Dear Mr. Walker,

I hope you will consider the following review of your email to me on July 11

>We have posted your letter and may publish it.

Where may I read my posted letter and others like it?

>If I determine that certain of your questions are vague, and cannot be

>answered as posited, will you gloat and call this "evasion" on my part?

It will depend on whether you justify why my question is vague and cannnot be

answered as posited.

>And if I discover that some of your questions are not really questions at

>all, but statements disguised as questions

A person may respond to any question regardless of the motive of the person

who has asked it. Some questions are asked because one expects an answer,

some are asked to focus and clarify issues between those who are in

disagreement.

> furthermore, if I discover that some of your statements (disguised as

questions) contain logical

>fallacies and evidence of dishonesty on your part, will you huff and shine

>your nails and say to yourself that I have evaded your "questions"?

Not if you show that the question has a logical fallacy. Furthermore, if I

were a "dishonest" person, you may still answer the question. I have been

called dishonest before! All that may mean is that I simply do not agree

with that person's interpretation or methods of investigations. Give me an

example of how I have been "dishonest?"

>> How can we determine if anything has an intelligent source for its

origin?

>We can tell that a watch has a maker only if we first know the maker (or

at least that a maker exists). To try to posit a creator by assessing the

thing alleged to be created is to put the cart before the horse.> If I should tell you that the heart, lung,

>>kidney, thyroid, skin, digestive system, brain, liver, and gall bladder are

>all essential to life, would you disagree?

>Yes. The vast majority of individual organisms living at this moment, on

>this planet, have none of these things and thrive just fine.

You may refer to the comments that I have made on the other letters with

reference to this question.

> Do you believe that these organs

>came into existence step by step or one at a time?

>Your question is not clear, because it is missing some very important

>criteria. I do not know to which strain of organisms you refer. I also

>don't understand what you mean by "step by step" and "one at a time."

I mean the "strain of organisms" that have these organs. You don't

understand what I mean by step by step? Do you believe those organisms who

have the afore mentioned organs acquired them all at once? If they did not

get them all at once, Iguess it would be step by step or one organ after

another, right? What other choice do we have?

>If I should tell you that

>these organs are generated by different sets of gene combinations, would

>you disagree?

>This question is incomplete, and betrays a lack of understanding of how an

>organism grows.

You do not need to worry whether my question "betrays a lack of

understanding." Questions are designed to be answered. Ask me some

questions if you want to, then you can discover what my understanding is. So

your answer to the question would be no, right?

>If I should tell you that the DNA of life contain more information

>than a 1000 volume of encyclopedias, would you disagree?

>Last year, biologists announced that they mapped out all of the DNA of a

>multicell animal -- a microscopic roundworm, with 19,099 genes. A good

>publishing company could probably typeset this information and bind it

>into a volume considerably smaller than the volume "Pumps to Russellmore"

>from the 1958 Encyclop?ia Americana.

I am not talking about microscopic round worms. If an individual were to

describe the function of our genetic code, how many volumes would he need?

>What other choices

>may an individual rationally believe other than that essential components

>to

>the function of a system must all be available at the start of a system?

>What do you mean by this? Please explain in detail what you are asking.

What I mean is so simple. Must a system have every essential part at the

start? What ever is required for a system to be operational, must be in

place before the system can work. Can a child be born without a lung, heart,

liver, brain, gall bladder, skin, thyroid, kidney, or digestive system and

live? Can a man drive to another city without an engine, transmission,

carburetor, or spark plugs? Can a cell be operational if it lacks the

following: cell membrane, ribosome complex, the proteins that transport, or

the DNA? Do you deny that the above systems must have the components that I

have mentioned? Yes or no?

>If all essential components of living organisms must be present in order

>for

>life to exist, does this not imply or prove that the genes responsible for

>such organs must be all present as well?

>The premise vague if taken one way, and false if taken the other. In

>response to the second possibility of your statement (disguised as a

>question), a human fetus does not start out with all essential components

>but must depend on the mother for existence.

Each living system has its own essential components. The reason a giraff's

neck is long is because of its genes. If those genes were different, its

neck would not be long. A fetus may not start out with the essential parts,

but it does start out with all the genetic information necessary for every

essential part An explanation of how any organism arrives at its essential

parts, must began with the genes. Since no individual set of genes are

responsible for each organ, it stretches credulity to believe that random

mutations could create functional new organs that are compatible with the old

system (thus doing no harm) but useful in the new system that is not even

close to completion! The question we must ask is, "What does experience with

genes teach us?"

Michael Denton in his book "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis" has well said "The

evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps even more severely damaged by the

discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite

different genes in different species. The effects of genes on development

are often surprisingly diverse. In the house mouse, nearly every

coat-colour gene has some effect on body size. Out of seventeen x-ray

induced eye colour mutations in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster,

fourteen affected the shape of the sex organs of the female, a characteristic

that one would have thought was quite unrelated to eye colour. Almost every

gene that has been studied in higher organisms has been found to effect more

than one organ system, a multiple effect which is known as pleiotropy. As

Mayr argues in Population, Species and Evolution: 'It is doubtful whether any

genes that are not pleiotropic exists in higher organisms. Since the primary

gene action in multicellular organisms is usually several steps removed from

the peripheral phenotypic character, it is obvious that non pleiotropic genes

must be rare if they exists at all.'

If Michael Denton and a host of other scientists are right, genes are so

intricately woven within each other that it is amazing that anyone could

seriously consider that changing genes at random will help a biological

system in any way. Our experience tell us that when one changes genes

(mutation) the effect does not produce better results and it damages the

organs that already exist. What will make a person believe in the myth that

new organs arise out of random mutations? Certainly not science!!! There is

no need to talk about natural selection, because if there is nothing

beneficial, there is nothing to select!

>If I should tell you that all

>organic material (in essence genes, proteins, etc) are very fragile and

>unstable outside the confines of a

>cell and are easily destroyed, would you disagree?

>Yes. Some are very fragile and others are not. Many simple organisms

>thrive just fine under the most adverse conditions. I heard about an

>organism that is supposedly simpler than a retrovirus that can survive

>over an hour in an autoclave. This organism, when it attacks the human

>organism, rapidly causes brain damage, severe retardation, and ultimately

>premature death. This is truly scary; furthermore, it disproves the claim

>implied in your "question." Do you think an all-knowing, all-powerful

>creator made this organism whose only apparent purpose is to cause

>suffering and premature death to humans?

Some fragile, some not? That is enough. If any of the fragile organic

material could not survive outside the confines of the cell, that necessarily

means that it can only exists in the cell. If this fragile material is

necessary to the function of a cell, but can not exist apart from it, which

came first, the cell or the "fragile" organic material? Answer that!! Your

example of the destructive organism does not explain how a cell came into

existence by chance because they are all different systems and are not

compatible. Further, a gun is designed. If the only purpose I knew for it

was destruction, this would not mean it was not designed. Also because I

only know of a destructive purpose does not mean that there is not a good

purpose obscured by my ignorance!

>If you were sent to a distant

>planet and found a computer there, would this be enough to convince you

>that intelligent life had been present?

>It would be a strong indicator that intelligent life had been present, if

>I found something that looks and acts like computers as we know them.

>However, I could never know for sure until I had encountered the

>intelligence in question -- something verifying the existence of the

>entities responsible for creating the device.

>Nevertheless, it would be a leap to suggest that the intelligence was

>supernatural. It would be an even further leap to suggest that that

>intelligence was "The Lord" of the Bible.

This position that one must see a designer before one can believe is only

defended by those rejecting the existence of God. Any rational person who

found anything close to what I am using for this email would have no doubt

that an intelligent source was responsible. This is why Fransis Crick

advocated that life did not originate on this planet. His science ruled out

a natural origin, leaving only an intelligent origin. Niether did he believe

that this intelligence was "The Lord" of the Bible. But I do! I must make

an additional argument before I can prove the intelligence is supernatural.

And other arguments for "The Lord" of the Bible.

>Would you disagree with me if I said that

>the human brain could do in a second what it would take the best computer

>100 years to do the same?

>I cannot agree or disagree with a sloppy question such as this one. There

>are some functions that cannot (yet) be emulated by a computer, but there

>are calculations that would take tens of thousands of man-hours to

>calculate by hand, that a Cray can complete in a few seconds.

If a computer can not do all that a brain can do, the analogy is that

computers do not occur by accident, but you believe the brain is an accident,

don't you? We may not "yet" know the potential of the brain either. But I'm

sure one day computers will fall in love and argue with each other whether

they were created!

>The problem common to all your questions thus far is that they lack the

>precision that marks true scientific inquiry. These questions are full of

>generalizations and assume way too much. It sounds like you are trying to

>bluff someone who has little experience with scientific inquiry or the

>philosophy of science.

If after reading my comments and you still believe your above paragraph, then

continue to do so. There is no bluff in any question I ask. You would do

better to answer them rather than trying to figure out my motives or

disposition.

>If you are a scientist or a student of the philosophy of science, shame on

you!

I do not feel any shame in that I do not conform to what you call science.

Science to you may be nothing but a commitment to naturalism, the philosophy

that nature is all there is. What experiment have you done that forever

proves that there can be no more than this physical world? If the Lord

wills, I will give to your fellow laborer a reason why a supernatural

explanation is needed to explain the world.

> If you are a Christian evangelist, keep up the good work (Rom. iii.

>7.). We have come to expect the likes of the above from Christian

>evangelists -- particularly modern creationists -- who have a

>long-standing tradition of deceitfulness and pious fraud when it comes to

>propogating the Christian religion. It would be a shame to go against the

>traditions of one's forebears, would it not?

Concerning deceit, if you are honest, you would admit that dishonest people

can be found among all groups. Time will not allow me to tell of pig's tooth

purported to be human ancestors, Pilt down man, and other forgeries made by

evolutionist through out the years. There are countless examples where

evolutionary scientists have advanced theories where the known flaws normally

would cause such theories to be discarded. Why aren't they? Why do they

continue? Because these scientists have a commitment to evolution and not

truth! "TRUTH" to them is that which conforms to their philosophy

(naturalism). They will get their "truth" even if they must manipulate the

evidence. This is a sorry shame. How pitiful it is to call this science!!!!

Sincerely,

Abraham