QUOTE-MINING...THE TRADITION CONTINUES - ICR REPRESENTATIVE FRANK SHERWIN VISITS EUREKA COLLEGE

by Karen E. Bartelt, Ph.D.

July 21, 2001
Copyright 2001

Last updated September 29, 2001

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) disseminates its young earth/special creation message in a variety of ways, including radio programs, pamphlets, and their museum in El Cajon, California. They also sponsor speakers who give presentations in churches and other venues. Two of their most prominent speakers - Henry Morris and Duane Gish - are quite elderly and largely retired from speaking engagements. Critiques of Morris and Gish are available on the web here, here, and here. Not much is available on the "younger generation" of ICR speakers. Recently, I was afforded the opportunity to see one of them in action.

In March 2001, the Eureka (IL) College campus was notified by email of an upcoming visit by "Mr. Frank Sherwin III of the Institute for Creation Research":

Have you ever been taught creationism??
Did you know that there is scientific evidence supporting creation??
If you are curious about how our world began and want to learn more than just the evolution theory, come to Becker Auditorium, Thursday, April 5 at 7:00.
Mr. Frank Sherwin from the Institute for Creation Research will be on campus lecturing The Scientific Evidence Supporting Creation." This lecture is sponsored by Eureka College Campus Crusade for Christ and there is no admission fee.
Thank you for you [sic] time and I hope to see you there!

Faculty members received a personal invitation. My response was to send this to the entire campus:

I am looking forward with great interest to the visit by a representative from the Institute for Creation Research. I suggest that anyone who is planning on attending may also be interested in the following on-line articles:

I visited the ICR's museum a couple of years ago. My trip summary is online here

You can assess the quality of the ICR's research here. This article details how the ICR thought that an April Fool article (by "Oskar Todkopf" of "Hindenburg University") was real research on Neanderthals.

Lastly, have a look at a review of the recent ICR "Impact" 330/1, in which "The Scientific Case Against Evolution" is put forth by Henry Morris of the ICR. There is no scientific evidence presented by Morris, which is typical, but the review does detail the rather un-Christian practice of the ICR to quote scientists out-of-context. This is available here.

Some students were appalled that I would send an email like this. However, the ICR has a tradition of quote-mining - searching the scientific literature for a sentence or two by some "noted evolutionist", then using it out-of-context, so that it conveys a meaning which was not intended by the original author (go to any of the six links above). Frank Sherwin himself was taken to task recently for his poor scholarship and quote-mining in "Creationist Mindblocks to Whale Evolution" (Joiner 1999). The use of out-of-context quotations is, therefore, a well-known part of the ICR's repertoire. What would Frank Sherwin do?

SHERWIN'S LECTURE - 4-5-01

On April 5, 2001, a number of Eureka College faculty members, myself included, were present in the audience, and many of us took notes. Additionally, the Campus Crusade videotaped the event and sold the tape for just $5 ($3 if delivered on campus). At that bargain price it was a "no-brainer" to acquire a tape and revisit the lecture as often as necessary.

The lecture commenced at 7PM in an auditorium that can hold 500. I estimate the crowd was in the 250-300 range. Despite the advertising on campus, there were not a lot of Eureka College students. Some biology majors were there, as were six of my students who could acquire extra credit for attending. There were quite a few adults, and a large number of middle- and high-schoolers. At least one school bus from a Baptist church was in the parking lot, so it is reasonable to assume that this event was also advertised in the fundamentalist community, and that many of the attendees were either homeschooled, or students at one of the area Christian schools. Overall, the audience was receptive to what Sherwin had to say.

INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY

Sherwin began the lecture in what appeared to be a conciliatory tone, saying, "We at the ICR are not a confrontational organization...We are here simply to give you what we believe to be the compelling case for creation." And, "We at the ICR want to build bridges, not walls, to the secular community."..."We do not want to get in a confrontational way that would alienate anybody."

And just how did Sherwin propose to build these bridges? Apparently by taking quotations from "evolutionists", using them completely out of context, and lulling the largely ignorant and sympathetic audience into believing that even evolutionists - in their own literature - admit there are serious flaws with evolutionary theory. Except for a short detour into the workings of the flagellum, Sherwin's sole pieces of evidence allegedly supporting the "scientific evidence for creation" were overhead upon overhead upon overhead with short quotations by some "evolutionist", apparently casting doubt on the evidence for evolution.

The main presentation lasted about an hour. During the break, 3x5 cards were available for anyone who wanted to ask questions. No direct questioning was allowed.

The rest of this review is organized in the following manner. When a quotation is given, the "Sherwin version" appears first, along with any comments he made. Then the context of the quotation is supplied. Finally, my comments are appended. What will be seen is a systematic and deliberate misuse of the original intent of author after author. The reader is encouraged to read the original papers, which are listed at the end of this article.

There are also sections on Sherwin and the flagellum, some of Sherwin's social commentary regarding evolution.

THE QUOTATIONS AND THEIR CONTEXT

1. Sherwin showed an ICR version of a phylogenetic tree (the page bottom said "Creation-Life Publishers") and quoted a recent paper by Nei (2001): “Estimates of ancient divergence times are subject to a substantial amount of error caused by the uncertainty of the molecular clock, horizontal gene transfer, errors in sequence alignments, etc.” He emphasized the word "error", really got the audience to snicker at the word "etc", and said later, "I applaud the evolutionists...for being intellectually honest and putting it in print."

Here is an in-context excerpt from Nei, et al (2001): “When many protein sequences are available for estimating the time of divergence between two species, it is customary to estimate the time for each protein separately and then use the average for all proteins as the final estimate. However, it can be shown that this estimate has an upward bias, and that an unbiased estimate is obtained by using distances based on concatenated sequences.” (They then went on to describe two successful measures). "Using these two distance measurements for 104 protein sequences, we estimated the time of divergence between mice and rats to be ca 33 million years ago…the time of divergence between humans and rodents was estimated to be 96 million years ago…Our best estimates of the times of divergence between eubacteria and eukaroytes, between protists and other eukaryotes, and between plants, fungi, and other animals were 3, 1.7, and 1.3 billion years ago. Estimates of ancient divergence times are subject to a substantial amount of error caused by the uncertainty of the molecular clock, horizontal gene transfer, errors in sequence alignments, etc”. (Nei 2001)

The key word here is "ancient". When taken in context, it is obvious that Nei was saying that mouse/rat and human/rodent divergence times were more accurate than those for groups that diverged earlier in geologic time, and this is apparent when looking at their data tables. Sherwin turned differences in relative error into an indictment of the whole method, and the audience never knew.

2. The next quotation came from Stephen Palumbi, an evolutionary biologist from Harvard: “The formation of species has long represented one of the most central, yet also one of the most elusive subjects in evolutionary biology.” (Palumbi 1994).

A colleague of mine, biologist Dr. Michael Toliver, responded: “This statement seems to imply that scientists know little about the processes of speciation, but when you actually read the article, Mr. Sherwin's misuse of the quote becomes apparent. Dr. Palumbi’s article was about speciation in marine organisms, which Palumbi felt might be different from speciation on land. Speciation on land is well-known (it's been observed) and the processes are well-established. Palumbi described one of those processes (allopatric speciation) in the paragraph following the disputed quote. Palumbi's intent was to examine the process in marine organisms, whose larvae often have to disperse for thousands of kilometers in ocean currents. This larval dispersal might take away one of the components of allopatric speciation (isolation by geographic barriers). But Palumbi found a number of instances where speciation did occur allopatrically, and in those where speciation seemed to work differently, there were other well-known processes which could explain the origin of those species. One could fault Dr. Palumbi for an excess of hyperbole in his opening sentence, but I'm sure he assumed his readers would read the entire article and place that statement in its proper context.” (Toliver 2001)

Palumbi concluded his article by suggesting an approach to speciation research: “Studies of gamete recognition show how a focus on the mechanisms of reproductive isolation can lead to the discovery of the genes for species recognition. This suggests a general approach to speciation research that is based on investigations of the physiological, ecological, and sensory differences that give rise to species recognition and perhaps reproductive isolation.” (Palumbi 1994)

3. Sherwin then began a discussion of design in nature as the scientific evidence for creation. He pointed to the following "evidence" from the "secular publication", The Science Teacher: “Teachers are nearly split over the existence of scientific evidence for creationism (48% agree or strongly agree there is much scientific evidence for creationism)" brushing off the last part of the quotation: "though most do not perceive creationism and evolution as equally viable scientific alternatives for explaining present life forms.” (Weld and McNew 1999).

The article had nothing to do with design in nature per se, but was a general article on the attitudes of science teachers toward the teaching of evolution. Though Sherwin stated, "One out of every two people interviewed, and they're on their way to becoming science teachers..." this proves that he did not read the article carefully, and that several important points were omitted. First, the participants were surveyed, not interviewed. Second, this survey was sent to 462 current biology teachers (not students), 228 of whom returned the survey. Who tends to complete surveys? Third, the survey was done in OKLAHOMA. That's important, since Oklahoma tends toward religious conservatism, and these teachers may not be representative of all biology teachers in the US.

4. After a short discussion of arrowheads and Mt. Rushmore being examples of "purpose and plan", Sherwin turned to the universe as a whole, attributing this quotation to Brad Lemley: “The universe is unlikely. Very unlikely. Deeply, shockingly unlikely.”

The article was authored by Lemley, but the statement was actually made by Martin Rees, British Astronomer Royal. The article was about Rees and his book Just Six Numbers, which discussed some of the fundamental constants in the universe. Hardly buttressing support for intelligent design, Lemley explained Rees' position later: "Drawing on recent cosmology…, Rees proposes that our universe is a tiny, isolated corner of what he terms the multiverse. The idea is that a possibly infinite array of separate big bangs erupted from a primordial dense-matter state…'The analogy here is of a ready-made clothes shop', says Rees…'If there is a large stock of clothing, you’re not surprised to find a suit that fits. If there are many universes, each governed by a differing set of numbers, there will be one where there is a particular set of numbers suitable to life. We are in that one'.” (Lemley 2000)

Though Rees may also be guilty of hyperbole in calling the universe "unlikely", he suggested purely naturalistic (if bizarre, to the layperson) origins for this universe. Rees' answer to the question "Why is there life?" was simply "Because you happen to be in the right universe"(Lemley 2000), not because there is evidence supporting the existence of a designer.

Next came a description and discussion about the bacterial flagellum. Sherwin described the parts of a jet engine, and made the Michael-Behe-like analogy that since the flagellum had the same parts as a jet engine, and because "Jet engines call for designers" , therefore the flagellum was designed. He described the flagellum as a "constant torque protonmotive force reversible rotary motor", but also made a fundamental mistake, saying "If you lick your two fingers and push them in an outlet, you will experience protonmotive force." While proton pumps DO involve the movement of charged particles (protons), this is NOT what comes out of a light socket. If it were, maybe we would call it "proticity."

Sherwin fled into jargon repeatedly, overwhelming the audience with complicated metabolic flow charts and mentions of "pyruvate dehydrogenase", "phosphorylation", "Krebs cycle", and "supercoiled DNA". The point was that this cell was so small and so complicated that it just had to be designed. Sherwin concluded: "You want evidence for creation? I give you the flagellum and the fact it runs by electricity."

Behe's bacterial flagellum arguments have been addressed quite well by other authors, and Sherwin offered nothing new. Please see especially, Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller, "A Biochemist's Response" , and "Evolution of the Bacterial Flagella".

Sherwin summarized this portion of the presentation by saying that this was a "head vs heart issue", that "Very few people can honestly say they *can't* believe in creation science. Most people simply *won't* believe in creation science," and "I've given you, in the brief time we've had, some, I think, pretty compelling evidences for the hand of a creator." He then returned to some serious quote-mining, mostly related to mutations, and their power to induce macroevolutionary changes.

5. The next quotation came from an article by Klein et al (1998): “It is notoriously difficult to determine whether a mutation is neutral, semideliterious, or moderately advantageous.” Sherwin called this “a very, very important quote this evening.”

There are several words one would not wish to see beginning the next sentence should one not wish to be accused of taking this out of context. "However" would be one of those words. The next sentence: “However, mutations in certain regions of the genome, such as intergenic segments, introns, or parts of the 3’ untranslated region have a high probability of being neutral.” The entire article discussed “trans-species polymorphism”, and concluded that while TSP “complicates phylogenetic analysis,…it is a useful tool for the study of speciation.” Many examples of methods that could be used to determine the effects of mutations were discussed.

6. Cambridge's David Stern was quoted next: “One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved. Which mutations? Which genetic mistakes generate evolutionarily relevant phenotypic variations? What kinds of molecular changes do they entail?” (Stern 2000) Sherwin went on to say: "I applaud Dr. Stern. We’re not condemning anybody here this evening. I applaud Dr. Stern for being intellectually honest to ask these questions.” With this disingenuous statement, Sherwin implied to the audience that Stern was admitting defeat - that biologists are totally in the dark about what phenotypic changes result from mutations.

The quotation came from Stern's abstract. The rest of the abstract and the data make it obvious that this was merely a lead-in for his research contributions: "Recent developmental studies of gene function provide a new way of conceptualizing and studying variation that contrasts with the traditional genetic view that was incorporated into the neo-Darwinian theory and population genetics. This new approach in developmental biology is as important for microevolutionary studies as the actual results from recent evolutionary developmental studies. In particular, this approach will assist in the task of identifying the specific mutations generating phenotypic variation and elucidating how they alter gene functions. These data will provide the current missing link between molecular and phenotypic variation in natural populations." (Stern 2000)

Perhaps Sherwin should have finished the abstract (and maybe read the whole paper!). But then, of course, the audience would have learned something about mutation and evolution!

7. Sherwin then quoted Sir John Maddox in Nature: “So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself.” (Maddox 1994) The intent here was to convey (again) that, when pressed, scientists admit that they don't know "jack".

Maddox's article began: "The problem of the genetic code has several facets, of which the most compelling is why it is just what it is". He then mentioned that an understanding of the origin of the genetic code would be a big step in the understanding of the origin of life. However, Sherwin did not even quote Maddox accurately, leaving out a significant phrase: “So it is disappointing, BUT NOT SURPRISING, that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself.” (Maddox 1994)

After summarizing the state of knowledge up to 1994, Maddox continued: “…when more is known of the dynamics of the genome, it should be possible to unravel the evolution of the code from the regulation and placing of t-RNA genes and from the properties of defective pseudogenes.”

The point of his article was to suggest that biologists might do well to explore group theory as a method of elucidating the origin of the genetic code, that "...the problem of the genetic code is simply a problem of symmetry breaking…and therefore best described by group theory.” Maddox did nothing more than lament that elucidating the origin of the genetic code is complicated (though let's not forget we have only been working on this for 50 years), but he suggested a procedure for doing so when more is known about the genome, and offered another pathway from the field of mathematics.

Sherwin then discussed bats as examples of design, saying "The fossil record shows that bats have always been bats”. His lone piece of support for this was a 1966 article from Scientific American, showing "the oldest bat". He implied that bat sonar was a great unknown, saying, "How do genetic mistakes and natural selection, whatever that is, account for the sophistication of bat sonar?" and "Can a system, for example, the bat sonar, that we don't completely understand, be constructed by means of a process we cannot completely specify? That is, neo-Darwinian evolution, keeping in mind that natural selection and mutations are *not* the mechanism of evolution?"

Notice the word "mistakes", implying that mutation cannot ever contribute anything positive. Tell that to those who are malaria-resistant due to a mutation in their hemoglobin, or who do not develop atherosclerosis because of a particular form of Apolipoprotein B! Sherwin implied that nothing is known about natural selection ("whatever that is") and provided himself substantial wiggle room (not to mention a self contradiction) when he said that natural selection and mutations were suddenly not the mechanisms of evolution. There is no one mechanism of evolution, but an interplay of mutations, natural selection, and other factors, all described very well in the articles Sherwin should have read before he lifted quotations. Though we may know little about bat sonar, some progress has been made using fossil and molecular data (Springer 2001).

The ICR seems to have backpedalled on its favorite mammal. Years ago, the typical mantra was "Whales have always been whales". Now that so many intermediate forms between whale and land mammal have been found, bats seem to be the current favorite mammal-without-transitions!

While it is true that (probably due to fossils' fragility), there does not exist a nice bushy set of transitional forms (as is seen in horses, whales ,and humans), it is inaccurate and misleading to conclude that all evidence is tied up in a 1966 article. For example, Mark Hamrick has studied Phenacolemur, a mouse-sized flightless animal contemporaneous with early bats. The bones from its rear foot resemble those that flying lemurs use to hang from trees. “Nobody had realized this was hanging from its hind feet before” (Hecht 1998). Eventually bats will go the way of whales, as more information about their evolution becomes known.

8. The attack on what is known about mutation continued with this quotation from Endler and McLellan (1988): “Although much is known about mutation, it’s still largely a black box relative to evolution. Novel biochemical function seems to be rare in evolution, and the basis for their origin is virtually unknown.”

Endler and McLellan published a long review and an admonishment - for scientists to get out of their little boxes, and view evolution as the product of many factors. They said: “It is time to try to glimpse evolution as a whole. Evolution consists not of one or two all-important processes,…but rather an aggregate of processes of various sorts affecting different taxa differently. It is our purpose to identify some of the major processes in organismal evolution and to point out some major gaps in our knowledge.”

The sentences prior to Sherwin's snippet provide the context: "Evolution fundamentally depends on variation. The processes that generate variation can be collectively be called mutation …Recently it has been shown that mutator loci and…unequal crossing-over, slippage, transposable elements, and hybrid diagenesis can be significant sources of mutations…These factors…are only well-characterized in a few genera and classes of organisms… Although much is known about mutation, it’s still largely a black box relative to evolution. Novel biochemical function seems to be rare in evolution, and the basis for their origin is virtually unknown. Is there a difference in the kinds of mutations producing minor modifications of function and those producing completely novel functions at a biochemical level?”

Note that Endler and McLellan pointed out that some processes that generate mutation were well-characterized in some organisms. Also, this is a 1988 paper, and one wonders whether the authors would ask the same questions in 2001.

In their summary, Endler and McLellan exhorted scientists to take a less myopic view, and look at all of the causes of evolution: genes, environment, behavior: “Evolutionary biology would benefit from a more even-handed attack on the various processes, fewer instances of assuming that only one process causes evolution, a greater integration of all biology, and a greater understanding of the biology of organisms and their internal and external environment.” Scientists were encouraged to get to work on specific questions to fill gaps in knowledge, not abandon evolution! There is no sense in this article that the authors were willing to concede defeat to the "black box" of 1988.

9. Sherwin concluded his attack on mutation and natural selection with this quotation from Yokoyama (2000): "How natural selection operates at the molecular level is a major problem in evolutionary biology", which he said was from a paper entitled "The Color Vision of the Coelacanth."

Here is the complete quotation: "How natural selection operates at the molecular level is a major problem in evolutionary biology. About 30 years ago, Kimura proposed that most sequence changes in DNA's and proteins are selectively neutral. This "neutral theory" is still controversial and we need to demonstrate convincingly the consequences of adaptive evolution and neutral evolution at the molecular level. However, it is not an easy task to elucidate experimentally the molecular mechanisms of adaptive evolution in the vertebrates. This is because it is extremely difficult to find genetic systems where the functional effects of adaptive mutations can be rigorously assessed. THE VISUAL PIGMENTS REPRESENT ONE OF A VERY FEW MODEL SYSTEMS FOR STUDYING ADAPTIVE MECHANISMS IN VERTEBRATES. HERE I SHALL DESCRIBE ONE EXAMPLE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION, COLOR VISION OF THE COELACANTH (Latimeria chalumnae)." (Yokoyama 2000). The full title of the paper is "Color Vision of the Coelacanth and Adaptive Evolution of Rhodopsin (RH1) and Rhodopsin-like (RH2) Pigments".

It is painfully obvious that Yokoyama intended the shorter quotation as a lead-in to his research, which showed exactly "how natural selection operates at the molecular level." Sherwin took this quotation completely out-of context, and conveniently shortened the title.

SOCIAL COMMENTARY; CONCLUSION OF LECTURE

Science? Religion? Frank Sherwin's summary made it obvious what he thought creation science was: "Creation science model is a worldview, because it's based upon the scriptures: the book of Genesis and the other 65 books of the Bible. (Those religions with more or fewer books in their Bibles need not apply, I guess - KB) We don't try to hide this. We are supernaturalists..."

Sherwin then attributed the following to anthropologist Lionel Tiger: "Darwinian science inevitably will, and should, have legal, political, and moral consequences." This concerned him, Sherwin said, because evolutionists have contended that evolution was just a theory about the origin of species. A discussion of the supposed consequences of evolutionary theory ensued, and Sherwin summarized the conclusions made by the authors of a book entitled A Natural History of Rape. He wondered aloud about how an "evolutionist” would feel if his daughter were raped, and the rapist “holds it [that book] up to the judge...well?….” We were supposed to conclude that evolution promoted rape, I guess.

It occurred to me that a rapist could always use another book to justify rape:

“And they called unto Lot, and said to unto him where are the men that came into thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out the door unto them and shut the door after them and said, ‘I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known men; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes…” Genesis 19:5-8
OR

“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with them, keep alive for yourselves.” Numbers 31: 17-18

If the ICR chooses to blame evolution for social ills, they should stop leaving such a great paper trail of their own words that seem to justify things like racism. This from Henry Morris of the ICR (1991):

"The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be “servants of servants”, that is “servants extraordinary! … These include all nations that are neither Semitic not Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth’s “colored” races – yellow, red, brown, and black – essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including American Indians – are Hamitic in origin…” AND

“The Japethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their own territories, and their inventions, and then developed and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become the actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed with a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”

The quotation attributed to Lionel Tiger was severely truncated by Sherwin. The complete paragraph reads: "Lionel Tiger, an anthropologist from Rutgers, contends that Darwinian science inevitably will, and should, have legal, political, and moral consequences; some of the most pressing issues of the 1990's - abortion, birth control, sexual discrimination, homosexuality - are clearly 'in Darwin's beat'. Tiger says he knows of at least one Supreme Court justice and several high-ranking Pentagon officials who have taken an interest in evolutionary psychology and are considering applying it in their realms. Ready or not, here comes the Darwinian society." (Horgan 1995)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, MISCELLANY

After a short intermission, Sherwin returned to thumb through the 3 x 5 cards. Some of the more salient comments follow.

• In response to someone who asked just what *was* the scientific evidence for creation: "Well, I went over that. Whether you want to accept it or not, of course, is up to you."
  
  
• In response to the statement that science is essentially atheistic: "No it's not. Science is a search for truth. That's what I was taught...You had In the past creation scientists like Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, and Faraday. Many others who had no problem doing science and who believed in the Genesis 1:1 account".
  
  
• Regarding a question about the large number of species and how many animals were on the Ark: "Evolutionists are not sure what a species is...This individual doesn't know how large Noah's Ark was...Noah's Ark was the size of a WWII escort aircraft carrier."
  
  The size of the ark is the least of the creationists' problems. The ark/global flood model has serious problems related to thermodynamics, the geologic record, , the consequences of such a flood, and the list goes on. Two comprehensive reviews of these problems can be found here and here.
  
  
• In response to why the "Designer" makes mistakes: "Well, that certainly fits in with the creation/corruption model. Certainly we are experiencing the Second Law of Thermodynamics on human beings. Even Theodizius Dobzhansky said 'The human species is experiencing what is called genetic load, or genetic burden', implying a dragging down. Certainly not this upward formative process of evolutionary progression. As things move on and on, they get more genetic burdens." Cain's wife was his sister - no genetic burden.
  
  Sherwin perpetuated the creationist urban legend about the second law of thermodynamics, and misrepresented evolution as an "upward formative process" (This "great chain of being" was popular 150 years ago). There are good discussions about the Second Law from secular and evangelical sources, plus a humorous commentary.
  
  
• Quoted Barbara Stahl's 1985 book: "Paleontologists have virtually no clue as to the origin of ornithisichian dinosaurs."
  
  The book is out-of-print. Sherwin resorted to a 16 year old source when there is an ever-growing body of data about dinosaur evolution.
  
  
• Referred to the 1980 meeting of 120 evolutionary biologists and geologists in Chicago. "For three days these evolutionary biologists and other scientists got together and studied 'does micro lead to macro'?. That was written up in Science magazine by the editor of Science magazine . He said, 'At the risk of doing damage to some people at the meeting, no'".
  
  The actual quotation, from Roger Lewin's (1980) article, is "At the risk of doing violence to positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear 'No'." The next sentence conveys the context, and Sherwin omitted it: "What is not clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution; the two can more probably be seen as a continuum with notable overlap." (Lewin 1980). Sherwin did not give a complete and honest review of this significant article. This conference dealt with the "Modern Synthesis" (slow change based upon the accumulation of small changes) versus Gould, Eldredge, and others' punctuated equilibrium. Ho, hum. This is a great period piece, whereby some new information challenged the existing paradigm (ie, typical advances in science), and new mechanisms of speciation were discussed. Despite the title - "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire" - one came away with the feeling of a theory undergoing revision - as do all good scientific theories - not one being consigned to the garbage dump. Perhaps John Maynard Smith summarized the proceedings as well as any, saying "I thought the meeting was very positive. This was the first time in 25 years that there has been serious discussion between paleontologists, geneticists, and the like. This can't be anything but good." (Lewin 1980)
  
  Besides giving an unfair picture of what really happened at that scientific meeting, this is another 20-year-old source. For a great 21st Century discussion of punctuated equilibrium and Darwinian evolution as paradigms, see "The Paradox of the Paradigm" in Michael Shermer's The Borderlands of Science. Shermer argues that "there exists an overarching Darwinian paradigm and a subsidiary punctuated equilibrium paradigm, both constituting paradigm shifts (with the former significantly broader in scope and the latter more narrowly focused), and that they presently peacefully coexist and share overlapping methods and models."
  
  
• On Archaeopteryx: "Archaeopteryx at that time (1859) seemed to be a good transitional form between reptiles and birds. However, we have to keep in mind that even though Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and a long bony tail and teeth in the bill, it still had wings and feathers and it flew. When Stephen Jay Gould was having a written debate with Duane Gish in one of the more popular science magazines, Dr. Gould could have mentioned Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, but he did not. This is back in the early 1980's.”
  
  Sherwin did not supply a citation for this alleged debate, and I could find no evidence that it ever occurred. Isaac Asimov DID engage in a debate with Duane Gish in Science Digest in 1981. Neither Gish nor Asimov mentioned Archaeopteryx, though they did discuss transitional forms. However, Stephen Jay Gould did have a lot to say about Archaeopteryx in the early 1980s:
  
  "Archaeopteryx is regarded as an intermediate form because it occurs, first of all, so early in the history of birds. But secondly, and more importantly, is a remarkable mixture of features of reptiles and birds. …we find an organism that has some features that are very birdlike and some that are very reptile-like. That's exactly what we would expect in an intermediate form, and that's what we find in Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx has feathers, and those feathers are very much like the feathers of modern birds. Archaeopteryx also has a so-called furcula or wishbone, as in modern birds. However, in virtually all other features of its anatomy point by point, it has the skeletal structure of a reptile; in fact, very much like that of small running dinosaurs that presumably were their ancestors. For example, it seems to lack the expanded sternum or breastbone to which the flight muscles of birds are attached. It has a reptilian tail. And detail after detail of the anatomy proves its reptilian form. Most outstandingly, it possesses teeth, and no modern birds possessed teeth. Archaeopteryx and other early birds possess teeth, and the teeth are of reptilian form. "(Gould 1982)
  
  Sherwin's conclusion about Archaeopteryx: "So we would say that Archaeopteryx is a very bizarre bird, but not on its way to becoming anything like a 100% bird. (WHAT????) We believe that Archaeopteryx as far as we can tell from the fossil evidence (and there's been a number of fossils of Archaeopteryx that have since been found), Archaeopteryx was a bird."
  
  Accurate information on Archaeopteryx can be found here.
  
  
• In answer to the question, "What is the creation model"?: "Well, creation model is based on Genesis 1:1. We are a Christian organization. We do believe the Bible."
  
  
• In answer to, "How many quotes have you pulled out of context?": "Well, let me count here, ha ha. These quotes, as far as we can tell, are not taken out of context. The authors have said it, and so I went ahead and used their quotes. The references are right there, so you can look it up for yourself."
  
  At least eleven quotations were out of context. I didn't check them all. Some of the sources were so old or so superficial that I did not pursue them. The original intent of eleven authors (at least) was twisted and misrepresented.
  
  
• There was no specific question about the hominid fossil record, but Sherwin ended the question and answer period with four "quotations from evolutionists" concerning the fossil record. He ended as he began, with out-of-context quotations. Here is one of them: "The evolutionary history of humans is complex and unresolved. It now looks set to be thrown into further confusion by the discovery of another species and genus, dated 3.5 million years ago.” (Lieberman 2001)
  
  It helps to read more than the first sentence. Lieberman continued: “The confusion is in part a testament to the intense, successful fieldwork efforts that have almost doubled the hominin species over the past 15 years. We can now say with confidence that hominin evolution, like that of many other mammals, occurred through a series of complex radiations, in which many new species evolve and diversify rapidly. It seems that between 3.5 and 2 million years ago there were several human-like species, which were well-adapted to life in different environments.”
  
  
• In response to this obviously canned question, "If a creator exists, what must I do?": "We believe that that creator actually took on human form and lived and dwelt among us for 32 years. His name was Jesus Christ. And so if you want to dispute that, then what I would ask you to do is disprove the resurrection, ok? That's the first step. Show the resurrection of Jesus Christ never occurred. It's one of the most well-established facts in history...Then you'd have to do a pretty good job of disputing biblical prophecy and fulfillment. In other words, the Bible's true, and God has left His supernatural signature on His Word. For example, when Jesus Christ was crucified, on that day, over 30 Biblical prophecies about Him specifically were fulfilled. Kind of difficult for writers centuries prior to Jesus Christ such as Isaiah and the psalmist David to write specific prophecies about an individual who didn't show up for centuries afterwards."
  
  This is hardly germane to the title of the lecture! The alleged 'fulfilled prophecies' involve a lot of wishful thinking, and the 'resurrection' was not recorded by any writer outside of the New Testament. For more information on the resurrection, see 1, 2, and 3.
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  
  Despite the title - The Scientific Evidence for Creation - no evidence was presented beyond Frank Sherwin's argument from personal incredulity: The flagellum (or DNA) looks designed and is real teensy; therefore there must be a creator. More importantly, Sherwin continued the established ICR tradition of lifting quotations from scientists and using them out-of-context. The gospel of Matthew said it best: "I tell you, on the day of judgment, you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12:36-37, NRSV)
  
  I suggest the following:
  
  
  • Scientists should become aware that anything they say may be used to further the agenda of the ICR and other young earth organizations, and try to write accordingly.
    
    
  • Persons with interest and expertise in the creation/evolution controversy should be relentless in attending, exposing, and challenging this nonsense, wherever and whenever it occurs.
    
  
  FALLOUT, EMAILS, ETC
  
  A few days after the lecture, I sent this to the campus:
  
  I have nearly completed reviewing the videotape from Institute for Creation Research speaker Frank Sherwin's 4-5-01 visit to Eureka College. A complete summary of the out-of-context quotations used by Sherwin, a miscellany of his other misinformation about science, and some general comments about why we *don't* teach creationism in the science classroom will be given on May 14 (Term Study Day) at 3pm in VB-25. Take a study break. Refreshments will be served.
  
  About 20 people came to the presentation, which formed the backbone of this webpage. Very few creationist students attended.
  
  Responses to Sherwin's and my presentation follow. Spelling and grammar are unedited:
  
  Student A: "Being the open minded person i am, unlike yourslef [sic], i will be attending your fun filled lecture. I will be attending with an open mind. But i only have one question, Where did it all start from? That's right, something had to start it all. Molecules did not just evolve out of thin air, not that there was even air. I have the feeling that you were scared at the creation speakers lecture because you were out passing letters about evolution during intermission. The thing is, i am not scared, i know that one day you will learn the truth, maybe that may happen before you die. I will not be passing out letters saying creation is the truth, eventhough [sic] it is the truth, as stated in the bible. So I will be attending your comment session enjoying your refreshments. I will see you on term study day."
  
  The "letter about evolution" was a one page flyer detailing some of the typical ICR misinformation about evolution. I sent a response to Student A, assuring him that I was not scared at Sherwin's lecture, and I was looking forward to seeing him at mine. He never showed up.
  
  Student B: "He pulled many quotes out of context and then flatly denied it, after I asked the question point blank on a note card (yes that was me). He used many different speaking blunders that anyone who has had a speech course knows how to look for...I only regret that the audience didn't know enough about the topic to know how false his ideas were."
  
  Student C: "I am writing to you in response to your campus-wide e-mail about the ICR speaker. I understand that you do not agree with his findings and that you do not believe in the same origins of the universe that he, and I, believe in. I understand that, but what I do not understand is why you feel the need to dispute each and every one of his findings. You state that the jet engine/flagella is a false analogy. It is that in grammer [sic] only. The way he stated it is not exactly correct, but can you not see the correlation? He was stating that the odds are near impossible that a unit so small, is so comparable to a modern-day machine.
  
  Furthermore, I am no english [sic] scholar, in fact I struggle daily in my classes, but what constitues [sic] an 'out of context quote'?
  
  While I feel that perhaps not everything in Dr. Sherwinn's [sic] presentation was accurate, nor was it 100% plausable [sic] I don't feel that it was appropriate that someone of your status,and your influence should mail the entire campus and criticize him. In all honesty I was really quite offended, and more than a little hurt that instead of simply mailing Campus Crusades and letting them know of your grievances."
  
  I replied to Student C that, as a senior faculty member in science, it was absolutely appropriate that I respond to pseudoscientific attacks such as Sherwin's. Student C didn't come to my presentation, either.
  
  Student D: "I was not impressed with the lecture [Sherwin's] and felt that the information used as "evidence" for creationism was very weak."
  
  Student E: "May I ask you a question? Why do you bother? Does that annoy you that people believe in creationism? I truely [sic] do not understand the whole evolution theroy [sic] at all. All I know is that we are supposed to be evoled [sic] from monkey [sic] or bacteria. So that must be why they put the warning labels on anti- bacterial soap. The whole monkey thing also. [sic] Correct me if I am wrong but we are supposed to be derived from monkeys? Some of us may look like monkeys, but I find that hard to believe that we come from monkeys. That explains why King Kong looks so familiar. I will be attending your lecture on Monday. I am looking foward [sic] to hearing your presentation. No monkey buisness!! "[sic]
  
  Student E showed up, to his credit, and helped himself to the refreshments (bananas).
  
  Student F: "I will openly acknowledge that I am not very well learned in the whole debate on Creation verse [sic] Evolution. At this point in my life, Creation makes more sense. In the future, I intend to do a sufficient amount of research on the topic, however its [sic] just not feasible at this jucture [sic] in my life."
  
  Student F was one of the organizers of the lecture.
  
  REFERENCES
  
  Asimov I. and Gish D. The Genesis War. Science Digest 1981; 89(9): 82-87.
  
  Endler J. and McLellan T. The processes of evolution: toward a newer synthesis. Annual Reviews of Systematics and Ecology, 1988; 19: 395-421.
  
  Gould S. Testimony from the McLean vs Arkansas trial. 1982.
  
  Hecht J. Branching out. New Scientist 1998; October 10: 14.
  
  Horgan J. Trends in social science: the new social Darwinists. Scientific American,1995; 273(4): 150-157.
  
  Joiner M. Creationist mindblocks to whale evolution. 1999; Available from http://www.angelfire.com/fl/direpuppy/mindblocks.html. Accessed December 11, 1999
  
  Klein J. et al. Molecular trans-species polymorphism. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 1998; 29: 2-xx.
  
  Lemley B. Why is there life? Discover 2000; November: 64-69.
  
  Lewin R. Evolutionary theory under fire. Science 1980; 210: 883-887.
  
  Lieberman D. Another face in our family tree. Nature 2001; 410: 1419-420.
  
  Maddox J. The genetic code by numbers. Nature 1994; 367:111.
  
  Morris H. The Beginning of the World. San Diego (CA): Master Books, 1991.
  
  Nei M. et al. Estimation of divergence times from multiprotein sequences for a few mammalian species and several distantly related organisms. PNAS 2001; 98(5): 2497-2502.
  
  Palumbi S. Genetic divergence, reproductive isolation, and marine speciation. Annual Review of Systematics and Ecology 1994; 25: 547-72.
  
  Springer M., et al. Integrated fossil and molecular data reconstruct bat echolocation. PNAS 2001; 98(11): 6241-6246.
  
  Stern D. Evolutionary developmental biology and the problem of variation. Evolution 2000; 54(4): 1079-91.
  
  Toliver M. Letter to editor. Woodford County Journal 2001; April 26: xx.
  
  Weld J. and McNew J. Attitudes toward evolution. The Science Teacher 1999; December: 27-31.
  
  Yokoyama S. Color vision of the coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) and adaptive evolution of rhodopsin (RH1) and rhodopsin-like (RH2) pigments. The Journal of Heredity 2000; 91(3): 215-220.
  
  
  
  Email me