaging, and you are a model in Christian engagement.

    It is amazing how angry some people can be at a god they don’t believe exists!

  20. L.W. Dickel says:

    jay says “..the Fall corrupted creation”

    So tell me, jay, in how many of those articles that you apparently had some small part in (your name was usually close to the last), did you bring up “the Fall” to explain something. Really, jay, can you provide me with a single sentence from something that you have had published by an actual accredited organization in which you refer to “the fall”? I would love to know what your peers think about your Cro Magnon lunacy of virgin births, blood sacrifices, imaginary men in their imaginary gardens etc.,

    And I wonder how many papers that you would be asked to be a part of if your pathetic and asinine beliefs about “the Fall” corrupting the biological world were to be known by your potential collaborators.

    Can you show me a single peer reviewed paper that you are any other creationist whack-job participated in that deals with the stupefying nonsense of “the fall”, and it’s effects on the biological world? Really, jay, name a single credentialed scientific association that has ever published anything to do with ‘the fall” and it’s effects on the natural world. Don’t you think that the scientific world would be astonished by this incredible information that you proclaim to possess? Jay? Are you there, Jay???

    Or, can you name a single accredited scientific association in which even a small minority of it’s members accepts the lunacy of “the fall”, or any other of your creationist ideas? Jay? Are you there??? A single “accredited and respected” scientific organization. Just one. Jay? Still waiting. Oh, let me guess, all the best and brightest authors of this astonishing information prefer to keep these fantastic discoveries limited to the most elite organizations——creationist websites!!!!!!!!! Yeah, jay, I hear that it’s really hard to get published in those circles!!!!!!

  21. L.W. Dickel says:

    Jay says, “I have already give you the scientific evidence for the Fall’

    Really, Jay, I must have missed that. Apparently, you simply asserting something is scientific proof for its validity.

    Jay, the scientific world is waiting to be astonished The worldwide scientific community awaits the astonishing insights of Dr. Wiles scientific proof that the human appendix was created perfect, and only became defective after his fairy man picked some magic fruit from a magic garden!!! I can just see the Nobel prize in your hands now!! Please don’t hold on to this incredible information, Dr. Wile!!!!!!!!!!

    Jay, you would be laughed out of every scientific organization on planet earth for your asinine rubbish about “the Fall”, and you probably know it.
    Have you even tried to have a scientific journal publish your thoughts on this matter? Or have you reached your limit of lifetime humiliation already?

    And again, you fail to see that stating that the majority of bacteria are beneficial doesn’t remotely help your claim about “the Fall” corrupting anything. How did the ‘good’ bacteria escape the terrible consequences of the fall, jay? Why weren’t they corrupted as well? Were they hiding in the rectum of Balaam’s talking ass?
    Do you have a scientific thesis ready to explain how “the fall” seemed to skip over some organisms and yet corrupt others? The scientific community awaits you, jay!!!!!!!!

    And saying that “modern science is a result of Christianity” is a real knee slapper!!!! You should do yourself a favor and check out a terrific book called “The Christian Delusion”. Inside there is a fantastic chapter written by Richard Carrier that truly destroys any notion of Christianity being responsible for modern science. Enlighten yourself, Jay.

    And again, Jay, I’ll eagerly await your listing of peer reviewed articles that have even a single sentence that attempts to deal with the lunacy of “the Fall” and it’s effects on our world!

  22. L.W. Dickel says:

    Jay wrote “There are some whacky creationists out there”

    Bwahahahahahahahaahhhahhahahha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    No kidding, Jay!!! Now, just try an name a sane one!!

  23. L.W. Dickel says:

    And Jay, perhaps you know something about Chemistry, although that may be debatable.

    But your views on Biology make you a laughing stock. A pathetic, deluded laughingstock. And no respected scientist, not even a religious one like Frances Collins, would want to have your absurd and embarrassing lunacy spoken about in respected circles of the scientific community.

  24. jlwile says:

    Thanks, Nathy. It is, indeed, amazing how angry people get when they see that the facts support a truth they are unwilling to accept!

  25. jlwile says:

    L.W., I start by noting that you did not answer my question regarding how many peer-reviewed scientific papers you have published and how many research grants you have been awarded. I assume the answer is that you don’t have any peer-reviewed publications or research grants. This presents a real problem for you. You see, you tried to dismiss Dr. Borger’s excellent explanation of retroviruses (one that resolves the RNA virus paradox, which no evolutionist has yet resolved) by saying that he didn’t have any peer-reviewed publications. In fact, you said he couldn’t get one if his life depended on it. When I showed you how dead wrong you were about that, you claimed that since his papers were not directly related to evolution, he has no qualifications with which to write on the issue.

    Then, you seemed to think that I didn’t have any peer-reviewed scientific publications. When I showed you just how many I have, you did two things. First, you tried to downplay my importance in them, indicating that I was not usually the lead author. If you had any experience with peer-reviewed publications, you would know that this is not unusual. Also, you failed to mention that I am lead author on eight of them. That’s eight more than the number of peer-reviewed publications for which you are lead author. Second, multiple times you asked whether or not I mentioned the Fall in any of those publications (I did not). You indicate that since the Fall is not mentioned in my peer-reviewed articles, it is not a valid explanation for the issues you address.

    Here’s the problem this presents for you. Since you seem to think that only those with peer-reviewed publications in the direct subject of interest are qualified to discuss a subject, and since you think their explanations must appear in their own peer-reviewed articles to be relevant, you are unqualified to discuss this subject and cannot bring up any relevant points. After all, not only do you not have any peer-reviewed publications in this area, you don’t have any peer-reviewed publications at all! Thus, if Dr. Borger can’t talk about retroviruses, you clearly cannot. If I cannot talk about the appendix, you clearly cannot. Regardless of how you look at it, L.W., you are significantly less qualified in science than either me or Dr. Borger. So if qualifications are the issue, you have less right to discuss these issues than either me or Dr. Borger!

    You ask what my peers think about my beliefs. Not surprisingly, their views vary. I have many PhD colleagues who not only appreciate my views but mostly agree with them. For example, I work with several biology and chemistry PhDs from around the world (some of them appear on the list below), and they agree with the majority of my views, including the devastating effect that the Fall had on creation. I have other PhD colleagues who disagree with my views but are willing to discuss them with the respect they deserve. I don’t have any PhD colleagues who call my views “Cro Magnon lunacy” or anything like that. As serious scientists, they understand that science is built on controversy and that as long as there are scientific data being discussed, all views should be treated with respect.

    You ask for a peer-reviewed publication that discusses the Fall of man as it relates to science. I am happy to oblige. The work is called “The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science” by Peter Harrison of the University of Oxford. As its description says:

    Peter Harrison provides an account of the religious foundations of scientific knowledge. He shows how the approaches to the study of nature that emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were directly informed by theological discussions about the Fall of Man and the extent to which the mind and the senses had been damaged by that primeval event. Scientific methods, he suggests, were originally devised as techniques for ameliorating the cognitive damage wrought by human sin. At its inception, modern science was conceptualized as a means of recapturing the knowledge of nature that Adam had once possessed. Contrary to a widespread view that sees science emerging in conflict with religion, Harrison argues that theological considerations were of vital importance in the framing of the scientific method.

    According to this peer-reviewed publication, then, the concept of the Fall was instrumental in producing science as we know it today!

    You ask if I can name a single accredited scientific association in which even a small minority of it’s members accept the concept of the Fall. That is really quite easy. For example, I am a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. While the association itself is opposed to creationism, there are many young-earth creationists who belong. Indeed, many on the list below belong. There are also old-earth creationists who belong to the organization. All of us believe in the Fall and its terrible consequences. In addition, I blogged not too long ago about the young-earth creationists who are making presentations and leading field studies at the Geological Society of America.

    Unlike you seem to think, then, creationist views are not limited to small circles. In fact, you can find young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists in every major scientific organization. Some organizations even allow them to present their views at their official meetings. Once again, then, we see that you don’t know much about this subject!

    You say that you missed the evidence that I gave for the Fall. I am not sure how, since it was given right after I told you that I already gave you the evidence. I will try again. As I said before, the scientific data tell us that the world and the life on earth were incredibly well designed. However, as you point out, there are some problems. Thus, this looks just like what the creationist position expects: a very good design that has been corrupted by the Fall.

    You say that I would be “laughed out of every scientific organization on planet earth” for my views on the Fall, but that is clearly not true. I am a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as are many other young-earth creationists. We have not been laughed out of the organization. More importantly, I was on the chemistry and physics faculty of Ball State University for six years. My views were well known there. In fact, I debated an evolutionist on campus during my second year there. However, I was not laughed out of the chemistry and physics departments. In addition, there are young-earth creationists on university campuses across the nation (see the list below). Why haven’t they been “laughed out” of their departments?

    The fact that the majority of bacteria are not pathogenic shows how strong my case is. As I said, it is precisely what you would expect from a creation that was designed incredibly well and then corrupted by the Fall. You ask how the good bacteria escaped the corruption of the Fall. They did not – they groan with the rest of creation. They experience genomic decay like the rest of creation. However, if you read the article that I gave you before, you will see why only a small portion were corrupted to the point where they became pathogenic. In order for the bacteria to become pathogenic, a series of mutations would have to occur, and they would have to occur when the bacteria were in the wrong place. This wouldn’t happen very often, so the number of pathogenic bacteria are very small.

    When you make statements like, “Do you have a scientific thesis ready to explain how “the fall” seemed to skip over some organisms and yet corrupt others?”, it shows that you have not investigated this matter at all. Even though I patiently gave you links that would help you to learn, you still don’t seem to understand the basics of how the Fall affected creation. The Fall affected all creation. That is why no creature or organism has the ideal design it had before the Fall. However, the ways in which the Fall affected creatures depends on several scientific details. Scientists have investigated those details for certain organisms, as shown by the content of the link above.

    You say that the fact that modern science is a direct result of Christianity is a “knee-slapper.” Given the fact that the peer-reviewed publication I listed above says that modern science is a direct result of Christianity and the concept of the Fall, it is clear you have not investigated this issue, either. In addition, you might want to tell Dr. Loren Eisley, an evolutionary anthropologist. She clearly admits that science is a direct result of Christianity, calling it a “curious paradox”:

    [Experimental science] began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man’s wildest dreams, but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption. [Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It, (Anchor Books: Garden City, NY, 1961), p. 62]

    Because I like to be educated on the issues I discuss, I read many books that oppose my views. As a result, I have read The Christian Delusion, which was edited by Loftus and Barker but had many contributors, including Dr. Carrier. In Carrier’s second chapter (the one to which you refer), he claims that the idea that modern science is the result of Christianity is a correlation fallacy. Essentially, Christianity and modern science arose together, but that was a coincidence. Unfortunately, the weight of historical evidence is strongly against him. As Oxford- and Cambridge-trained historian of science Dr. James Hannam shows in his book The Genesis of Science, the writings of the natural philosophers of the Medieval Christian church clearly show the origins of modern science. He quotes many, many primary sources (something Dr. Carrier does not do), demonstrating that science did, indeed, arise from the Medieval Christian church. This is, of course, why those who don’t even agree with Christianity (like Dr. Eisley) admit that science is the direct result of Christianity.

    You say that my views would never be spoken of in respected, scientific circles. Once again, I have already demonstrated that to be false. Not only are my views spoken of in associations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science and in universities around the world, they are even presented in meetings such as those of the Geological Society of America!

    You asked me to name some sane creationists. I am happy to oblige. These are all young-earth creationists, and I expect all of them have more scientific credentials than you:

    Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
    Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
    Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
    Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
    Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
    Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
    Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
    Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
    Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
    Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
    Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
    Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
    Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
    Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
    Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
    Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
    Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
    Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
    Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
    Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
    Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
    Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
    Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
    Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
    Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
    Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
    Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
    Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
    Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
    Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
    Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
    Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
    Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
    Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
    Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
    Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
    Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
    Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
    Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
    Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
    Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
    Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
    Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
    Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
    Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
    Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
    Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
    Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
    Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
    Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
    Dr. Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry
    Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
    Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
    Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
    Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
    Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
    Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
    Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
    Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
    Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
    Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
    Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
    Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
    Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
    Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
    Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
    Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
    Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
    Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
    Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
    Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
    Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
    Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
    Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
    Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
    Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
    Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
    Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
    Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
    Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
    Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
    Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
    George T. Javor, Biochemistry
    Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
    Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
    Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
    Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
    Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
    Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
    Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
    Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
    Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
    Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
    Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
    Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
    Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
    Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
    Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
    Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
    Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
    Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
    Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
    Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
    Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
    Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
    Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
    Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
    Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist
    Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
    Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
    Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
    Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
    Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
    Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
    Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
    Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
    Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
    Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
    Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
    Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
    Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
    Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
    Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
    Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
    Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
    Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
    Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
    Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
    Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
    Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
    Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
    Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
    Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
    Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
    Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
    Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
    Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
    Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
    Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
    Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
    Prof. Richard Porter
    Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
    Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
    Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
    Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
    Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
    Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
    Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
    Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
    Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
    Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
    Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
    Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
    Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
    Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
    Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
    Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
    Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
    Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
    George S. Smith, M.S., Chemistry
    Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
    Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
    Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
    Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
    Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
    Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
    Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
    Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
    Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
    Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
    Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
    Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
    Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
    Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
    Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
    Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
    Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
    Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
    Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
    Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
    Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
    Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
    Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
    Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
    Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
    Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
    Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
    Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
    Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
    Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
    Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
    Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
    Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
    Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
    Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

  26. W. Brown says:

    I don’t see any open-mindedness in you, LW. Also, you haven’t answered or responded to any of Jay’s questions about your qualifications. I wonder why. You cannot really look at that list and claim that there are no serious creationist scientists. No real scientist does. That would be like saying that evolutionary scientists have not added anything to what we know today… it’s quite absurd. It’s obvious that logic is not something you like to implement in your postings. As Jay pointed out, by your own argument you are completely unqualified to post anything or share your opinions regarding any of the topics discussed. Isn’t that fascinating? Logic is a marvelous thing. As is reason. Giving them a try would be beneficial to your arguing skills. No one reading these comments would take you seriously, between your sporadic outbursts of ridiculous laughter or your obvious, glaring logical (or rather lack thereof) fallacies.

  27. gracekalman says:

    Honestly, I alternated between laughing histerically and being completely shocked by just how ridiculous L.W.’s comments are. I probably shouldn’t enjoy them so much, but they are almost better than the comics. You mention he is unqualified as a scientist. I also suspect that he is unqualified as a theologian. He might consider reading the Bible before dismissing it as ridiculous.
    Also, your list of scientists really encouraged me. Thanks.

  28. jlwile says:

    I think you’ve hit on the value of L.W.’s comments, Grace. They provide a lot of comic relief on a blog that is usually very serious, and they allow me to bring up encouraging things that I haven’t brought up before. W. Brown seemed encouraged by my list of peer-reviewed publications and research grants, and you were encouraged by the list of incredibly qualified young-earth creationists that span most of the academic disciplines. I generally don’t write about things like that because I tend to focus on the data rather than accomplishments and qualifications. However, L.W.’s comments prompted me to make an exception. I guess it just goes to show that the Lord can use anyone, even someone like L.W.!

    By the way, if you like such lists, there is an even more impressive list of evolution skeptics. They aren’t all creationists, but they are all “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

  29. W. Brown says:

    LW. is also a good contrast between blogs.. for example, if there was a creationist behaving similarly (and there are a few, sadly) he would have been blocked, rather than intelligently argued with. And @ the good doctor, yes, it is good to see accomplished people who don’t just follow the scientific zeitgeist that has so often been wrong. And @LW. I suspect you’ve never heard/listened to the argument (one of the most common arguments for Intelligent Design) of the system that prevents a giraffe’s circulatory system from bursting the blood vessels in its head when it stoops to drink water. Has it ever occurred to you that this sort of system is completely improbable/impossible to evolve? Did you know that the odds of only FIVE non-harmful genes (Not even advantageous, just non-harmful) occurring in the same individual is one in one thousand million MILLION? (Study done by E.J Ambrose, Emeritus professor of Cell Biology from University of London.) This is very, very obvious information that is widely available to the public knowledge. In fact, this information is brought forth in many high school books that present both sides of the argument (Shocking, right? Imagine a scientific book presenting both sides of the argument…) I’m not sure why I even bothered posting that, since I’m sure you’ll bring out the old Straw-Man Fallacy and start huffing and puffing… but at least I presented the evidence. Anyone who has studied mathematics knows that the odds for macroevolution (VERY different from microevolution, in case you didn’t draw distinctions) is risibly high. Yet, it’s not demonstrably false (just very close to it!) because science can’t really “prove” things… It’s only highly HIGHLY improbable. Of course, I don’t expect you to have a scientific answer to this, so I eagerly (or not-so-eagerly, really) look forward to reading some more of your humorous posting material… Cheers.

  30. jlwile says:

    Thanks, W. Brown. I do try to educate anyone who comments, even someone who can’t keep a civil tongue in his head.

  31. L.W. Dickel says:

    Well first of all Jay, I’ve never stated that anyone needs to have peer reviewed papers in order to discuss a particular subject. But if one’s intentions is to overturn an accepted theory or line of evidence in the scientific community, then it would behoove that person to have the appropriate specific credentials and to have his/her work published in the appropriate journals,and NOT ON CREATIONIST NUTJOB WEBSITES!!!
    (Am I writing slow enough for you, Jay?)

    You say “I don’t have any PhD colleagues who call my views “Cro Magnon lunacy”..

    Maybe not to your face, Jay, but the view of the religious nuttery that you espouse is regarded,and rightly so, as cave man lunacy by the likes of Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Jerry Coyne, Jason Rosenhouse, Sam Harris and many others. And you can bet that there are many who share their views who are perhaps a bit less willing to be openly critical of someone’s personal religious views, regardless of how nutty they may be.

    “As serious scientists, they understand that science is built on controversy, and that as long as there are scientific data being discussed, all views should be treated with respect’

    Jay, the very idea that “the Fall” is considered ‘serious scientific data’ is truly one of the most stupefyingly asinine, absurd, idiotic, moronic, and embarrassing ideas that any supposedly sane human being has ever uttered in the entire history of humankind’s existence on this planet.
    The average monkey has an I.Q. high enough to be embarrassed by the fact that you espouse this kind of cave man insanity.

  32. L.W. Dickel says:

    Now regarding your supposedly peer review publication that discusses the role of the Fall of man as it relates to science.

    First of all, a book review is doesn’t exactly meet the definition of “peer reviewed”, Jay. Understand?

    Secondly, even in the review you posted, it states that Harrison believes that is was “theological discussions about the Fall of man” that had an impact on the promotion of science. Not the fall of man itself, but discussions about that supposed event. Got that,Jay?

    And while you quoted a review of Harrison’s book, please allow me to quote from the man himself:

    “The central concern of this book is to illustrate the ways in which the myth of the Fall informed discussions about the foundations of knowledge and influenced methodological developments in the nascent natural sciences”–Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science.

    Did you catch that first line, Jay? The “myth” of the fall.
    Do you agree with that description of the Fall, Jay? That’s the way sane, rational people describe much of the Bible, especially the Fall!! (Although that talking donkey story just might be true!!)

    And Jay, belonging to an association that openly rejects the central tenet of your thesis on the state of the natural world is hardly something to boast about. As you stated, the Association for the Advancement of Science does not in any way endorse your Stone Age religious nutrtery about the Fall, or your equally nutty young earth belief.

    And simply naming a bunch of other religious nutters who also belong to an organization that rejects their central claim doesn’t exactly make you case any stronger. It only makes you look ridiculous and desperate.
    Name just one of those young earth nutters that you listed that has a single peer reviewed paper that discusses the Fall or the “evidence” for a young earth? Jay? Are you there?

  33. L.W. Dickel says:

    And regarding the American Association to Advance Science, apparently all it takes to become a member is a valid credit card and $100.00!!

    Now, to be elected a fellow of the AAAS requires a bestowment by a scientists peers. And a funny thing happened when I was browsing the list of fellows that’s available on their website; I didn’t seem to run across your name, Jay. Is that just an oversight on their part? I’m sure it must be!
    Oh, and funnier still, I tried to find some of the names of the creationists that you listed, and I’ll be darned, their names seemed to have been left out as well!! Just an oversight, right Jay?
    Because surely Jay would never mislead anyone by suggesting that someone has “earned” a membership in an organization when in actually they had just whipped out a credit card!!
    Right, Jay?

    Hell!!, I just might become a member myself!! And then we can see who gets to the “fellow” list first!! How about that, Jay?

    Jay writes, “As I said before, the scientific data tell us that the world and the life on earth were incredibly well designed. However, as you point out, there are some problems. Thus, this looks just like what the creationist position expects: a very good design that’s been corrupted by the Fall.”

    Yes, Jay, you’ve said that before. And as before you make this asinine statement without offering a shred of actual “evidence”. You are familiar with how evidence works, right Jay? You propose a hypothesis and then offer solid evidence that supports your view. And you also must show what sort of evidence would be necessary to falsify your hypothesis. And then, if you’re an actual scientist, you have your findings published in a peer reviewed, scientific journal. And you offer rebuttals to your critics.

    Evolutionists state that the would looks exactly like it would if evolution by natural selection were true. And then they actually perform experiments and write papers by the dozens every single year to prove their hypothesis. And their work does something that your creationist nuttery doesn’t. It get published and reviewed. Every month of every year. For well over one hundred years.

    So Jay, once again, I’ll await with baited breath for you to quote the single peer reviewed scientific paper that tries to suggest that the Fall had anything to do with the state of the natural world. Or anything else.
    And the reason that you won’t do that is because that pile of Neanderthal lunacy is a complete embarrassment to any rational, thinking human being on planet earth.

  34. L.W. Dickel says:

    And W. Brown, perhaps I’ll have some time for your pathetic nuttery tomorrow.

    The pathetic tripe that you write would almost embarrass Kirk Cameron! Almost.

    And the idea that you’ve ever read a scientific book about evolution seems about as likely as the chances of the Indianapolis Colts winning the Super Bowl this year!

  35. jlwile says:

    Actually, L.W., you most certainly did state that someone needs to have peer reviewed papers in order to discuss a particular subject. Instead of trying to respond to the evidence that Dr. Borger presents, you dismissed him by saying:

    And Dr. Peter Borger appears to be some kind of specialist in respiratory disorders! Is that your idea of an expert in biological/evolutionary sciences!!!? And a quick google search reveals him to be just another creationist quack who couldn’t get published in a peer reviewed journal if his life depended on it!

    Obviously, you were dead wrong about him not being able to get a peer-reviewed publication. When I showed you how dead wrong you were, you once again tried to dismiss his view on retroviruses (the only view out there that resolves the RNA Virus Paradox) by saying:

    Gee, I wonder why you didn’t link to any articles of Dr. Borger from peer reviewed journals regarding his thoughts on the origin of those viruses!!!? The best you could do was a creationist website!!!!

    So not only did you indicate that a person needs peer-reviewed publications to discuss an issue, you indicated that the person must have peer-reviewed publications in the specific area that is being discussed.

    Now you are backpedalling and saying that it is all about overturning an accepted theory or line of evidence. However, even a cursory look at the history of science shows that some of the greatest scientific advances come from people who have no peer-reviewed articles in the field that they advance. Thus, even your backpedalling argument doesn’t work.

    I agree that people like Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Jerry Coyne, Jason Rosenhouse, Sam Harris and many others see my views as lunacy. Not long ago, scientific greats like Dr. Linus Pauling saw Dr. Dan Shechtman’s views as lunacy. However, Dr. Shechtman ended up winning the Nobel Prize for his supposed “looney” views. That’s the thing about science, L.W. It doesn’t respect the opinions of people, no matter how celebrated they are. It respects only the data.

    You keep saying that the scientific concept of the Fall is absurd, idiotic, etc. However, as the peer-reviewed publication I linked to you shows, it was absolutely essential for the development of science. Thus, far from being what you characterize, it is clearly an integral part of science. And yes, of course, the publication I linked to you is peer-reviewed. It is produced by Cambridge University Press, and it was produced as a peer-reviewed book. The book review is not the peer review, of course. It is simply a book review.

    It’s interesting that you quote Dr. Harrison saying that the Fall is a myth, but you don’t quote this part, which occurs just a few paragraphs above what you quoted:

    The narrative of the Fall has always exercised a particular fascination over Western minds. It has been described in recent times as ‘the anthropological myth par excellence’, ‘the most elemental of myths’, and ‘the central myth of Western culture’.

    Nowhere does he call it absurd, idiotic, or any of the things that you call it. Also, he is not necessarily saying it is a myth. He simply says it has been described as an incredibly important myth. Once again, he also says how crucial it was to the development of science. Thus, the characterization of the concept of the Fall in this peer-reviewed publication is much, much different from yours.

    Now of course, I don’t think the Fall is a myth. However, here is the power of the concept: Even someone who says it has been described as a myth is able to see how important it is for science! To dismiss it the way you do is not a proper scientific attitude, given how important it was to the development of science.

    Do you remember when you said that the idea that science came from Christianity was a “knee-slapper?” Clearly this peer-reviewed publication doesn’t think so. Neither do the other serious academics I quoted. Once again, a quick look at the evidence shows you to be utterly wrong on that point.

    Unlike you imply, L.W., I am not boasting about being in the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I was simply answering your question. You thought there were no scientific organizations in which even a small minority of their members shared my views. I was just showing you that once again, you haven’t learned much about this issue, as young-earth creationists can be found in every major scientific organization. Indeed, they even give presentations in some of them. Thus, they are not “laughed out” of scientific organizations as you claimed. In some cases, they even give presentations to those organizations.

    Now regarding membership, you didn’t ask me to list an organization whose fellows subscribe to my views. Here is precisely what you said:

    Or, can you name a single accredited scientific association in which even a small minority of it’s members accepts the lunacy of “the fall”, or any other of your creationist ideas? Jay? Are you there??? A single “accredited and respected” scientific organization. Just one. Jay? Still waiting [emphasis mine]

    I not only gave you one scientific organization whose members agree with me. I gave you two. In the second one (the Geological Society of America), they even give presentations at the meetings.

    You keep missing the evidence, so let me try to walk you through it once again. This original post talks about how the data show the appendix to be an integral, designed part of the digestive system. I give lots of evidence in the post to show that – referencing several studies that show the appendix serves an incredibly important service. Now, as you say, the appendix also can cause problems. Thus, what does the evidence say about the appendix? That it is a well-designed part of a well-designed system that got corrupted. I then gave you several more stories on how bacteria and viruses are designed to link the macroorganisms with the physical environment, and then I gave you two studies that discuss how some of these well-designed organisms became pathogenic due to the Fall, which corrupted all of creation. Thus, the data show exactly what the creationist view predicts – a very well-designed system that has been corrupted. I expect the reason you missed all this evidence is that you didn’t bother to actually read the studies that I gave you.

    You say that, “Evolutionists state that the would [sic] looks exactly like it would if evolution by natural selection were true.” Yes, but the evidence doesn’t indicate that at all. Instead, the evidence that I have given you copious references to shows exactly the opposite of what you would expect from evolution. That’s what so many scientists are turning away from it – because the data do not support it.

    You say, “And their work does something that your creationist nuttery doesn’t. It get published and reviewed. Every month of every year. For well over one hundred years.” However, creationist research gets published all the time. For example, creationist research on carbon-14 that exists in samples that should be too old to contain carbon-14 was published in the proceedings of the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting 2003. So was creationist research on radiohalos. Creationist research was published in the proceedings of the 2009 Portland Geological Society of America Annual Meeting. A creationist geologist even published his research as a Geological Society of America peer-reviewed field guide. Creationist research on the Coconino Sandstone has been published in the journal Geology. [Brand, L. and Tang, T., Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin, Geology 19:1201–1204, 1991]. The list goes on.

    I don’t know of any peer-reviewed publication that specifically links the Fall to what we see today, but if young-earth creationist views were the “lunacy” that you think they are, you would be right. Creationists would be laughed out of scientific organizations, they would never be published in the peer-reviewed literature, etc., etc. However, we see precisely the opposite. Young-earth creationists are in scientific organizations around the world, they are on university faculties around the world, they present their views at scientific meetings, and they publish their research in the peer-reviewed literature. Once again, then, the evidence shows that your characterization of young-earth creationism is utterly incorrect.

  36. W. Brown says:

    Wow.. I must say, I’m not impressed by your reply, L.W. You’re coming to a conclusion that I have never read an evolutionary scientific book in my life, and above that practically stated that you hadn’t even read my post. Brilliant. Perhaps you’ll have time to learn how to read things tomorrow too. Anyone looking at this site sees a scientist (Dr. Wile) diligently wasting his time holding a conversation with a close-minded, uneducated and self-contradictory person… I admire Dr. Wile for that. When will they teach Logic in schools? Just because these scientists disagree with YOUR all-important and omniscient knowledge means they’re quacks. That’s absolutely reasonable… totally. Any other amazing and insightful things to say? Have you ever heard of the Straw Man fallacy? Because you employ it with peerless skill. Every argument you have put up is fallacy-ridden and quickly disproven. It’s rather sad. It’s rather like arguing with a foul-mouthed brick wall, in a way. Perhaps some day you’ll wake up and realise that the world doesn’t revolve around your ideas, and that the possessive of “it” doesn’t have an apostrophe. I won’t post any more scientific arguments until you actually read the information given.

  37. jlwile says:

    W. Brown, I seriously doubt L.W. will ever read the information given. He doesn’t seem interested in data – just insulting people. Of course, that just shows how weak his case is.

  38. L.W. Dickel says:

    Oh Jay! There you go again with you tedious blathering that tries to desperately to cover up your deluded nonsense.

    Once again, J-bird, I never stated that it was necessary to have a peer reviewed paper in order to simply discuss a particular issue. But if one is indeed implying that the accepted science on a particular issue is wrong, then it would behoove that person to have the necessary qualifications and peer reviewed science to back him up. And you and your creationist nutbag buddies don’t seem to be able to get your cave man insanity published in the appropriate journals. That’s the only point I was really trying to make.

    And regarding Peter Harrison’s book, you did nothing but embarrass yourself. Again.

    Harrison clearly describes “the Fall” as a myth. It’s his own words in his own book. And his characterization of the Fall and it’s impact on science in now way assumes that the Fall actually occurred or had an actual “direct” impact on our world.
    That’s strictly you own deluded nuttiness that you’re trying to associate with Harrison’s book. It’s not his own thoughts, you dolt!

    And regarding your membership in the AAAS, I has assumed, wrongly it seems, that certain qualifications and academic excellence were necessary to become members of organizations like that. I didn’t realize at the time that simply paying a certain amount of money will allow you to say that you are a “member” of these organizations. And there’s nothing wrong with that, of course.

    So the fact that neither you nor any of your deluded creationist buddies are actual “fellows” of either of the organizations that you listed is quite interesting.
    And I suspect that you knew what I meant when asking about your “membership” in these respected organizations, and that you chose not to disclose that you and your creationist whack-a-loons have never been appointed to fellowships in any actual respected scientific organization.

    And I wonder why that would be, Jay? Gee, what a mystery!!

    And the people that you reference as being published in the AGU didn’t write a single line that mentioned “the Fall” or creationism in any way. Nor did anything in their articles contradict evolution or an old earth. They may raise questions, which is what real science does. But they offered nothing that supported the inane nuttiness of young earth creationism.

    And I again noticed that none of the authors of these studies are listed as fellows in the American Geophysical Union.

    And please allow me to quote part of the AGU’s position statement:
    “Within the scientific community, the theory of biological evolution is not controversial, nor have “alternative explanations” been found….Explanations of natural phenomena that appeal to the supernatural or are based on religious doctrine-and therefore cannot be tested through scientific inquiry- are not scientific, and have no place in the science classroom.”

    So Jay, the two associations that you mention as having published papers from creationists, boldly and in no uncertain terms reject the Stone Age nuttiness of young earth creationism!!!

    And it’s not particularly surprising that a creationist might get published in a science journal, but they only seem to do so when they never mention their inane, cave man beliefs!!

    And you mention that creationists would be laughed out of scientific organizations if their beliefs were really “lunacy”.
    Well, first of all, I suppose that some of you young earth Jesus nutters would first have to actually be ACCEPTED AS ACTUAL FELLOWS in some of these organizations!!!!

    J-bird, please get back to me when these nutters actually present “their views” at a respected scientific conference or in an actual scientific journal. Show me when one of you loons actually argues for ‘the Fall’ as evidence for young earth creationism!! Or for why the appendix ‘went bad’!!!!

    And then monitor how long it takes for the laughter to die down!!!

  39. L.W. Dickel says:

    And W. Brown, perhaps some day you’ll wake up and realize that your pathetic, asinine, and laughable religious beliefs were an incredible waste of your sad, deluded life.

    Enjoy you ancient fairy tales!!

    And please remember, when you burn your next animal sacrifice for your invisible sky-god, please make sure that the testicles of the animal are not blemished!!!!

    I have it on good authority that this really ticks off the sky-fairy!!!! (Lev. 22:24)

  40. gracekalman says:

    Obviously he doesn’t belong in the “not openly critical of someone’s personal religious views” category. Even worse, he doesn’t even understand our religious views. I would imagine that it is incredibly annoying to try to debate someone who can’t even keep his own facts straight, much less yours.

  41. jlwile says:

    L.W., your backpedalled position now seems to be that in order to challenge accepted science, a person needs the necessary qualifications and peer-reviewed science to back him up. If that truly is your position, then, Dr. Borger is quite qualified to challenge the accepted science. He has an M.Sc. (Honors) in biochemistry and molecular genetics and a Ph.D. in Medical Sciences from the University of Groningen. He also has several peer-reviewed papers specifically on the genetics of disease. Thus, according to your own criteria, he is very qualified to challenge the scientific consensus on retroviruses. Given that his challenge also resolves a paradox that evolutionary-based views of retroviruses have not resolved, his challenge is quite a good one!

    Once again, Harrison does not say that the Fall is a myth. He says it has been described as a myth. Once again, these are his words:

    The narrative of the Fall has always exercised a particular fascination over Western minds. It has been described in recent times as ‘the anthropological myth par excellence’, ‘the most elemental of myths’, and ‘the central myth of Western culture’.

    Now I do agree that his discussion in no way assumes that the Fall actually did occur. However it makes it clear that science flourished specifically because scientists thought it actually did occur. Thus, far from being the idiotic idea you seem to think it is, the reality of the Fall was instrumental in the development of science. Also, please recall that you initially said the idea that science was a direct result of Christianity is a “knee-slapper.” However, as this peer-reviewed work clearly shows, science is not only a direct result of Christianity, it is a direct result of the belief in a real, actual Fall of man.

    You seem to still be under the misguided notion that there are no young-earth creationists who are fellows in scientific organizations. Once again, I am happy to educate you on this issue. Here are three young-earth creationists I know off the top of my head who are fellows in scientific organizations:

    Dr. Paul Garner, fellow of the Geological Society of London

    Dr. Raymond Damadian, fellow of The American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering
    Incidentally, Dr. Damadian was also awarded the United States’ National Medal of Technology and the Lincoln-Edison Medal. He is also in The National Inventors Hall of Fame alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers.

    Dr. Andy McIntosh, fellow of The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, The Institute of Energy, and The Institute of Physics

    Once again, young-earth creationists are everywhere in science, specifically because there is good scientific evidence that supports young-earth creationism.

    You claim that the published articles I gave you did not support creationism in any way. That indicates you didn’t read them. As the article by Snelling and others says:

    We view this seeming paradox as a hint that nuclear decay processes may have been occurring more rapidly during the interval in which these granites were cooling.

    This is, of course, a specifically young-earth creationist concept. In addition, the research on the Coconino Sandstone was based on the mechanisms of Flood Geology, which is (once again) a specifically young-earth creationist concept.

    I agree that the scientific organizations that publish young-earth creationist research and appoint young-earth creationists as fellows don’t accept young-earth creationism. However, you admitted that “what real science does” is raise questions. That’s precisely what the real scientists who are young-earth creationists are doing. They are raising questions that challenge the current paradigm. Thus, by your own admission, young-earth creationists are, in fact, doing real science.

    I really do hope that you actually educate yourself on this issue. Your constant incorrect statements indicate that you know very little about young-earth creationism and the science (and scientists) that support it. Perhaps one way you could start your education is to actually read what I have linked for you.

    I also note that you have not even attempted to answer any of W. Brown’s points. All you have done is show the weakness of your position by trying to insult him. I think that speaks volumes.

  42. W. Brown says:

    Once again, nothing is accomplished by L.W except several logical fallacies and making himself look like a lunatic… It really does help if you read the material, L.W. It would seem as if, as someone else on another post noted, Dr. Wile is dealing with a troll on the site, which is too bad. There’s an excellent post about the rapid-decay vs. dynamo theory on this site, L.W. It would be interesting if you read it. Of course, one can hardly expect that much, but it does show an interesting successful prediction or two that rather throw the proverbial wrench in evolutionary/old-earth arguments (Not to say I’m young earth in the least… I’m rather old-earth inclined) But still, the planetary magnetic fields have brought me to the point of old-earth/young-earth agnosticism. Of course, you wouldn’t read anything which disagreed with your dogmatic ideology, so I’m wasting my breath on you (or rather, the amount of energy/time it takes to type this.)

  43. jlwile says:

    Grace, I don’t find the discussion with L.W. to be annoying. In fact, I find it rather illustrative. When someone sinks into the kinds of insults L.W. throws, it is clear that he/she cannot support his/her ideas with rational arguments. As I mentioned previously, his/her comments would make any serious atheist wince, but they don’t annoy me at all.

home | top