North Texas Skeptic - Vol 16 No 04 - 2002

Magazine Overview

This issue of The North Texas Skeptic, Volume 16 Number 4, dated April 2002, features a detailed account of a creation-evolution debate. The primary article, "Creation – evolution debate" by John Blanton, recounts a debate he participated in against a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) named Don Patton. The magazine also includes sections titled "They Just Don't Get It" and "Skeptical Ink," along with a reference list.

Creation – evolution debate

The article begins with John Blanton describing his experience debating Don Patton, a proponent of the Paluxy River man tracks claims and a supporter of the "Mysterious Origins of Man" documentary. Blanton notes that Patton is a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). The chosen debate topic was "The fossil record is more compatible with the model of creation than the model of evolution," with Blanton taking the "not" side.

Blanton expresses his initial underestimation of Patton's arguments, expecting them to be transparent to a skeptical audience. However, Patton's first slide revealed his strategy: using "Out-Of-Context Quotes." Blanton recounts how Patton presented statements from real scientists, seemingly to undermine evolution. Blanton's strategy to counter this was to encourage the audience to verify the quotes themselves or to have the full quotes available.

Blanton then delves into specific examples of Patton's use of out-of-context quotes. One significant instance involves a quote from Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker." Patton presented a passage about the sudden appearance of complex animal types in the Cambrian era, implying Dawkins supported divine creation. Blanton clarifies that Dawkins' full statement indicated that while gaps exist, evolutionists believe these are due to the fossil record's imperfections, not divine intervention. Blanton accuses Patton of using ellipses to omit crucial parts of Dawkins' argument.

Another example is a quote from Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species." Blanton highlights that Patton's quote was taken from a section of the book where Darwin discusses the problems and gaps in the fossil record of his time, rather than evidence against evolution. Blanton points out a significant "109-page gap" between the parts of Darwin's text that Patton selectively quoted, suggesting a deliberate misrepresentation.

Blanton then presents his own arguments, defining the "creation model" as being based on the Bible and listing biblical figures like Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, and Moses as fictitious or mythical, with Moses being equated to Charlton Heston. He contrasts this with scientific truths, stating that the Sun and Earth were formed by natural processes, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, life arose spontaneously, and all life shares a common lineage supported by the fossil record and biochemistry (DNA and protein sequences).

A significant portion of Blanton's presentation focused on whale evolution. He references Carl Zimmer's book "At the Water's Edge," which details the evolution of whales from land-based ancestors. Blanton counters creationist arguments, such as those by Duane Gish, who claimed there are no transitional forms. Blanton presents a series of fossil intermediates, including Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, and Dorudon, illustrating the evolutionary progression. He highlights the presence of vestigial feet bones in whale skeletons as evidence of their land-dwelling ancestry, questioning why they would exist if whales were created solely as sea creatures.

Blanton recounts a moment during the debate where he questioned the purpose of these feet bones, asking loudly, "If the bones are there to anchor muscles, then why do they look like feet?" He also addresses an accusation by Patton that Blanton and Umbarger had misrepresented his use of quotes, noting that Patton presented an excerpt from a 1992 publication that seemed to contradict their earlier claims.

Bullfrog

This section addresses another creationist argument concerning biochemical comparisons. Blanton explains that creationists attempt to show humans are more closely related to vastly different organisms (like bullfrogs or chickens) than to chimpanzees, citing Gary Parker's book "Creation: The Facts of Life." This argument is linked to a historical incident where Duane Gish was famously met with the retort "Oh, bullfrog!" by biochemist Russell Doolittle.

Blanton also touches upon a question regarding complexity and chromosome numbers, noting that evolution does not require simpler organisms to have fewer chromosomes than more complex ones.

They Just Don't Get It

This section, co-authored by John Blanton and Jeff Umbarger, revisits the issue of Don Patton's use of out-of-context quotes. They reference a 1992 Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics article where they critiqued Patton's presentation. Patton had claimed that scientists like William D. Stansfield, author of "Science of Evolution," considered radiometric dating methods unreliable. Blanton and Umbarger present Stansfield's actual statements, which, while acknowledging assumptions in radiometric dating, do not render the methods completely unreliable and do not support the creationist view.

Stansfield's quote, as presented by Patton, was taken from a discussion on the unreliability of "Clocks." Blanton and Umbarger clarify that Stansfield's work acknowledged potential variables in radiometric dating but did not dismiss it as worthless. They provide a URL for the full context of Stansfield's quote.

Skeptical Ink

This is a comic strip by Prasad Golla and John Blanton, humorously depicting a person claiming to be qualified to argue against evolution based on having an M.S. in education and a Ph.D. in geological science, with their alma mater being a post office.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critique of creationist arguments and tactics, particularly the misuse of scientific sources through out-of-context quotes. The editorial stance is clearly pro-science and skeptical of creationism, advocating for evidence-based reasoning and accurate representation of scientific findings. The magazine actively debunks common creationist claims and promotes evolutionary theory as supported by scientific evidence. The use of humor, as seen in the "Skeptical Ink" comic, also underscores the publication's critical and often lighthearted approach to debunking pseudoscience.