I initiated an email correspondense with Mr. Wallace
 

This page presents the email exchange I had with Mr. Wallace.
The email I sent to him is in black, his responses are in green.

Hello, I read you article Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution.  In your first paragraph you state,"But they
[evolutionists] haven't come close to demonstrating evolutionism
to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable
and unscientific basis." In your second paragraph you say that
Evolutionists work hard to counter the five propositions "with
no genuine success, because they are based on empirical scientific
data and/or scientific laws." Then in the third paragraph you say
that your explanations of the why the five propositions are
correct are "much more scientifically accurate".

Before I can objectively continue reading your article without
prejudice, would you answer the following questions:

1. What is your definition of science?

2. What is the unscientific basis for evolution?

3 How can your explanations be more scientifically accurate
without the use of empirical scientific data and/or scientific laws?

Thank-you.

Mr. Wallace has not given me permission to post his email responses,
but it is pretty much exactly as he has it posted in his feedback.

Hi, Thank you for your response,

I would tend to agree with your definition of science. I would also
include in the elements of the scientific method; discussion, hypothesis
and conclusion.

Can I assume from your response to my question #2 that you would agree
that the theory of evolution is then a valid scientific theory?

I do have more questions in response to your response in question #2:

4. What is the difference between an evolutionist and a scientist?
5. Who are the "certain vocal popularizers of evolution" that you say
interpret data to fit there own presuppositions?
6. What organizations of science would you say are credible? (For example:
Universities, Societies, Associations, Academies, ect.)

If I may restate question #3 from what I understand in your response. You
say creationism and evolution interpret the same data and natural laws.
How does creationism better interpret the data with greater ease than
evolution?

Thank you for your time,

Mr. Wallace has not given me permission to post his email responses,
but it is pretty much exactly as he has it posted in his feedback.

Hello,

I feel from reading your explanations, that your definitions
of : Science, Scientific Method, and Scientific Theory are
broader than mine.  I didn't know what would be a neutral
reference on science to help me clear up my misunderstanding.
 That was the reason I asked about credibility of science
organizations.  Also I thought it more effective to address
the evidence and its interpretation by referencing it
specifically at the source rather than a second hand inferences
that I may have read like textbooks and essays of both
creationists and evolutionists.  That is why I wondered
who the "vocal popularizers" were.  Biologists, Geologists,
and Paleontologists (though not to exclude anybody else) and
their publications that must find application of the theories
in question to their specialty of scientific research would
be my opinion.

My feeling of credible organizations would be: American Association
for the Advancement of Science, American Geological Institute,
National Academy of Sciences, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology,
American Institute of Biological Sciences, . I would include
such journals as: Science, Nature, Scientific American, The
Scientist. I would be open to suggestions for any of the resources
you mentioned you would have.

I would be interested in how the creation paradigm explains
the geological fossil record. It shows layers in the earth,
one of which is found many species of trilobites in a layer
called the cambrian.  They continue to be found in successive
layers after (above) up to the permian layer.  In addition
to the trilobites there are many other species that are found
in specific layers, and not found in others.  Another example
is my favorite dinosaur Triceratops, it is only found in the
cretaceous layer and no other.  Likewise, there have been no
human fossils found in that layer or preceding layers.  It
appears to be ordered in that there is a radiation of diversity
going in the direction of the bottom layers to the top layers.

Thank you,
John

Mr. Wallace has not given me permission to post his email responses,
but it is pretty much exactly as he has it posted in his feedback.

Hi Tim,

While I admit being educated in a public school may have biased me toward
evolutionary theory.  I cannot see how the resources you gave me, are not
just as biased for the creation theory as you say evolutionists are to
evolutionary theory.  I am searching for what I  think would be an
objective text or journal that deals with science. From what you say, it
seems like anything, as long as it doesn't have anything to do with
evolution. Your suggestion of journals, "..are peer reviewed journals
devoted to relating the empirical data to the creationary paradigm.",
seems just as biased and presupposed.  I am unable to tell what is biased
and what is not.

Nonetheless, as you mentioned, you and I have no choice but to examine the
empirical data, regardless of the source. One source I chose was the
Geological Society of America.  They published their 1999 Geologic Time
Scale chart which seems unchanged as I remember. I would assume that this
is unbiased, based strictly on the empirical scientific data. They also
provide a time scale that shows the ages of each layer, which would have
me assume that any fossils found in the layer in question would be younger
than preceding layers.

I don't think it overlooks the problems of labeling strata based on the
fossils found in it. I believe there are many ways of making a
confirmation to prevent this. Until that is shown to happen, the only
empirical data that I am aware of, is that the Triceratops fossils, are
found only in the Cretaceous layer. No human fossils are found in that
layer, or the ones preceding it.  Without living specimens, I don't know
how a person can really tell if a Triceratops was more mobile than a
human.

I don't know if people around the time of the great flood buried their
dead? I would expect that you would find human remains within all the
different strata if that were the case.  I don't know of anyone finding
such evidence.

I could see how the creation paradigm, from what you tell me, by global
flood may offer some explanation for the progression of animals. But I
would not expect the same for plants, which are immobile, yet still show a
radiation of diversity, increasing in the fossil record, just as the
animals.

The quote you gave me was an example of what I consider a "second hand
quote". At this point I am stuck with what I have learned, and the
internet. I don't have access to a library to look up the article. If I
were to understand just the quote, with no data, I could assume this is
another example of questionable fact that creationists have gone to great
lengths to accommodate in their Flood geology.  If I may agree with David
Raup, its another mistaken notion that they have accepted.  But he is an
evolutionist, so I don't understand why it is okay to side with one when
he agrees with evidence that supports a creation paradigm, and not when it
supports evolution. I don't see how his doubts are more credible than the
evolutionist proponents you mentioned.

>From what I know, and what you have told me, I don't feel that the
evolution paradigm finds unequivocal support in the fossil record, but I
find it has overwhelmingly more support in than does the creation
paradigm.

I would be interested in any empirical evidence that I am overlooking.

Thank you for your time,
John

Hi Tim,

I haven't heard from you in a while. In the mean time, I read your feedback
page on August and saw that you have posted our correspondence so
far.  I was concerned because the date posted for the page update was
Sept. 8, 1999. The last letter on our section of the page is the one you
sent to me on Sept 6, 1999 at 16:38.  I sent a reply on Sept 6, 1999 at
19:47, a little over 3 hours after [I recieved]it, but that email was not posted.
Since you haven't responded back by now, I didn't know if you did receive
it, are still thinking about it, or are ignoring me.

If I felt the need to get more information, possibly from you not being
able to respond. I would like your permission to post our discussions as I
have allowed you to post them on your feedback page.

In the mean time, I was able to obtain a copy of the article you quoted by
David Raup.  Because you make a point to avoid evolutionary bias and
presuppositions in your research, I feel that you may hold this article to
be neutral. I don't know if you have read it, or if you may have found the
quote in some material from the organizations you mentioned would be worth
looking into. However, you do find this article noteworthy otherwise you
wouldn't have brought it to my attention.

>From my understanding in reading this article, the point of the author is
that there is much misinformation exchanged in the evolution-creation
debate. But the full article still seemed to support evolution theory over
creation theory

Its interesting that in your article "Five Major Evolutionist
Misconceptions about Evolution", you say that evolution has never been
observed. Mr. Raup states "Darwinian theory is just one of the several
biological mechanisms proposed to explain the evolution we observe to have
happened."

You have mentioned the problems of labeling strata based on evolutionary
presuppositions in your last email to me. Mr. Raup says this in response
to a statement like that.

"This statement expresses the common misconception that paleontologists
arrange fossils in a theoretically reasonable order and then use this
order to construct a chronology.  In fact, no evolutionary theory at all
is required to use fossils for geochronology.  The best evidence is that
the geological time scale in its modern form was fully developed by about
1840 - before Darwin's Origin of Species.  The time scale based on fossils
was built by geologist who were creationists. Since 1840, many details
have been filled in, but the basic sequence has remained unchanged."

He also talks about how oversimplification from secondary sources, from
both sides of this debate create misunderstandings between the fact and
the theory of evolution. Concerning the continual controversy about the
explanatory mechanisms of evolution, Mr. Raup states in the sentence,
right before the quote you provided to me:

"This does not disqualify evolutionary theory; it simply illustrates the
difficulty of applying any statistical theory to actual cases."

I hope you can see why I am confused.  This article seems to reinforce my
feeling that the fossil record cooperates rather well with the Theory of
Evolution much better than the Theory of Creation.

In addition to the above, I do have another question that I have not been
able to find any information about.  Because evolutionary theory doesn't
concern itself with a global flood, I could not find any information that
was relevant.  I did not find any information to explain the problem this
problem in creation theory literature either.  I was concerned that within
the fossil record there are theories of hydrologic sorting of the animals,
and some explanation for plants. But I have never heard of any evidence of
archeological finds of any kind, within any layers preceding the layer
that  human fossils have been found it.  I would expect some evidence of
civilization scattered throughout in all layers.

Sorry for the length of the letter.  I thought I would at least pass this
on to help in your response from my last email.  I will resend it if you
did not receive it.

Sincerely,
John

In this email Mr. Wallace simply apologized for the delay and assured me he would reply soon.

He did not say whether or not I could have permission to post his email responses.

I am still waiting on a response from both.

Return