A Letter on the Big Bang and Evolution

A LETTER ON THE BIG BANG AND EVOLUTION

PLUS OTHER LETTERS ON SIMILAR TOPICS

Editor, Savannah Morning News, FAX 912 234 6522, 17 October 1999

I appreciate your in-depth coverage of the debate spurred by the Kansas School Board decision.

CONCERNING THE BIG BANG:

1) It is impossible to have something come out of nothing.

2) Similarly, it is impossible to have an uncaused cause for the Big Bang.

3) Supposedly the Big Bang idea is supported by background radiation, but it is uniform in all directions. This interpretation is contradicted by the fact that the observed universe is not uniform.

4) Supposedly, seeing extra red in starlight spectra means that the universe is expanding and therefore had a beginning - the Big Bang. This interpretation is contradicted by the fact that some observed red-shifted starlight requires a different explanation. (Check Seeing Red)

5) In short, there is no evidence [only interpretations] that supports the Big Bang, but there is evidence against it. (See The Heavens)

CONCERNING EVOLUTION:

1) Louis Pasteur showed that you cannot get life from non-life. Yet, some scientists still speculate that this can happen, even though they have no evidence. (See Problems with Chemical Origins of Life Theories)

2) Life contains tremendous amounts of information stored in the DNA molecules. You cannot get information from non-information. (See DNA)

3) Biomolecules are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved from simpler molecules. (See Darwin's Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution)

4) Extremely complex animals like the trilobite appeared early and abruptly in the history of animal life. The trilobite's eye even corrected for spherical aberration. (See The Implications of the Cambrian Explosion for Evolution)

5) The Cambrian fossils show more diversity than animals have today. (See No Evidence for Evolution)

6) Humans have capabilities far and above those needed for mere survival. (See Did We Descend from Animals?)

7) All this is scientific proof against the idea that life arose and developed by natural processes. (See The Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution)

In summary, natural processes cannot produce something from nothing, life from non-life, information from non-information, or intelligence from non-intelligence.

Yours truly,

Emerson Thomas McMullen, Ph.D., Statesboro, Georgia

Letters Editor, Science 28 August 1999

Attn: Ms. Christine Gilbert, 1200 New York Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, FAX 202 789 4669

Dear Ms. Gilbert:

The article, "Kansas Dumps Darwin" (20 Aug. '99, p. 1186) has many problems. The starting point for falsification is not the creationists, but, of course, Sir Karl Popper. He sums up an excellent standard for science in Conjectures and Refutations (1968) by saying that "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability or refutability, or testability" (p.37). Perhaps the reason the article so misrepresents this concept is because macroevolution does not measure up. One example is Alan Cheetham's comments in "Did Darwin Get it All Right?" Science 276:1421 (1995). Other examples are the Cambrian explosion and the trilobite's complex and fully functional holochroal eye.

Concerning the evidence for macroevolution, one prized example is industrial melanism - but it is entirely based on doctored data. The pictures of Biston betularia on a tree, whether in scientific journals or in popular venues, are dead moths glued to tree trunks. Only two peppered moths in forty years of research have been seen in this position. Also, contrary to earlier reports, Biston has no tendency to choose matching backgrounds. I first read this in "Exploding the myth of the melanic moth," New Scientist 112:25 (1986/7) and more recently in "Not black and white," Nature 396:35 (1998).(See Doctored Data: The Peppered Moth)

The day before yesterday I saw the same spin from the NCSE reported in Science News, yesterday in Mona Charen's column, today in Science, and tomorrow I'll probably see it somewhere else. You have extensively incorporated the one-sided views of a California evolution lobby. Why did you not give equal time for a California creation organization? As it is, your "news" article comes off as anything but that.

Tom McMullen

Julie Ann Miller, Editor, Science News,22 November 1999

1719 N Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Ms. Miller:

Archaeopteryx was once thought to be a "missing link" in the evolution of birds. However, scientists have discovered fossils of true birds older than Archaeopteryx, thus making a highly-touted "missing link" merely an avian oddity. Archaeoraptor may fit into the same category of misleading claims. Your article (S.N. 156:328, 1999) does not report the estimated dating of Archaeoraptor - only a generalized statement about the site. The date of the specific fossil in question is a very crucial piece of information - no credible "missing link" claim can be made without it.

Recent research has shown that the lungs of a fossil theropod raptor are more like those of modern-day crocodiles, and not at all like the unique and highly efficient lungs of birds. See J.A. Ruben, et. al., "Pulmonary Function and Metabolic Physiology of Theropod Dinosaurs," Science 283:514 (1999). Therefore all claims and news articles about bird-dinosaur evolution should be made cautiously and with qualifications. (See Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs? Research Says No!)

Yours truly,

Emerson Thomas McMullen, Ph.D.