Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: creationism topics
Message-ID: <596@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 30-Sep-84 19:22:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.596
Posted: Sun Sep 30 19:22:44 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Oct-84 07:35:16 EDT
References: <32500003@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 118

Ray Miller says:

    Ray  Mooney still has this silly notion that "creationists...are almost
    always in areas  not  directly  related  to  the  evolution-creationism
    debate".  I suggested he check out the credentials of the staff members
    at  ICR.    He obviously did not do that, calling Dr. Gish an engineer.
    Sorry Ray, Dr. Gish earned a BS in chemistry from UCLA, and a Ph.D.  in
    biochemistry  from  UC  Berkeley.    He  spent  18 years in biochemical
    research at Cornell Univ Medical College, the Virus Laboratory  of  the
    UC  Berkeley,  and with the Upjohn Company.  During that time he worked
    with two Nobel Prize  winners  and  has  authored  about  40  technical
    scientific papers.

How  impressed  Ray  is  with academic degrees!  Unfortunately, possession of a
Ph.D. does not necessarily mean that what one says can be believed,  even  when
speaking  on  your  own or a related field.  The bottom line, degree or not, is
the reputation you establish for yourself.  The following  excerpt  is  from  a
letter to the editor which appeared in the Spring/Summer 1984 issue of *Origins
Research*,  a  periodical  with  a  definite Creationist bias.  I think that it
shows why one must approach anything Dr. Gish says with a very large  grain  of
salt:

    In   recent   years  a  substantial  body  of  literature  critical  of
    creationism has appeared,  and  it  contains  numerous  well-documented
    examples  of  Gish's  frauds  (see,  for example, Miller 1983, 249-262;
    Weber 1981, 4; Cracraft 1983, 180-181; Godfrey 1983,  202).    We  feel
    that  making additional charges of dishonesty against Gish is gilding a
    lily, and if SOR [Students  for  Origins  Research]  wants  charges  to
    investigate,  there  are  plenty  in  this  literature.   That said, we
    proceed to gild the lily.

    *Chimps, Bullfrogs and Chickens*

    In the spring of 1982, the  Public  Broadcasting  System  televised  an
    hour-long program on the creation/evolution controversy.  In discussing
    the  evolution  of  humans  and  chimpanzees  from  a  common ancestor,
    biochemist Russell Doolittle pointed out that many human and chimpanzee
    proteins are identical, and others are extremely similar.  In  rebuttal
    Duane Gish offered the following:

    Gish:    "If  we  look  at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be
    assumed that man is more closely related to  a  chimpanzee  than  other
    things.   But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins,
    you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than  he  is
    to a chimpanzee.  If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll
    find  that  man  is  more  closely related to a chicken than he is to a
    chimpanzee."

    What does protein biochemistry really show?  In response to  a  letter,
    Doolittle  provided  extensive  documentation  for his statements about
    human and chimpanzee proteins.  Gish was likewise asked in a series  of
    letters  what  proteins  suggest  that  man  is more closely related to
    bullfrogs (chickens) than to chimpanzees; what are the respective amino
    acid sequences  for  the  bullfrog  (chicken),  chimpanzee,  and  human
    proteins;  who  sequenced  them and where were the sequences published?
    Gish responded with evasion, obfuscation and (these failing) silence.

    A year later, at  the  1983  National  Creation  Conference,  Gish  was
    directly  challenged  to  specify  the chicken and bullfrog proteins he
    cited on the PBS program.  Gish went into a  dazzling  tapdance  --  he
    talked about Sir Gavin de Beer, serum albumins, and other irrelevancies
    at  great  length.    When  the  questioner,  undistracted by the fancy
    footwork,  insisted  on  a  straight  answer,  Gish  promised  to  send
    references documenting his claims.  He has not done so.  He will not do
    so.    It  seems clear that Duane Gish lied on national television, and
    that he now compounds and perpetuates his original lie by promising  to
    produce  something  every competent biochemist knows has not been found
    to exist.

    ...

    /s/

    John W. Patterson

    Robert Schadewald

            *Bibliography*

    Cracraft, Joel. 1983.  In *Scientists Confront Creationism*,
            Norton, New York

    Godfrey, Laurie R. 1983.  *ibid*

    Miller, Kenneth, 1983.  In *Evolution versus Creationism: The
            Public Education Controversy*, Oryx Press, Phoenix AZ

    Weber, Christopher Gregory, 1981.  *Creation/Evolution*, no. 3.

There was a response to the letter by creationist Jerry  Bergman;  however,  he
did  not  address himself at all to the above issue, so I have not attempted to
quote from it.

Ray Miller continues:

    The most visible engineer in the field is no doubt  Dr.  Henry  Morris.
    But  even  he  has  the  proper  background.  His Ph.D.  (from the Univ
    Minnesota) was a major in hydraulics, with a double  minor  in  geology
    and  mathematics.  Who else is better qualified to study Flood geology?
    (His resume is  quite  long  and  impressive,  including  13  years  as
    Chairman  of  the  Civil  Engineering  Dept at the Virginia Polytechnic
    Institute).

I would urge anyone who is impressed with Dr. Morris' degrees to read up on his
preposterous ideas about "Flood Geology".  Any one of his books will do.    His
attempts  to  bring  a  literal  reading  of  Genesis  into  agreement with the
geological record show a flagrant disregard for the  facts  that  can  only  be
described as amazing.  One would think that the man was ignorant of the laws of
physics;  the fact that he is not, and has the academic credentials he has, can
only be described as shameful.

-- 
"Biblical signoffs are for the smug."

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)