Jeremy, a teacher would expect

you to find the article, study it, and offer critical statements why,

or why not, the author's assumptions and methodology are valid and support

the article's conclusions. You sidestepped the issue! A teacher would

deduct points for that behavior and science journals would reject any

articles like that. Jeremy, please look up the article, for it provides

an example of how scientists think and work. Ask your science teacher

to help you with its more technical points.

Jeremy, you quote the Bible

to show how all the animals could fit on the Ark. You don't, however,

critically analyze the quoted material or the conclusions you drew from

it. You would be expected to do this if you were asked by a teacher to

write an essay on this topic. Let me show you how a scientist might analyze

your comments about the Ark. Here are the salient paragraphs from your

article:

In Genesis 6:19-20, the Bible

says that Noah was supposed to take two of every kind of bird, land animal,

and "every kind of creature that moves along the ground." It

is significant that "kind" is used several times. For example,

wolves, dingoes, coyotes, etc., are all part of the dog "kind,"

or canine family.

Noah needed to take one pair

of canines, not all of the species on earth today. Similarly, he did not

have to take lions, leopards, panthers, jaguars, and saber-toothed tigers;

he just had to take one pair of the feline "kind."

How did Noah (or God) tell

all the animals about the voyage? Did he send them telegrams? Use a giant

Star Trek transporter to bring them to the Ark?

A scientific enquiry would

focus on the "mechanism" by which this event could occur and

gauge the plausibility of such a mechanism.

Please clarify what you believe

is meant by "kind" of animal. Define "kind" using

the normal classification scheme used today by biologists: kingdom, phylum,

genus, etc.

A scientific enquiry would

use standard terminology so all could follow the discussion and could

have a common conceptual framework.

Jeremy, you apparently believe

that only certain "kinds" of animals were brought on board the

Ark. Did all the animals without boarding passes perish? Where did all

the life forms present on Earth today come from if only the animals on

the Ark survived? Do I infer correctly from your remarks that the animals

on board the Ark, after the flood, "evolved" to account for

all the life forms we have today?

Please offer a mechanism by

which the Ark animals gave rise to all the other animals.

Jeremy, what happened to the

plants? Did all plant life perish? No mention is made of Noah building

a greenhouse.

The animals climbed down the

gangplank after the rain ceased. How did they get back home? What did

the herbivores eat?

Jeremy, in my last article,

I asked you to consider the "biomass" of the Earth at the time

of Noah. I did that for a reason: All the life forms mentioned in Genesis

account for a tiny fraction of the life on Earth then and now.

Biodiversity is unevenly distributed

across creature types and unevenly distributed across geographical areas.

(Most life forms on Earth actually reside in the southern hemisphere.)

More than half of the cataloged creatures are insects there are, for example,

about 300,000 kinds of beetles. Was there room for them on the Ark?

Jeremy, you claim that the

"animals would have occupied only about 13 percent of the Ark!"

This is nonsense.

Conservative estimates of the

number of life forms on Earth range between 5 million and 7 million. About

1.6 million of these life forms have been studied so far. Jeremy, your

idea of "what is an animal" needs to be clarified and refined.

Evolution theory attempts to explain all this diversity; creationism seems

to offer a much narrower notion of "life on Earth." Extend your

idea of "animal" just a little, and the Ark is seen to be far

too small just for the insects on Earth.

Jeremy, I criticized your use

of a dictionary for a definition of science because you picked such a

poor definition, not because you used a reference work. Think about the

definition you offered: "systemized knowledge derived from observation,

study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature

or principles of what is being studied."

This is good enough for junior

high school but is inadequate for high school or college work. Ask yourself

these questions:

What makes a physics book different

from a cook book? Does this definition help you tell one from the other?

What is missing from this description

of science? Does this definition help you tell astronomy from astrology

or numerology from number theory?

Your science teacher can suggest

books for you to read that clarify what makes a discipline a science instead

of a pseudo-science. Here is one example to whet your appetite: A scientific

theory is predictive. Correct predictions validate the theory and duds

invalidate the theory. Evolution theory makes correct predictions so far;

creationism makes no predictions at all. (Give me an example of a prediction

derived from creationism that has panned out if you can.)

Jeremy, you and other readers

have said over and over that "evolution is only a theory." You

are using the word "theory" (I think) as a synonym for "hypothesis."

This couldn't be further from the truth! Evolution, as a branch of biology,

is as well established as other branches of modern science. I made reference

to Mendel's theory of genetics in my last article; I didn't appeal to

him as an authority! Go to your school library and look up a few books

on classical genetics. You'll find that they discuss "genetic principles"

not Mendel's opinions.

Evolution is happening right

now as I write! Ask your science teacher to recommend a few books at your

skill level that tells you how and why this is. New creatures appear all

the time in nature, and geneticists create new life forms almost weekly.

None of this could be possible if creationism were true. Genetic engineering

would be impossible if creationism were even remotely possible.

Jeremy, the claims of creationism

contradict most branches of science, not just evolution. You must explain

why most sciences are "wrong" if you are to uphold creationism

to any degree. Ask yourself these questions:

Why don't the geology books

in your school library mention creationism when the formation of the Earth

is discussed?

Why don't the astronomy books

in your school library mention creationism when planet formation and the

origin of the solar system are discussed?

Why is the word "creationism"

never found in the index of any physics book in your school library?

Why aren't articles on creationism

ever found in reputable science journals?

Jeremy, when I was a young

graduate student, I would read absolutely everything on a topic. I would

often only sleep two or three hours a night. Finally, a professor of mine

admonished me, "If you spend all of your time reading the junk out

there, you won't have enough time or energy to study the good stuff. The

good stuff is the hard stuff; that is why most people prefer to read and

believe the nonsense stuff."

Jeremy, most people prefer

simple and easy answers, even when they are clearly wrong. This is why

newspapers publish horoscopes; this is why people call psychic phone lines;

this is why people go to fortune tellers; and this is why people believe

in creationism.

Science is hard; math is harder.

But, these are the tools that let you figure out the world. As another

professor once said to a class of mine: "You can lead students to

knowledge, but you can't make them think." Jeremy, ask your teachers

to lead you away from the junk out there and to the stuff that makes our

civilization work.

Peter Duran

Fayetteville