UNDER CONSTRUCTION
DRAFT COPY

Fundamental Creationist Misunderstanding of Five Major Misconceptions of Evolution
(a rebuttal of Timothy Wallace's Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions of Evolution in the True.Origin Archive)

 © 2000 by John Hoppner All Rights Reserved [Last Update: December 12, 2000]

Lastly, Mr. Wallace makes the claim that
“Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.”—Back—

In this section Mr. Wallace uses a potpourri of logical fallacies, surprisingly, no misquotes (because there's no quotes at all), and not surprisingly, no data.
 

“Like so many other words, [evolution] has more than one meaning,” Isaak quite correctly reminds us (though his “Misconceptions FAQ” seems to betray a weakness on his part for confusing at least two of them). He then provides us with his “strict biological definition,” which is “a change in allele frequencies over time,” assuring us that, “by that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact.”

What we really see is that Mr. Wallace betrays an intention on his part for confusing many words. What Mr. Wallace fails to do is rebut Mr. Isaak in the same context of those same definitions. Throughout his essay, Mr. Wallace has to change the definitions, (based on his evolutionary strawman), and then argue against it. This definition for the theory of evolution is no exception.
 

In the first place, all changes take place over time. The question is what kind of change we are addressing. Variations within a gene pool, based on the pool’s exisiting [sic] genetic mix (eagerly labelled [sic] as “microevolution” by many evolutionists) would not necessarily qualify for Isaak’s “strict biological definition,” since “allele” changes are popularly considered to be the results of mutation, rather than the natural shuffling process of exisiting [sic] gene pool material.

This is an evolutionary strawman based on Mr. Wallace's incorrect definitions of variation, gene pool, “genetic mix”, and microevolution. Of course, Mr. Isaak's definition does not qualify. Mr. Wallace is also confusing "allele changes" with "changing of alleles". Mutations provide changes to alleles in individuals of populations. The combination of different alleles of the population constitute what is called the gene pool. Genetic variation is the frequency of different alleles in that gene pool. Within the populations reproduction, natural selection would favor some alleles (including those with favorable mutations) which would be passed on. Natural selection would not favor other alleles (most of which would have unfavorable mutations), which eventually be eliminated from the gene pool. Over time, this is evolutionary change.

I highly recommend the reader find a college level text book in biology and verify the definitions of these terms. I have a page that also has links to online resources:  Dictionaries & Glossaries
 

On the other hand, mutational changes of a beneficial (or at least not harmful) and enduring nature are not known (as explained above), so all Isaak seems to be telling us here is that, by his “strict biological definition,” changes in (harmful) mutation occurances [sic] do qualify as “evolution”—and that this is an “indisputable fact”.

Mr. Wallace again is building the strawman by falsely implying that all mutations are harmful. Again his misinformation is simply borne out of a misconception of evolution and a restricted intellectual diet of creationism literature.

Defining “Evolution”

 
Lest there be any misunderstanding, it would behoove us at this point to establish what evolutionary advocates, such as Isaak, normally mean when they speak of “evolution.” Other definitions notwithstanding (including the redefinition of genetic variation as “microevolution”—often used in a bait-and-switch argument), the general biological meaning of “evolution” to most evolutionists is
a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world.
Why does Mr. Wallace perpetuate what he calls an evolutionist “redefinition” by saying genetic variation is a synonym for microevolution? This definition was taken from his glossary.
1) microevolution—the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting [sic] potential variations within a gene pool (or population of organisms) are manifested or suppressed among members of that gene pool over a series of generations. Essentially a synonym for genetic variation.
But lets also look at what I hope Mr. Wallace would consider an “unbiased” reference for the definition of evolution:
“5 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species): PHYLOGENY
b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.”
[New Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, G.& C. Merriam Co., 1981]
So lets continue with this correct definition minus the creationist's restrictions.
 
Leaving alone the area of cosmogony, the “big bang” and its competing hypotheses, as well as some of the other details, this definition is usually adequate as a reference point from which the majority of evolutionists work.

It would be nice to actually have some citations of evolutionists here to support that assertion, perhaps from the glossaries of the very books he may be referring to. Maybe this is another sweeping generalization only supported by Mr. Wallace's says?
 

Isaak tells us that, “...common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well).” Yet “common descent” (i.e., “all things arising from a single living source”) is indeed the larger part of the general theory of evolution, and he conspicuously fails to list any of the other “several quite different theories” which share this central theme of evolutionary doctrine.

First of all, “all things arising from a single living source” is the definition that Mr. Wallace previously gave us for what he says is the general definition of evolution. Secondly other complimenting theories include: geographic isolation, genetic drift, mutation

Lastly, the changing of the frequency of alleles in populations over time is the central theme of evolution that Mr. Wallace fails to recognize or understand. (key words here: change over time)
 

Of greater significance, in any case, is the next claim: “The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms ... which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.” Unfortunately, the “mechanisms” to which Isaak refers have been largely discarded as inadequate [sic] for explaining, either singly or in combination, how life evolved; they do not go a “long way” at all towards explaining anything, yet they are tirelessly parroted as evolutionist doctrine, for lack of better material.

Mr. Wallace just doesn't get it. It is an observed fact that life on earth has changed over time. Scientists call this evolution. So rather than use semantic ambiguity on trying to tell us what or what is not evolution, perhaps Mr. Wallace can present some data to show us that life does not change?

Mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, as far as I know have gone a long way, and continue to explain a multitude of data.

Defining “Theory”

First let me quote from a favorite resource Mr. Wallace uses for his misquotes:

“The basic attack of the creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their complaints against evolution.  First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word “theory” to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.  Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution.  Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that 'scientific creationism; is therefore meaningless and self-contradictory, a superb example of what Orwell called 'newspeak.'”
[Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory”, Discover, May 1981, p. 37]
Isaak would have us define “theory” for our purposes as “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena,” but to do so would be to ignore the question of what specific “class of phenomena” evolutionism [sic] proposes to explain. 

Get ready for another evolutionary strawman. This statement is nothing more than confusion. First of all the definition of theory, is just that. Mr. Wallace is trying to trick us into thinking Mr. Isaak is saying that it is the definition for theory of evolution. Of course the “specific 'class of phenomena'” Mr. Isaak was talking about was life on earth.
 

To date, evolutionary theory has not explained any observed phenomenon—rather, it serves up speculation and conjecture that unobserved (and unobservable) phenomena are responsible for life as we know it. This does not qualify evolutionism [sic] as a theory according to the definition offered by Isaak.

Mr. Wallace has just built another evolutionary strawman. As we will see in the rest of this essay, his statement above  is completely false. I urge the reader to again read the first section about the “evolution has never been observed” misconception. He is just making another sweeping generalization, and next he will give it a different definition.
 

A better definition (no. 2 from the same dictionary used by Isaak) would be
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in reporting matters of actual fact.
Thus, evolutionary theory provides a conjectural, proposed explanation in reporting on the origin and diversity (matters) of life as we know it—life as we know it being actual fact.

Here in the last sentence,  Mr. Wallace, like so many other creationists is confusing the fact of evolution with the theory of evolution. Change in the frequency of alleles in a population is a fact. Creationists will admit this, calling it micro-evolution, Scientists just call it evolution (micro- in real time, macro- in geologic time). How the changes in the frequency of alleles in a population give rise to the diversity in life we see today is explained in several theories (mutations, recombination, selection, genetic drift, geographical isolation). Creationists don't believe such a change happened (not based on evidence), and consequently don't understand the theory of evolution. Mr. Wallace's essay is a perfect example.
 

“Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely,” Isaak tells us. A little less generality is in order here, however, as the term “law” in science refers to a description of invariable, observable, results or phenomena under like conditions, whereas the term “theory” refers to a proposed description or explanation, usually based at least in part on repeatability and observation (i.e., the scientific process). The difference is hardly that one “can be expressed more tersely” than the other.

This argument from here on is now based on Mr. Wallace's definition of evolution his evolutionary strawman is built on, now he is tearing it down.
 

Curiously, Isaak now proceeds to set up for himself a straw man by saying “...a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can’t be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)”

At this point is ironic that Mr. Wallace accuses Mr. Isaak of building a strawman. A strawman is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that is can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. Within this whole essay, I have shown that Mr. Wallace continually has misrepresented Mr. Isaak's position, as with most of the scientists he misquoted. I will show later how he fails to support his assertion that Mr. Isaak has built a strawman.
 

Yet thus far, our analysis of Isaak’s own claims concerning evolution reveal it to fail even as a theory, by this auxilliary [sic] definition:
  • Evolutionism [sic] fails to be self-consistent
      1. by requiring multiple “definitions”, depending on the need of the moment
      2. in the varied, and contradictory camps connected with thermodynamics, phylogeny, proposed mechanisms, and various sub-theories, etc.

    A person needs to look in mainstream science journals (where the majority of Mr. Wallace's quotes came from) like, Science, Scientific American, Nature, even Science News. Just go to search and type in “evolution”. The theory of evolution is as solid and self-consistent in all of science as the theory of gravity. Oh, then go to creationist journals and do the same. What I found with most of those journals is that they do the same misleading with same scientific data as Mr. Wallace (Of course its where he got his information). It is imperative that a person checks the references on any article.

    As with all of the creationists books, they will take discoveries made by the methods of science and compare it with biblical interpretation and look for matches. They then will say “Look, it tells us this in the bible!” Then the creationists like Henry Morris will write a book telling us the bible predicts we will find this and this, and ta-da! We find it! (The problem is that it was already found) But the discoveries made that are not mentioned in the bible (gene splicing, vice-grips, Tylenol, duct tape, nuclear fusion, electricity, semiconductors, calculus, Viagra, plastic), and those predictions that are completely wrong (global flood, 10,000 year old earth, fixed “kinds”, talking animals, dust turning into humans, humans turning into sodium chloride, etc.) seemed to be ignored.
     

    • Evolutionism [sic] fails to agree with observations in
                    1. the fossil record

    Wrong. Go back to “There are no transitional fossils” misconception

    Also check out these links at Harvard University:

    Invertebrate Paleontology
    The Museum of Comparative Zoology
    The Ernst Mayr Library
    (I chose links to Harvard University because Mr. Wallace seemed to appreciate its prestige by pointing it out in several of his misquotes in other sections in his rebuttal.)
     
                     2. geology

    Wrong. Check out these links:

     The Geological Society of America - Established in 1888, provides access to elements that are essential to the professional growth of earth scientists at all levels of expertise and from all sectors: academic, government, business, and industry. The following links are to where GSA member's observations seem agreeable with evolution:

     Search Results for Evolution - some 300+ abstracts found with the keyword “evolution” that were submitted at the 1999 GSA Annual Meeting in Denver, Colorado, some of which are:

    I did find one concerning creationism (but it disagrees with Mr. Wallace's observation): All abstracts were published in GSA Abstracts with Programs, volume 31, number 7 (Annual Meeting), available from the Geological Society of America, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, Colorado 80301-9140 USA; phone (303) 447-2020, e-mail pubs@geosociety.org

    A similar search may reveal the same results with this link:
    American Geophysical Union: an international scientific society with more than 35,000 members in over 115 countries. AGU researchers, teachers, and science administrators have dedicated themselves to advancing the understanding of Earth and its environment in space and making the results available to the public.
     

                     3. genetics

    Wrong. Check out these links:

     The Harvard Center for Genomics Research  integrates the scientific and engineering discipline in order to develop new genomics tools and to apply them to biological problems. One of the example technologies and research areas that is listed is evolutionary analysis. I could not find anything remotely related to “creation analysis”.

    Research costs lots of money! The money is obtained mostly by grants, not donations. This grant money is not given away frivolously, it is given to areas of research where there is some guarantee of productivity.

    Also at Harvard:

    The above links seem to provide very agreeable observations with evolution and genetics. I was unable to find one single scientist whose expertise was in genetics that offered any supporting data for creationism.
     
                    4. molecular biology

    Wrong. Check out these links:

    The following faculty members from Dept. of Molecular & Cellular Biology, Harvard University each have a page listing their area of research and recent publications concerning molecular evolution:

    These scientists seem to find agreeable observations within the paradigm of evolution in their research, and publish it too, in science journals. I could find no place in that department where scientists are using the creation paradigm for any explanation.
     
                     5. thermodynamics

    Wrong. Go back to the “Evolution violates the 2nd of thermodynamics” misconception and “Classical Creationist Thermodynonsense”.

    One of Wallace's own resources seems to find agreeable observations:

     Prigogine Center - "Although all real physical systems have a definite arrow of time, conventional quantum theory does not describe irreversible evolution in a fundamental fashion. Much of the on-going research at the Center is devoted to understanding how irreversible processes work, and if Dr. Prigogine's theory can furnish a mathematical description of these interesting processes.”
    Mr. Wallace fails to show one paper, or shred of evidence where there is a universal dS < q/T caused by the evolutionary process. This violation is in his imagination unless the real physicists are doing their work all wrong.

     I chose the following from 500+ links found in a search of the word "evolution” in The Institute of Physics :

    There is also a workshop: Biological Evolution and Statistical Physics that will be held May 10-14, 2000 at the Max Plank Institute, where Mr. Wallace or his sources may want to present their compelling evidence.

    Also Check out these links:
     Track: Thermodynamics of Ontogenesis and Phylogenesis
     Differential equations of macrothermodynamics. The systems and the processes
     Hierarchical Thermodynamics
     Structural Biophysics Web Resources
     

                     6. dozens of dating methods (both radiometric and geological/geophysical)

    Wrong. But Mr. Wallace would insist that those dozens of dating methods do not even agree with themselves too.  He would say that even the science of geology does not agree with observations in the dozens of dating methods. These are his definitions from his glossary. These definitions are wrong too.

    geological age  n.
    an estimated “age” and assumed duration of time assigned to a specific layer of sedimentary rock, based on position and fossil content (see table); since fossil “ages” are often based on the position of such sedimentary layers, a fair amount of circular reasoning is involved in both methods of “age” determination.
    geologic column  n.
    (in “historical geology”) the total successive series of assumed periods of time (geological ages) assigned to specific layers of sedimentary rock, based on position and fossil content; many periods & epochs are frequently missing from—or out of order in—local records, making the system unreliable and suspect in substantiating uniformitarianistic interpretation of the geological record (see table)
    radiometric dating  n.

    a method of dating artifacts by the use of measurable, unstable isotope elements, which are known over time to to decay at currently known rates into measurable, stable elements; the difference in content of each element within the artifact in question is used as a ratio to estimate an “age” of the artifact; this process, while often portrayed as accurate and reliable, invariably requires multiple unverifiable assumptions in calculating alleged “ages”--making it highly suspect as a reliable dating method; results often vary widely (“useful” dates retained & published, others ignored), confirming the method’s unreliability.
    So whether evolution and dozens of dating methods agree or disagree, is irrelevant if he thinks they are both suspect anyway!

    Check out these links anyway:

     A Radiometric Dating Resource - by Tim Thompson. A super resource page full of many links. “So long as radiometric dating stands as scientifically valid, then the assertion of a young-Earth is falsified by direct observation.”
     Radiometric Dating: by Roger C. Wiens - A resource paper of the ASA and the ACG
     The Geologic Column - It is shown that the entire geologic column exists in North Dakota.
     How Old Is The Earth?
     Layers of a Lake Refine Carbon Dating
     ORAU Information System - provides background information on Radiocarbon dating and specific information on the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU).
    Radiocarbon - Journal of radiocarbon dating.
     
     

                     7. probability mathematics

    Wrong. Well... I wish somebody would tell me what the problem is? Of course the probability of life as we know it evolving according to Mr. Wallace's evolutionary strawman is nil. Also the misconception with creationist's is that they try to apply probability mathematics on events that have already happened.

    I mean, think of the odds in predicting that the person that I am, being born when I was, looking like I do, living where I do, having the name I do, would type these exact words in this sentence, post it on the internet and at this very moment in time (what the time for you is right now) have the person that you are, that was born when you were, look like you do, live where you do, actually read this sentence.

    Hmm... the odds of that happening are unfathomable, statistically impossible! But guess what? It just happened!

    Are Proteins too Complex to Evolve? - shows the problems with using probabilities.
    Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? -Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists, by Richard Carrier
    Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations - Every so often someone comes up with the statement "the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible." Often they cite as evidence an impressive-looking, but  ultimately erroneous, probability calculation.
     

    • Evolutionism [sic] has failed to prove useful, having produced
                      1. no new advancements in scientific knowledge or technology

    Whether something is useful or not is a relative term, that has nothing to do with whether or not a theory is scientific and valid. Still aside from its usefulness in the fact "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", there are many useful products of evolution.

    Where would one look to find out what the advancements in scientific knowledge or technology? Probably journals like, Science, Scientific American, Nature, even Science News. With these links I provided; go to search, and first do: “evolution” and then do “creation”, “creationism”, “creation science”, “creationist”, “scientific creationist”, “scientific creationism”... and then see if there is any validity to his statement of “no new advancements".  I don't think Mr. Wallace has read any of those yet or he would not have made such an absurd statement.
     

                       2. no advancements in medicine—and actually has hindered past research because 
                       of false claims (now discarded) concerning “vestigial” organs

    An understanding of how viruses and bacteria mutate and evolve by natural selection has led to an enormous advancement in medicine in fighting diseases. The testing of laboratory animals used for research into antibiotics, cancer, aging, AIDS, organ transplantation, gene therapy, etc. is based on the understanding of how evolution works. An understanding of how populations of plants and animals react to selecting pressures based on evolutionary theory is a major concern with endangered species and introduced species. An understanding of this is crucial for our own survival.  Humans are not exempt from extinction.
     

                      3. no positive contribution to society through evolution-based social “sciences”—having 
                      served as a pseudo-scientific justification for racism, nazism, communism, and 
                      other societal/ideological ills.

    History shows that long before Darwin, there were many times where Christianity was used to justify racism, war, and genocide, especially against non-Christians. Hitler even used Christianity to justify his persecution of Jews. The Bible does not seem to condemn slavery, therefore the Bible was used to justify slavery in the United States. Of course, later the Bible was used as justification to abolish slavery too. We can even blame God for Satan, the cause of Satanism. There are certainly a lot of societal/ideological ills that a person can blame either evolution, Christianity,  rock-n-roll, or even the Telletubbies on. But if one carefully looks at recorded history, one can see that the real problem seems to be fear of the unknown and people intolerant of other people for any number of reasons.

    The theory of gravity has been the cause of every single plane crash we know. We can blame Newton and his laws of motion for every single motor vehicle fatality in this country alone. The threat of global thermonuclear war, our very existence, can be directly linked to atomic theory. Can we eliminate these major problems by simply discarding these laws and theories?

    Whatever role evolution may play in society and ideology, good or bad, has no bearing on whether its a scientific theory. The realities of the natural world continue to be just that—reality.
     

    To state, in the face of these circumstances, that “Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because ... it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can’t be used for anything,” betrays what should be an embarrassingly gross case of ignorance on the part of Isaak. Unable to defend evolutionism in the face of his own definition of a theory, Isaak has resorted to a baseless, dismissive attack on a “Creationism” straw man.

    We have seen that it is Mr. Wallace who betrays an embarrassingly gross case of ignorance in his essay. We have seen that it was Mr. Wallace's definition of a theory for his evolution strawman, that he bases this baseless, dismissive attack on Mr. Isaak. We have seen that Mr. Wallace doesn't know what he is talking about.
     

    The predictions of any theory, as they are proved either true or false by the empirical evidence, are precisely what increase or decrease that theory’s credibility.

    There is a slight misunderstanding that Mr. Wallace is showing here. Because evolution is a scientific theory, it can be modified. Creationism is a "theory" that creationists have painted themselves into a corner with. They have made their predictions and cannot change them, for it would change their "theory”. Falsifying a prediction falsifies a theory unless the theory is modified. You cannot change the evidence nor ignore it.
     

     While Evolutionists have resorted to all manner of subjective contortion, redefinition, and reinterpretation of data—as well as denial, and outright falsehoods—in heralding their theory as a model of scientific excellence, ...

    While this is a very bold statement, considering that it should all be attributed to Mr. Wallace and the rest of the  creationists.  I support my statement with his own essay!
     

    ...the truth is that a growing number of Creationists have assembled a reasonable body of empirical data, based on the predicitions [sic] generally inherent in Creation Science. Lack of objective familiarity with this data is no excuse for Mark Isaak to make such a dogmatic and misleading claim.

    A very careful reading of the above paragraph shows Mr. Wallace contradicting himself and betrays the misconception of science that creationists have as Mr. Isaak pointed out:

    "a growing number of Creationists have assembled a reasonable body of empirical data, based on the predicitions [sic] generally inherent in Creation Science." [my italics]
    Creationists most certainly have collected data that is based on and agrees with their predictions. I am sure Mr. Isaak is familiar with that data, it is just that the data was not the result of predictions based on testing with scientific methodology.  There is an even greater body of empirical data that creationists have failed to explain that contradicts those "predictions" thereby falsifying their theory. That data is ignored or misrepresented as we have seen in Mr. Wallace's essay.

    As I said earlier, when the empirical evidence produced by the testing of the theory does not agree with those predictions of the theory, the theory or part of the theory is falsified. The problem with creationism, is that it is based on the literal interpretation of the bible. If any part of that interpretation of Genesis is falsified, then the whole theory is falsified.

    You see, with evolution (a theory of science), scientists make predictions based on that theory, collect data to test the theory, and verify the theory by its predictive power, or modify the theory to fit the data, or even discard the theory altogether. That's what Mr. Isaak means when creationism fails to be a scientific theory. This is what Mr. Wallace fails to understand and allows him to continually argue with his nonsense.

    This link provides a list of many predictions of evolution: Is Evolution Science?
     

    [As the purpose of this document is to deal specifically with the five “misconceptions” addressed in Isaak’s original document, the above claims will not be addressed here in detail. However, additional documentation is planned for this web site, as time permits, in which the above-mentioned predicitons [sic] and data will be presented. In the meantime, the links at the end of this document may be of some interest to an objective student of the origins issue. Suffice it to say for now that Mark Isaak clearly has stepped out of the realm of knowledge and fact in his brief and ostensibly effortless dismissal of a Creationism straw man.]

    Many of the predictions from the "theory" of creationism have been falsified. That is why he cannot address his "above-mentioned predictions" in detail. The "data" in his website is no different than this document. The articles he presents as supposed empirical evidence, are nothing more than attacks on evolution. His website repeats the theme ad nauseum "If you cannot establish unequivocally that the theory evolution answers all questions of origins, then creationism should be accepted as the alternative scientific theory of origins" in the face of empirical data that falsifies very critical predictions of their theory. For example:

    1. The earth is only 10,000 years old. (there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is billions of years old)
    2. There was a global flood. (there is overwhelming evidence that the earth has gone through numerous catastrophes, none of which are a global flood)
      1. The only humans and almosts all of the animals that survived were saved by an ark built by a man named Noah. (there is no evidence of an ark)
    3. Life on earth consists of separate "created kinds" (there is overwhelming evidence that all life shares a single common ancestor)
    Lots of information on this evidence and more can be found at this website: Talk.Origins Archives

    When faced with the enormous amount of evidence that contradicts their belief, creationists have no alternative but to use fallacious arguments. But to continually forward these arguments, Mr. Wallace and other creationists are the ones that clearly step out of the realm of scientific knowledge and fact.

    Again, careful and objective study of the empirical, scientific data does not lead us to Mr. Wallace's conclusion concerning “evidence.” Those predisposed to a creationary belief system (or at least a supernaturalistic, ritualistic philosophical view of things) will naturally be eager to agree with the “findings” of the Tim Wallaces of the world while pretending that this is what “science” is all about.
     

    Isaak concludes this line of defense by repeating the unsubstantiated claim that, “Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others...”

    Which I verified in my essay...but I would like to see Mr. Wallace address how creationism has any collective support by those fields...
     

    We have already shown how genetic research has failed to support Isaak’s claims, and how anatomical and paleontological data are subjected to highly equivocal, subjective, and manipulative interpretations in order to “support” evolutionary “predicitons [sic].” 

    No, Mr. Wallace didn't. But he did show how the data is subjected to manipulative and deceptive interpretations to "discredit" evolution.
     

    Ecology and animal behavior likewise lend little or no obvious support to evolutionary beliefs without further subjective interpretation, which renders their respective data neither more useful, nor better understood. (It is noteworthy that Isaak furthermore declines to include thermodynamics, probability, and the vast majority of uniformitarian-based dating methods (among others) in his list of “supportive fields.”)

    It is Mr. Wallace's assertions that get absolutely no support from ecology and animal behavior. It is noteworthy that Mr. Wallace declines to include how the data from those fields that he somehow thinks doesn't support evolution would support creationism.
     

    “If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution,” Isaak tells us, “you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.”

    This is quite correct. For example, Mr. Wallace who does not know what both the theory and the evidence are, tells us...
     

    This document was written precisely to address the “evidence ” Isaak has cited [sic]—evidence which is neither “wrong” nor “irrelevant”—but which is simply NOT THERE. 

    But the evidence presented by Mr. Isaak was there, it was just "precisely" ignored. Which may explain why Mr. Wallace's arguments are either "wrong" or "irrelevant" because he addresses evidence he made up and  is "simply NOT THERE".
     

    “Lack of proof isn’t a weakness,” Mark Isaak says. Then is “lack of proof” a sure sign of a “fact” as opposed to as [sic] “theory”?

    According to creationism it may be...

    “It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place."
    [Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, 1974, p. 5]

    “We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by God."
    [Duane Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! General Edition, 1972, p. 42]

    “We must accept the order of events as set forth so clearly in the Word of God."
    [Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1961, p. 473]

        ...but not within mainstream science. It is whether the theory can be tested, and falsified. But most of all, in the reliability of its predictive power.
     
    Lacking not only “proof,” but also any truly supportive, unequivocal “evidence,” we most certainly do not arrive at a “fact” of evolution—and there scarcely remains even a defensible scientific “theory” of evolution at all!

    As I said earlier, his argument is not based on evidence. The theory and fact of evolution are extremely defensible from the “threat” of creationism. If there is one thing that is unequivocal and indefensible when we look at the evidence—its the deceit in creationism.