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)