Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by Bob Helm.
@Sean Pitman: Sean, I listened to the debate, and I commend you for your kindness. It also seems to me that you are making a strong argument from biochemistry for the limit of evolution. However, I certainly do not speak as molecular biologist and am therefore not qualified to make a formal judgment regarding this matter.
As far as I can discern, you have presented this material in the debate and on the “Educate Truth” blog, but quite frankly, that is not enough. You need to publish this material in a journal – even a creationist journal – where it can be critiqued by bright minds who have expertise in molecular biology. I realize that I have mentioned this before, but if your argument is valid, it deserves to be widely known, and if it is scientifically flawed, the flaw deserves to be pointed out. Please don’t hide whatever scientific light you may have under a basket or bush! Your argument should not simply appear on this blog. It needs to see the light of day! Please think seriously about what I am saying!
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
@george: I am aware of Ben Clausen’s work. Maybe you should check out the work of Ariel Roth, who has a very different opinion. Also, Robert Brown was a specialist in radiometric dating who used to work for GRI, and he also had a very different opinion. Of course, the radiometric dating of igneous rocks is a challenge to a short chronology for life. But then, the carbon dating of organic material in fossils is a challenge to a long chronology for life – because, so far, all Phanerozoic organics yield a C14 age of 40,000 years BP or less. C14 dating of Phanerozoic organic has only been carried out for about ten years, but the results are now so universal that it’s hard to imagine how they could be attributed to contamination. There’s nothing wrong with appealing to authorities, as long as you read authorities on both sides of an issue and think for yourself.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
Dear Sean and George,
I have brought this up before in my posts without getting any response, but I’m going to say it again. I wish we could arrive at a working definition of the terms “miracle” and “supernatural.” I believe this is important because these are slippery terms, and I don’t think that we are using them in the same way. Unless we have an understanding of these terms, I fear that we are talking past one another.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
@george: “In light of all the evidence that life in some form has been around for billions of years as opposed to less than 10,000 years, YLC seems a theological premise as opposed to one supported by the weight of the evidence according to scientific consensus.”
George, the problem with your assertion is two-fold: 1) You make a very general statement about the weight of evidence for very ancient life without stating what that evidence is. 2) When we actually examine that weighty evidence, it turns out to be largely in the eye of the beholder. You see overwhelming evidence for very ancient life because you are looking at the data through uniformitarian glasses. But if you take off your uniformitarian glasses and put on catastrophist glasses (which is difficult because it involves a paradigm shift), you are still looking at the same data, but from a different perspective, and much of what you thought was overwhelming evidence for the great age of the biosphere simply evaporates.
Furthermore, a scientific consensus may be invalid or at least partly invalid. Such a consensus should never be defined as rigid dogma, and there is a place for challenges to scientific consensus.
With all this said, I believe that Dr. Pitman and Dr. Rosenhouse have behaved like gentlemen, and I commend them for this. Furthermore, I also look forward to hearing more from Dr. Rosenhouse as to where he thinks DR. Pitman has gone wrong in his biometric assertions.
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I believe in good medicine and am thankful to God for the Moderna vaccine. Walter Veith deserves to be ignored, and not just on this issue.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Carlos: Far from being outdated, I would say that Sean’s arguments are cutting edge. As for the assertion that scientists don’t use Darwin’s model for evolution, that is correct – because Darwin had no knowledge of Mendelian genetics. The original Darwinian model was replaced by the Neo-darwinian Synthesis about 1940, which claims that evolution takes place as natural selection acts on random mutations. Although this model still dominates biology today, it is facing increasingly serious problems, which Sean has touched on.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Sean Pitman: OK, I see it now. Sorry – I missed it earlier.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
Sean, Dr. John Sanford, who was an important contributor to the development of GMOs, has written a book on this issue entitled, “Genetic Entropy.” I don’t see him quoted anywhere in your article, and I’m wondering if you are familiar with his work. It is noteworthy that Dr. Sanford has abandoned Darwinism and adopted creationism/intelligent design, not originally for religious reasons, but because of this problem.
Evolution from Space?
Sean, once again I urge you to publish your material in book form, preferably with a non-Adventist publisher. You have such wonderful material, but the Educate Truth audience is so small.
