Total Solar Eclipse Visible Across the U.S. on August 21

The Moon’s orbit around the Earth is inclined by about 5 degrees from the plane of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, so only occasionally does the Moon come between the Earth and the Sun so as to cause a solar eclipse. The diameter of the Moon as viewed from the Earth is about the same as the apparent diameter of the Sun, so the Moon can just barely cover the whole disk of the Sun. Because the Moon’s orbit around the Earth is elliptical, most of the time when there is a solar eclipse, is only partial. It is only when the Moon is closest to the Earth that the Moon can completely block out the Sun and cause complete darkness for a few minutes of totality

As the diagram below indicates, the zone of total eclipse, where the Sun is completely blocked, is very small. Only about one in a thousand people ever witness a total eclipse.

You could become one of those fortunate total eclipse viewers, if you can get to a narrow swathe across the U.S. on August 21, 2017. Around noon that day, the path of totality will run from coast to coast. A map is shown below. The next total eclipses after this will be 2019 and 2020 in Chile and Argentina, 2021 in Antarctica, 2024 in Mexico/central U.S./ eastern Canada, 2026 through Iceland and Spain, and 2027 across North Africa. The next solar eclipse with totality passing over much of Europe occurs in 2081.


All of the contiguous 48 states, as well as parts of Canada and Mexico will be exposed to a partial eclipse on August 21. Faint orange lines on the map show the limits of 90%, 75%, and 50% solar occlusion. The path of totality is only about 70 miles (117 km) wide. Below is a zoomed-in section of this map.

This site has links to this interactive map by NASA and another map from Google, and also tables of eclipse times for cities in some states. New York City, Philadelphia, Houston and San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Toronto will max out at about 70%-75% occlusion of the sun. That will be interesting to observe through eclipse glasses if the sky is not cloudy, but may otherwise be fairly unimpressive.

Totality is supposed to be a whole different experience. “Daylight is replaced by a mysterious dusk, and bright planets and stars become visible. Plants and animals act as though it were nightfall as flowers close up and birds return to roost. There’s a chill in the air because the temperature drops a dozen degrees or more. The brilliant Sun is replaced by a black orb surrounded by a ghostly halo. The colors of sunset ring the horizon…”. [1] “…When the shrinking visible part of the photosphere becomes very small, Baily’s beads will occur. These are caused by the sunlight still being able to reach the Earth through lunar valleys. Totality then begins with the diamond ring effect, the last bright flash of sunlight”. [2]

Here is a 1999 photo of the Sun being almost entirely blocked by the Moon. Solar prominences (in red) can be seen along the edge, as well as the extensive fainter filaments of the corona.

For this 2017 eclipse, totality will last about 2.5 minutes, but only near the center of the path of totality. Thus, it may be worth a little extra travel to move toward the central 40 mile wide strip. One should anticipate that many other people will be crowding into the same patch, especially if it is near a major highway, and therefore plan for traffic jams coming and going. It would also make sense to check the weather forecast a day or two before, and aim for locales expected to be less cloudy.

The safe and convenient way to look at the sun during the eclipse is with specially designed glasses.


These can be purchased for about a dollar apiece in some stores and on-line at Amazon or speciality sites   . Experts warn against looking at the sun through home-made filters.

A good science project for classroom or family is to make some sort of pinhole projector, which will project an image of the Sun’s disk and which will show it being occluded. This can be as simple as a piece of cardboard with pinhole held high above a sheet of white paper on the ground, or a more elaborate box affair. Here is how to make a largish box projector into which you put your head:


This  links to a short video showing how to build a small pinhole projector into a shoebox. I helped my daughter’s elementary school class make these many years ago for a partial solar eclipse. They turned out well, although the size of the projected image with this short box is pretty small. It is also possible to project a larger, clearer image of the sun using binoculars and a tripod.


[1] “Get Eclipsed” pamphlet, by Pat and Fred Espenak


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Listing of Articles on Science, Faith and Other

Here is a listing of some of the more popular articles on this blog, grouped by topic:


Grand Canyon Geology

Realistic Expectations for Transitional Fossils

“Unconformities” Showed Geologists By 1800 That The Earth Was Very Old

Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Fossils: Evidence for a Young Earth?

 The Cambrian Explosion (Reviews of “Darwin’s Doubt”)

 Assessment of Evidences for a Young Earth

        Some Simple Evidences for an Old Earth

.       “Big Daddy” Chick Tract: The Most Widely-Distributed Anti-Evolution Publication     (Shows intermediate fossils between apes and modern humans)

Annual Layers (Varves) in Lake Sediments Show the Earth Is Not Young


Endogenous Retroviruses in Your Genome Show Common Ancestry with Primates

Gorilla, Orangutan, Chimp and Human Genomes: Population Genetics and Intelligent Design

 Junk DNA, the ENCODE Project, and Intelligent Design: Facts, Hype, and Spin

       From Micro-Evolution to Macro-Evolution: Beneficial Mutations, the Pace of Evolution, and Increasing Genome Complexity   (“STAN 3”)

Assessing Limits to Evolution and to Natural Selection:   Reviews of Michael Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” and John Sanford’s “Genetic Entropy” (“STAN 4”)

        Link to “Science Meets Religion” site by David H. Bailey; tackles many evolution/ID issues, including genetics/information issues like irreducible complexity and generating novel genetic features

.      Evolution Before Our Eyes: Complex Mutations in Microbes Giving New Functions

Theology/Bible Interpretation

Adam, the Fall, and Evolution

A Survey of Biblical Natural Theology

Jesus on Seeing God in Nature: No Signs, No Justice, No Fear

Early Church Fathers: Excerpts From Christian Writings, 100-200 A.D. (including observations on the natural world)

Was the “Expanse” Overhead in Genesis 1 a Solid Dome?

Evolution and Faith: My Story, Part 2   (summarizes ways to interpret Genesis in the light of evolution)

 An Answer to the Intellectual Problem of Evil

        “The World’s Last Night”: C. S. Lewis on the Second Coming

.      Billy Graham on Evolution

.      The Historicity of Jesus   (Assesses historical documentation of his life and teachings)

.      Job Finds a God Who Walks on the Wild Side

History and Cultural Context of Creationism

Exposing the Roots of Young Earth Creationism (traces the origin of Young Earth “Flood geology” back to nineteenth-century Adventist cult prophetess Ellen White)

University of Washington Biology Professor Brags About Bullying Religious Students

Whatever Happened to Intelligent Design Theorist William Dembski?

A Creationist Speaker Comes to Town (I attend and assess a talk by Jonathan Sarfati)

       The Great Debate of 2014: Creationist Ken Ham versus Bill Nye the Science Guy

.      Was Darwin An Atheist?

Remarkable Healings

Engineer’s Wife Healed of Multiple Sclerosis

Healing of Nearly-Deaf Boy on YouTube

Healing Miracles in Mozambique: Medical Journal

       Prayer for Healing at Bethel Church in Redding, California

Applied Technology/Economics

Folding and Electric Scooters and Bikes for Commuting the Last Mile

Comparison of Composting Toilets: Towards a Global Commode

       Fun Things to Ride: Stepper Bikes, Carving Scooters, Electric Unicycles, etc.

Fun Things to Fly: Powered Parachutes, Trikes, and Gyroplanes

Simple, Featherweight Alcohol Stoves for Camping

Overview of the U. S. Monetary System (What is money and how it is created; interactions of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and commercial banks; government and trade deficits)

High-Yield Investments


Work of the American Scientific Affiliation or Its Members

Some Highlights of American Scientific Affiliation 2015 Meeting

Brain, Mind, Faith: 2016 American Scientific Affiliation Meeting

A New Resource for Creationism: “The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth”

      How Science Can Inspire and Inform Worship: NASA’s Jennifer Wiseman

      Science and Faith at the American Scientific Affiliation 2018 Meeting

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Layout of blog:

Recent posts are listed along the right-hand side of the blog window, newest at the top. Longer essays are listed across the top of the window.

I post a new article (very roughly) about once a month, mainly on faith/science but also on other random topics. There is a “Follow” button at bottom right, if you want to get email notification of a new article.

Comments Policy:   There is a quick registration for leaving comments (just asks for a username and e-mail address). Comments are expected to be reasonably courteous and to reflect the commenter’s own thoughts or questions (no links to other sites or videos).

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

N.T. Wright: If Creation Is Through Christ, We Should Expect Something Like Evolution

N.T. Wright is a leading biblical scholar, former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, and current Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews. He holds a Doctor of Divinity from Oxford University and has written over fifty books. He was a keynote speaker at the Biologos Christ and Creation conference last month in Houston, TX .

Here is a link to a Biologos post which includes a 4-minute clip of his “Christ and Creation: Exploring the Paradox” talk, and a link to the full speech. A theme of this talk is that if creation is through Christ, we should (based on what the Gospels teach of the progress of the kingdom of God) expect something like evolution:

If creation comes through the kingdom bringing Jesus, we ought to expect it be like a seed growing secretly. That it would involve seed being sown in a prodigal fashion in which a lot went to waste, apparently, but other seed producing a great crop. We ought to expect that it be like a strange, slow process which might suddenly reach some kind of harvest. We ought to expect that it would involve some kind of overcoming of chaos.

…We ought to have anticipated that the Deists’ models of creation, conceived on the analogies of the early industrial successes, in the 17th and 18th centuries, might in fact be misleading. And that they would need correcting in the light of either of a better picture of the one through whom creation was accomplished—the Deists were keen to getting Jesus out of the picture—or in the light of fresh scientific research. No one in the late 18th or early 19th centuries was doing the kind of fresh work on Jesus and the gospels that would lead to this picture. But various scientists (not least the Darwin family a century before Charles Darwin), motivated by quite a different worldview—namely, Epicureanism—nonetheless come up with a picture of Origins that looks remarkably like Jesus’ parables of the Kingdom: some seeds go to waste, others bear remarkable fruit; some projects start tiny and take forever, but ultimately produce a great crop; some false starts are wonderfully rescued, others are forgotten. Chaos is astonishingly overcome.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Though the Market Is a Winner, Most Stocks Are Losers

The U.S. “stock market” is represented by various collections of stocks, such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average (30 stocks), the NASDAQ Composite (securities listed on the NASDAQ; weighted towards information technology), and the Standard and Poors 500 Index. The S&P 500 is an index of the largest 500 companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ, weighted by capitalization. The version of the S&P usually cited just takes into account stock prices. History shows that, over a reasonably long time frame, the U.S. stock market rises. Here is a chart, using a logarithmic axis, of the S&P from January, 1950 to February, 2016. It shows a rise in value by a factor of about 65 between 1950 and 2016.

S&P 500 daily closing values from January 3, 1950 to February 19, 2016

Another way to view market returns is to include the effects of dividends and of inflation. The long-term returns are still positive:


A lab technician I knew in my company in the 1990s took every bit of savings he had (about $50,000) and plowed it all into the stock of America Online (AOL). This was when the internet was just taking off, and AOL was a leading company in that field. My friend held on while his investment doubled, then had the conviction to hang on until it doubled again. He then cashed out with around $200,000, quit his job, got an MBA in finance, and ended up managing money on Wall Street.

With these sorts of success stories, and the (so far) reliable performance of the stock market, how hard can it be for the average small investor to pick a winning basket of stocks? Surprisingly hard, it turns out.

A study of the returns of U.S. stocks from 1926 to 2015 has been published by Hendrik Bessembinder, a business professor at Arizona State University. A draft copy is here . He works with total returns (stock price plus dividends).

He found that the rise of the S&P is entirely due to huge gains by a tiny subset of stocks. The average stock actually loses money over both short and long time periods. In statistical terms, this is an extremely skewed data set; the mean return is greater than the median. There is a sort of Darwinian selection that occurs in a market index like the S&P 500. The companies that are doing well tend to get more represented in the index as their stock prices rises relative to other companies, while the relative weighting of losers automatically diminishes.

This asymmetry between winners and losers is partly a result of the following math: If you invest $1000 in a company that then tanks, the most you can lose is $1000. But if that company is one of the rare firms that really takes off, you could make many times your initial investment. If you had put $1000 into Microsoft (MSFT) in 1986, your shares would now be worth nearly $700,000.

Half of the U.S. stock market wealth creation has come from a mere 0.33% of the listed companies. The top five companies (ExxonMobil, Apple, GE, Microsoft, and IBM) accounted for a full 10% of the market gain. Each of these companies has created half a trillion dollars or more for their shareholders.

Out of some 26,000 listed companies, 86 of them (0.33%) provided 50% of the aggregate wealth creation, and the top 983 companies (4%) accounted for the full 100%. That means the other 25,000 companies netted out to zero return. Some gave positive returns, while most were net losers.

The average stock which you might pick by throwing darts at the Wall Street Journal listings lost money 52% of the time in any given month, and 51% of the time over the life of the company. The lifetime of the average company was only seven years, with only 10% of companies lasting more than 27 years.

This helps explain why actively managed stock funds, where diligent experts analyze and select some subset of stocks in an attempt to beat the market, typically underperform the broad market indices. This also explains why about half the small-cap stocks I have bought over the years in my little recreational brokerage account have lost money. I had thought I was particularly inept at stock-picking. Turns out I was just about average.

The takeaway for small investors is that they will likely do better putting most of their money in a broad index fund like the low-fee Vanguard S&P500 ETF (VOO), than into individual stocks or specialized funds. That has become my baseline approach.

Two side comments here. First, there are some securities whose return does not depend so much on their price going up, but rather on their paying out a steady high yield of dividends. I find this attractive, since I suspect that the returns on stocks as a whole will be lower in the future than they have been in the past. With a slowdown in population and productivity growth rates, the growth rate of GDP (at least in developed countries like the U.S.) will be slower than in the past century. Corporate earnings generally don’t rise much faster than GDP for an extended period. A big part of the rise in stock prices since 1980 has been the steady decline in interest rates, which rationally drives an increase in the price/earnings ratio. However, it looks like this secular decline in interest rates has run its course; it’s tough to go much below zero percent interest.

For instance, “business development companies” (BDCs) typically make short term, high-interest loans to small, growing companies that regular banks would not lend to. One of the largest, most-stable BDCs is Aries Capital (ARCC) which currently yields 8.6%. I have described several other classes of high yield investments in Adventures in High-Yield Investing, such as real estate investment trusts (REITs) and closed end funds (e.g. ETV, yielding 8.8%) which sell options on stocks or which take advantage of the spread between short term and long term interest rates. FOF is a fund which holds a basket of these closed end funds and which currently yields 8.3% .

The prices of these securities can bounce around a lot, so it can be worth waiting to buy till they come down from their 52-week high, but on the whole I have found them to be worthwhile as a diversification from the main stock market. They might also be attractive as an alternative to, say, European or Japanese stock markets whose price gains do not seem to match those in U.S. stocks.

Second, if you are interested in broader topics like what is money and how it is created in our financial system, the relation between government deficits and trade deficits, how investment creates savings (not the other way around), etc., etc. – – – this article deals with all that stuff: Monetary System .


Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Whatever Happened to Intelligent Design Theorist William Dembski?

Summary: Young earth creationists have knocked out of action one of the most effective advocates for Intelligent Design. This is symptomatic of the rift between these two anti-evolution movements which are both mainly composed of Bible-believing Christians.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Among Christians who take the Bible seriously as revelation, there are three main schools of thought regarding human evolution and the age of the earth. Evolutionary creationists, also known as theistic evolutionists, acknowledge the physical evidence for common ancestry between humans and other primates (e.g. Endogenous Retroviruses in Your Genome Show Common Ancestry with Primates ). They understand that the Bible, including the Genesis creation narrative, was given to teach spiritual truths (II Timothy 3:15-17), not physical history.

There is abundant and clear evidence that the earth is far older than the 6000 years dictated by a literal reading of Biblical genealogies. For instance, we can drill down into glaciers in central Greenland and Antarctica, and observe over 100,000 years of alternating summer/winter ice layers, with no trace of a global Flood. “Old earth” creationists accept the reality of this evidence, but typically reject the notion that humans evolved from other primates.

Young earth (YE) creationists reject both evolution and the notion of an old earth. They propose an alternate reality, in which the earth and the universe are only 6000 years old, and most sedimentary rock layers were laid down in a year-long global Flood. This Flood geology was developed in the early twentieth century by George McCready Price in obedience to the visions of Adventist prophetess Ellen White. John Whitcomb and Henry Morris appropriated Price’s geology while covering up its cultic origin , and published it in 1961 in The Genesis Flood. Weighing in with some 500 pages of dense, footnoted text and figures, The Genesis Flood seemed to offer scientific support for a literal six-day creation.  This evidence was all bogus, but that did not matter. The book became wildly popular among fundamentalists, going through 29 printings. For the century prior to 1961, almost no Christians, fundamentalist or not, held that a young earth and a six 24-hour day creation was justified either biblically or scientifically. By 1970, however, The Genesis Flood had established YE creationism as the standard position among conservative evangelicals in America, with growing numbers of adherents in Australia and the U.K.

The 1991 publication of Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial sparked the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. ID advocates generally fall in the old earth camp. While recognizing the great antiquity of the universe, they attempt to find gaps in our current understanding of the history and mechanisms of evolution. They then use these gaps to claim that the intervention of an Intelligent Agent is necessary to explain today’s biota.

YE creationists are typically quite forthright in stating the religious foundation of their worldview. Their starting point is their particular interpretation of the Bible, and they fit all the physical evidence around that. The earth must be young and thus any evidence that it is old must be flawed. That accounts for their resolute denial of the facts (such as the annual layers in glacier ice) that are conclusive for everyone else.

ID advocates, on the other hand, are more coy about their motivations. They typically purport to be objective scientists who happen to discover evidence for design in the biological world, and who simply wish to broaden the education of schoolchildren by exposing them to “the controversy” over the adequacy of evolutionary theory.

The epicenter of the ID movement is the Discovery Institute in Seattle. A number of pedigreed PhD’s are on staff there, producing books and articles which are intended to withstand the scrutiny of the greater academic world. They are careful to not specify the identity of the Intelligent Designer who must have intervened somehow to produce new batches of plants and animals through the eons of geologic time.

However, outsiders are not fooled. Only God (or some super-intelligent, powerful and long-lived alien civilization) would be capable of making the sorts of repeated genetic interventions over millions of years needed to bridge the alleged gaps in natural evolution. Most of the founders and principals of the Discovery Institute are conservative Christians, and the leaked 1998 manifesto of the Institute, the “Wedge Document”  clearly articulated a religious goal: to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

Relations were initially warm between YE creationists and ID theorists. The large, established YE creationist base helped provide venues for ID speakers, and the academic credentials of the ID scholars lent credibility to the anti-evolution plank of the YE platform. The ID folks minimized mention of their views on the earth’s age, and the YE crowd did not press them on it. In recent years, however, YE creationists have taken to vehemently denouncing old earth creationists as “compromisers”.

Some ID advocates write mainly about observable aspects of the physical world, such as fossils and mutations in DNA. It is straightforward to do basic fact-checking and to show that the conclusions asserted by those ID proponents are insupportable (see e.g. here  on Stephen Meyers’ treatment of the Cambrian explosion, and here  on Jonathan Wells’ “Icons of Evolution”).

The writings of William Dembski, on the other hand, deal with more intangible concepts like information theory. Dembski became a key figure in the ID movement in the 1990’s and beyond. His breakout book was The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (1998), which became something of a best-seller. In this and his other works, Dembski claimed to have demonstrated that the sort of increases in genetic information content required by unguided evolution were mathematically impossible. There is “no free lunch”; only the intervention of an Intelligent Agent can explain the observed “specified complexity” in the biological world.

Critics have published numerous articles denouncing Dembski’s work. They claimed to find inconsistencies and outright errors in his writings. However, due to the nature of the subject, both Dembski’s writings and those of his opponents are somewhat hard for nonspecialists to follow. Thus, his writings were often considered by anti-evolutionists to be unrefuted, and to be the final nail in the coffin of Darwinism.

Opponents of evolution were, of course, delighted to have such a smart and articulate guy confidently proclaiming the demise of Darwinism. For many years he was a golden boy of ID. Books and articles flowed from Dembski’s keyboard, and he was invited to speak in many venues. His face adorned the cover of WORLD magazine. He was a long-time fellow at the Discovery Institute. However, he is no longer is very active in the field. What happened?

He and some ID colleagues set up an ID think tank at Baylor University in 1999. That was soon quashed after an outcry by the other faculty members. In 2006, Dembski took up a faculty position at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) in Fort Worth, Texas, and continued highly visible activities promoting Intelligent Design. Dembski was clear with the seminary that he was an old-earth, not a young-earth creationist.

In 2009 he published The End of Christianity. In that book he attempted to reconcile the evidence from the fossil record that animal suffering and death occurred for millions of years before humans appeared, with the traditional theological notion that this suffering and death is collateral damage from man’s Fall. Western Christianity, following Augustine, has often held that the original peaceable, vegan animal world was plunged into carnivory as a outworking of man’s Fall and the subsequent curse on humans and their world. Dembski accepted this basic premise, and speculated that the effects of man’s sin may have (since God dwells outside of the linear time to which we are constrained) propagated backwards as well as forward in time. Thus, the carnage in the animal world during the eons before humans appeared was indirectly a result of the actions of those later humans. Towards the end of the book, as a sort of afterthought, Dembski mentioned the possibility that Noah’s Flood was actually a local flood in the Middle East, rather than a global deluge.

That, alas, proved to be his undoing. Hard-core YE creationists such as Ken Ham were incensed that Dembski would question the reality of a global Flood. They denounced him coast to coast and orchestrated letter-writing campaigns to his employer, demanding his ouster. Dembski was hauled before an inquisition at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. It was made clear that if he did not satisfy them on the global extent of Noah’s Flood, he would be immediately fired as a heretic.

This put Dembski in an agonizing personal dilemma. If he had been financially solvent, he would have simply resigned right away. However, he had a severely autistic son plus two other children to support, and had no other way to pay the medical bills. He therefore “finessed” it, issuing a statement with sufficient ambiguity to keep him his job, while allowing him to later clarify his actual convictions. He did seek, and find, alternative employment as quickly as possible, first at another seminary, and then (2013-2014) back at the Discovery Institute as a full-time research fellow. Here is how Dembski described this experience at Southwestern :

At the meeting with president, provost, dean, and senior professor, the president made it clear to me from the start that my job was on the line. “Job on the line” in this context does not mean finishing out the academic year and giving me a chance to find another academic job. My questioning the universality of Noah’s flood meant I was a heretic, or at least not suitable for teaching at Southern Baptist seminaries, and thus I’d need to be clearing my desk immediately—unless my theological soundness could be quickly reestablished.

With a severely autistic son, debts, and a family still upset about my experience at Baylor, I wasn’t about to bare my soul and tell this second star chamber (my first being Baylor’s External Review Committee) what I really thought. I therefore finessed it. You can read the statement I wrote for yourself, especially paragraph three, where I said just enough to keep my job, and just enough to give me room to recant, as I’m doing here.

If I had been feeling less vulnerable, if I had independent financial means, I would have said goodbye to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary right then and there. This is one of the things I find most destructive about fundamentalism, the constant threat that at any moment one can run afoul of the orthodoxy du jour, and be thrown under the bus because that’s the proper place for heretics.

This is a deeply unhealthy situation for theological education, leading to a slavish mentality among faculty, who must constantly monitor and censor themselves if they are to stay in the good graces of the fundamentalist power structures.

He remarks further:

Christian orthodoxy is one thing. A “canst thou be more conservative than I?” mentality is another. And this is what I saw emerging.

What’s behind this is a sense of beleaguerment by the wider culture and a desire for simple, neat, pat solutions. Life is messy and the Bible is not a book of systematic theology, but to the fundamentalist mentality, this is unacceptable. …Fundamentalism, as I’m using it, is not concerned with any doctrinal position, however conservative or traditional. What’s at stake is a harsh, wooden-headed attitude that not only involves knowing one is right, but refuses to listen to, learn from, or understand other Christians, to say nothing of outsiders to the faith. Fundamentalism in this sense is a brain-dead, soul-stifling attitude. I see it as a huge danger for evangelicals.

Dembski notes elsewhere that the young earth creationists

…were friendly to ID in the early 2000s, until they realized that ID was not going to serve as a stalking horse for their literalistic interpretation of Genesis. After that, the young-earth community largely turned away from ID, if not overtly, then by essentially downplaying ID in favor of anything that supported a young earth.

The Noah’s Ark theme park in Kentucky is a case in point. What an embarrassment and waste of money. I’ve recently addressed the fundamentalism that I hold responsible for this sorry state of affairs.

For Dembski, “…this entire incident left so bad a taste in my mouth that I resolved to leave teaching, leave the academy, and get into a business for myself, in which my income would not depend on political correctness or, for that matter, theological correctness.”

Thus, in 2014 he retired from active research and teaching in intelligent design, to focus on issues of education, human freedom, and technology. Dembski still believes that ID is correct, and will someday triumph over standard evolution. But his interests have largely “moved on”. In 2016 he resigned his formal associations with the ID community, including his Discovery Institute fellowship of 20 years. He currently supports his family by building educational software and websites.

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments

Fun Things to Fly: Powered Parachutes, Trikes, and Gyroplanes

A few months ago we joined in to buy a family member a remote-control (R/C) airplane that he liked. This Icon A5

Icon A5 Remote Control Plane. From

Icon A5 Remote Control Plane. From

is a fairly heavy model plane, that can fly off the water. Here is a YouTube video of this guy having fun with one of these, flying it at the beach. This video includes pilot’s-view footage shot from the little camera mounted on the plane itself.

After I assembled the plane we bought and looked at the procedure to “bind” and tune the radio transmitter and receiver, and saw the complexity of the controls, I was pretty sure that if we tried to fly it we would quickly wreck it. We did locate a local R/C flying club that will offer help and extensive training when the spring flying season rolls around, but this experience got me looking for a cheap, simple, slow R/C plane that would be easy to learn to fly without the tension of possibly smashing an expensive toy.

I did find such a plane, the Parkzone Night Vapor, which has worked well, and which I will describe in an Appendix here. This experience with R/C planes got me looking at small, relatively inexpensive real flying machines, wondering if there are devices that are cheaper/safer/easier than regular airplanes for taking to the skies.   In this post I will summarize some takeaways from my web-browsing, on three classes of aircraft. People mainly just fly these for fun, like having a motorcycle to take out on the weekend, though ranchers also use them for tasks like inspecting fence-lines and monitoring livestock.

Powered Parachutes

A picture of a typical powered parachute (PPC) is shown below. A three-wheeled cart with 1 or 2 seats, an engine, and a propeller hangs below a gliding parachute canopy. Air is rammed into the front openings of the thirty or so cells which comprise the canopy to keep these cells stiffly inflated, which allows the canopy to keep its shape.

Powered parachute ultralight aircraft in sideview. Photo shot by Derek Jensen (Tysto), 2005-August-29. From .

Powered parachute ultralight aircraft in sideview. Photo shot by Derek Jensen (Tysto), 2005-August-29. From .

Powered parachutes are relatively sedate and easy to fly. They fly at a roughly constant speed of about 30 mph (27 knots). There are only two controls: the engine throttle (faster makes you go up, and slower makes you descend), and foot-operated pedals which tug on some of the support lines to make you go left or right. As you land, you push on both pedals at once to slow it down just before you touch down. That is about all there is to it. Once you are airborne, the PPC pretty much flies itself, so you can focus on enjoying the scenery below. Your hands are free to take photos. These are typically flown at low altitudes like 1000 ft (300 m).

These are flown out of large, grassy fields, not airports. It takes some minutes to lay out the parachute on the grass behind the cart before you gun the engine and start rolling, to pull the parachute along and get it inflated. Cost is about $14,000 for a new one-seater and $20,000 for a two-seater. (All prices here should be taken as approximate). They are small enough with the canopy folded to transport in a small trailer and to store in a garage.

PPCs have a small but devoted following. In the words of one enthusiast:

Why a powered parachute? …OK, OK, well, because:

  • It is probably the most fun you can have with your clothes on.
  • It is the easiest flying vehicle we know about – only two airborne controls….
  • It has an incredible safety record (despite the fact that mere humans are allowed to fly it).

Flying powered parachutes is the closest you may ever come to actualizing those childhood flying dreams. It is the closest you will ever come to soaring with the eagles. Another aircraft may never match the slow & low abilities of the powered parachute. It is an incredibly safe and fun way to sail-the-skies!

This five-minute video (screenshot below) demonstrates the ease of use and the great views.

Screen shot from “Powered Parachute” by Constance Grant,

Screen shot from “Powered Parachute” by Constance Grant,

Here is a map of the U.S. with markers and contact information for many PPC instructors and flying clubs.

Powered Parachutes vs. Powered Paragliders

The typical powered parachute (PPC) trike is fairly heavy and has a large motor, since it holds one or two people and pushes along a large, thick canopy overhead. A similar, much lighter vehicle is the 1-person powered paraglider (PPG) trike or 4-wheeled (quad) cart. This uses a thinner, elliptical, more aerodynamically efficient canopy, and is typically controlled by pulling on control lines with the hands. This canopy is harder than a powered parachute to get inflated and the keep inflated; wind gusts can temporarily collapse it, which can be unnerving and sometimes injurious.

Powered paragliding can also be done without a cart, by strapping the motor and propeller on your back and sprinting into the wind.

Trikes (Microlights)

2-person trike, AirBorne XT912 Tourer. From

2-person trike, AirBorne XT912 Tourer. From

A trike, often called a microlight in Europe, is a kind of powered hang-glider. A three-wheeled cart hangs from a pivot point on the triangular wing. The cart has one or two seats, an engine, and a pusher propeller. A steering bar is attached to the wing. The pilot controls the craft by pushing/pulling on the steering bar. For instance, if he or she pushes the bar to the left, the weight of the cart shifts to the right, tilts the wing, and the craft turns to the right. Pushing the bar forward makes the craft go up, and pulling it back toward the pilot causes the wing to tilt down. There is also an engine throttle to control the speed of the propeller.

This arrangement gives the user a degree of control similar to that of a regular fixed-wing airplane, but with much greater simplicity. No control sticks, cables, pulleys and hinged rudders or ailerons. This makes for low cost, high reliability, and easy learning.

Trikes come in one seat and two seat configurations. Different wings can be selected to give different flying characteristics. Some wings are designed for allowing swooping aerobatics. Smaller wings give higher speeds and improved handling in windy conditions. With a smaller wing, a trike can cruise cross-country at 80 mph (70 knots). People have circumnavigated the globe in trikes, hopping from airfield to airfield. Larger wings make for slower landings and even the ability to soar with the engine off, but more tendency to be blown around by gusts and turbulence.

Northwing ATF soaring trike.

Northwing ATF soaring trike.

The Northwing ATF soaring trike ($13,400) above is one of the lightest trikes. It has a large wing and a light motor to allow soaring on air currents with the engine off. Heavier single-seat trikes are available, with varying amounts of fairing and windshield, typically in the $15,000-$20,000 range. Two-seaters like the one pictured up above are often $40,000-60,000, though you can spend up to $100,000. North Wing, Evolution, Airborne, and Air Creation are some of the most popular manufacturers.

These machines are treated for most intents like a light airplane, taking off and landing on paved runways or smooth grass strips which are preferably at least 500 ft long. Landing speeds are around 35 mph. The wings on trikes can be folded and rolled into a fairly narrow bundle which is approximately 16 ft (5 m) long. Thus, a trike can be disassembled and transported using a trailer. Especially with the larger 2-person trikes, users often just keep them at an airstrip and drive there to fly them. These larger trikes fit in at small to medium sized airports, using radio contact with the tower as appropriate. These larger trikes tend to have fairly complete instrument panels, and function much like a small regular airplane.

Here is the first in a series of YouTube training videos by Paul Hamilton demonstrating how to fly a trike.


Gyroplanes, also called autogiros and gyrocopters, are a cross between regular fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters.

A helicopter has a rotor spinning overhead which provides lift. This rotor is pushed around by a shaft and engine attached to the body of the craft. That tends to make the body spin in the opposite direction of the rotor rotation. To counteract that spinning force, most helicopters have a long tail with a tail rotor, which must be controlled by the pilot. There is a complicated hub mechanism to vary the pitch of the rotor blades in various ways. The construction and piloting of helicopters are relatively complex, making them expensive to build and challenging to fly.

A gyroplane has an engine and propeller which drives it forward (similar to a fixed-wing airplane) and a rotor overhead which spins to provide lift. The rotor is not directly driven by a shaft, but is spun by the air rushing by from the craft’s forward motion through the air. That can be a little hard to visualize, so I will put the technical details of that in an Appendix. Anyway, it means that the rotor hub mechanism can be fairly simple, which means cheap and reliable. The controls are a control stick which tilts the rotor head forward/back/left/right, pedals for the rudder, and the engine throttle.

A gyroplane needs forward motion to take off, to stay airborne, and to land, so in that sense it flies much like a fixed-wing airplane. Photos of four different models of gyroplanes are shown below. They differ in appearance and some mechanical details, but the fundamental operation of all of these aircraft is the same.

Through a peculiarity in Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) certification, in most cases a new gyroplane can only be sold in the U.S. as a kit, where the owner must assemble at least 51% of it. This has been the case for decades. Thus, historically American gyroplanes have been made of easy-to-bolt-together metal tubing, with a lot of the mechanical parts left visible. This kit-build heritage is visible in the first two machines shown below, the Rotor Flight Dynamics Dominator and the Sportcopter Vortex M912. The steering/braking on the Sportcopter gyros give them superior handling on the ground, and the ability for extra short take-off rolls. Pilot protection is also outstanding. The Vortex M912 is exceptionally rugged and powerful, being tailored for ranching operations. With oversized wheels and a beefy suspension, it can land and take off in very rough fields, not just long runways and smooth turf. These models like the Dominator, Lightning, and Vortex are not fancy-looking, but have proven reliable over many years. You can find many YouTube videos featuring them.

Two-seat Dominator from Rotor Flight Dynamics. The long legs of the suspension allow for very long travel for shock absorption upon landing.

Two-seat Dominator from Rotor Flight Dynamics. The long legs of the suspension allow for very long travel for shock absorption upon landing.


The rest of the world has not labored under this kit-build rule. Thus, European companies like Airgyro and Magni have been making sleek-looking, more-enclosed machines and marketing them all over the globe. Most of these are two-seaters. The Airgyro MTO Sport below seems to be Europe’s best-selling gyroplane.

Airgyro MTO Sport.

Airgyro MTO Sport.

American companies now also offer options for a more enclosed feel for the pilot. The Dominator is offered with a more-complete cockpit enclosure. Sport Copter produces the fully-enclosed two-seat Sport Copter II shown below, and is developing a new tandem two-seater.

A single seat gyroplane such as a Dominator or Lightning can be had for around $25,000-35,000, depending on options. You can save money by having the kit parts shipped to you, and then you build it in your garage, following the directions. Comments on the internet indicate that this assembly is not very difficult, but it does take a while. Alternatively, you can travel to the dealer, pay a few thousand dollars extra for the help, and take 2 weeks to assemble it under the guidance of factory technicians. The machine can be test-flown and then shipped to you.

Most two-seaters with tandem seating run around $60,000-90,000, and the models with side-by-side seating cost over $100,000. These prices are about the same as lightweight fixed-wing planes, and around 1.5 times the prices for trikes, while servicing a similar market of recreational fliers.   So why do some folks choose gyroplanes over trikes or light fixed-wing planes?   Gyros have a number of advantages:

( 1) Very short distances are required for take-off and landing. Take-offs can be done in less than 100 ft (30 m), and landings in less than 50 ft (15 m). A really good pilot can set a gyro down with almost no roll. This widens the possibility of fields to fly in and out of, and can be a big safety asset in case of emergency landings in rough spots. However, unless they are taking off into a stiff headwind, gyros have a very slow initial rate of climb, so if there are trees or power lines at the end of the runway, they may need more like an 800 ft runway to fly safely. If bush flying with routine short takeoff and landing on turf is your primary concern, you might be better off with an inexpensive lightweight conventional airplane like the kit-built Zenith 750. This is a 2-seater with an enclosed cockpit.

(2) Attractive flying characteristics: Gyros are immune to stalling, and can fly at very low speeds (e.g. 20 mph/ 18 knots) and also at 80-100 mph. They are very maneuverable, able to fling around the sky and to quickly reverse direction (see e.g. “Dominator Autogyro Being Flown Hard By an Expert” ). The Vortex is renowned for its capability to do extreme aerobatics like loops and barrel rolls. They can take up some of the duties of a helicopter, such as slowly circling for surveillance, at a much lower cost.

(3) They handle winds and turbulence far better than any other aircraft in their size range. The rotor has little surface for the wind to catch. This promotional video for gyros shows a jolly Brit flying in a brisk 35 mph (32 knot) wind. This short video shows another gyro landing in 30 knot gusts with no apparent effects.

Thus, in parts of northern Europe, Canada and the northern U.S., you can get out flying much more frequently with a gyro than with a powered parachute or most trikes, which are not normally flown with winds much over 10 mph. Even the overall winds are calm, thermal air currents can give a very turbulent flight in a PPC or a trike during the middle portion of a sunny day.

Regulations for Ultralight and Sport Aircraft

An aircraft carrying only one person, weighing no more than 254 lb (115 kg), with a fuel capacity of 5 gallons or less, with a top speed of 55 mph, and having certain other features, is deemed an “ultralight” in the U.S. These do not require registration or a pilot’s license, and they do not need FAA-certified inspections or maintenance. They may not be flown over densely-populated areas. The philosophy here seems to be that you are free to kill yourself but not others. The lightest fixed-wing planes and single seat PPCs and trikes are classified as ultralights.

The other craft discussed here mainly fall into the Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) category. These include 2-seat powered parachutes, most trikes, many models of lightweight 1- and 2-seat fixed-wing planes, and some imported gyroplanes. Some parameters for a LSA are a maximum gross (loaded) take-off weight of 1,320 lbs (600 kg, top speed of 138 mph / 120 knots, and a maximum of two seats. These craft are registered with the FAA.

There are sub-categories such as Special (S-LSA) and Experimental (E-LSA). With an S-LSA (but not an E-LSA) you can rent it out or use it for instruction, but nearly all maintenance and the required annual inspection must be done by an FAA-certified repairman. With E-LSA, you can choose any mechanic for the maintenance or do it yourself, you can make modifications, and you can do the annual inspection yourself after taking a 16-hour course. Purchasers of trikes for their own use often choose to exchange the original S-LSA certification of their machine for E-LSA, to make routine maintenance less onerous.

The base case is that only daytime flying below the clouds (Visual Flight Rules) is permitted. Night flying and even instrument flying is possible, depending on the pilot’s training level and the aircraft’s equipment.

The other key category is “Experimental Amateur-Built” (E-AB). This can be practically anything that flies, as long the “major portion” was built by built by a person or group of persons solely for education and recreation. Maintenance can be done by anyone, and annual inspections by the original builder or an FAA certified repairman. Most gyroplanes sold in the U.S. fall in this category.

For all these LSA and E-AB machines, a Sport Pilot license is required to fly. Among other things, this entails classroom instruction, written exams and at least 20 hours (12 hours for powered parachute) of flight training. The total training can cost $5,000-10,000. However, this is less onerous than for a regular Private Pilot license (about 40 hours). It can save some money and inconvenience to take some of these instructional flight hours in a generic airplane at a nearby airport, to get the overall feel for flying and for airport tower protocol, before traveling to some distant airport to receive the more expensive training on your particular class of aircraft like a trike or gyro.

Most other developed countries have similar aircraft certification categories to make it easier for people to own and fly very small aircraft.

Comparison to Regular Planes and Helicopters

These flying machines seem expensive, but they are much cheaper than new regular airplanes or helicopters. Also, they typically hold enough value that you can sell them after ten years and recoup most of your purchase price.

To buy a new 4-seat regular, fully-instrumented fixed-wing plane like a Cessna Skyhawk or Piper Warrior costs over $300,000. These planes land at about 60 knots (66 mph). I have seen 2015-2016 kit-built replicas of the old (1939-1947) Piper Cub 2-seaters selling for around $130,000.  A new Robinson R-22 2-seat helicopter is about $250,000. One can, of course, purchase older used fixed-wings and helos for much less than new models. Refurbished original c. 1940 Cubs go for around $40,000-80,000.

There are many ultralight/light sport fixed-wing airplanes available. Wikipedia lists a number of 2-seat, enclosed cockpit planes which are mainly in the $50-150,000 range. Some are feathery ultralights, others look more like traditional planes. Phantom Aeronautics has long supplied popular ultralight-type planes in kit form. These cost about $25,000 for a one-seater and $35,000 for a two-seater.

Rotor FX supplies an ultralight (max 254 lb) fully functioning single-seat helicopter for about $42,000. This Mosquito XE is bare bones (no enclosure for the pilot), and requires no license in the U.S. to fly. Adding any options or going to upgraded models adds only modest cost, but the added weight tips the craft into a new category where a full helicopter license is required. Helicopter flying takes more training than fixed-wing.

The price range for gyroplanes is slightly lower than but similar to the prices for comparable (1-seat, 2-seat) light sport fixed-wing aircraft. Trikes are cheaper, and powered parachutes are the least expensive, for two-person capacity. In terms of ease of learning and use, the powered parachute (PPC) is the easiest, followed by trikes and then gyroplanes, which seem about as demanding to learn to fly as a small fixed-wing plane.

Here is a comparison of many types of ultralight (single person) flying devices, including hang gliders and clusters of helium balloons. Also, here is a detailed, tabular comparison of various lightweight aircraft (trikes, PPCs, gyros, fixed-wing) with a lot of good information but with a bias towards trikes.

My Personal Takeaway

I hope the information collected here may be of use to someone who is considering getting into flying. I had not really thought about flying before, but all of this reading has boosted my confidence in the safety of these aircraft when they are piloted correctly.

If I lived out in farm country, a PPC would be quite attractive — they look very easy to fly, and if the engine died or some other in-flight emergency occurred, you could set it down in some field. Trikes seem almost as easy to fly as a PPC, and are more maneuverable, which makes them more fun to fly, and would help if you had to aim for some smaller landing patch. They also have a faster cruising speed and use less gas per mile than a PPC. Adding a ballistic parachute makes trike flying extra safe. If I wanted to just buzz around in the air in fair, calm weather, a trike seems the most attractive. If I wanted to be able to fly in more windy conditions, or do more aerobatics, I’d go with a gyro, even though in the U.S. that would likely mean having to invest a couple of weeks in building one from a kit.

So I am mulling taking a training flight in a trike or gyro. Often instructors will let you have the controls once you are well above the ground. It would be a gratifying bucket list item to do some actual flying, if only for a short time.

List of Appendices

APPENDIX A. The Maverick: A Flying Car

APPENDIX B. How a Gyroplane Works

APPENDIX C. Safety Issues

APPENDIX D. Parkzone Night Vapor Remote Control Plane


APPENDIX A. The Maverick: A Flying Car

When reading about “flying cars”, which are street-legal cars that can transform into aircraft, I ran across the Maverick . This is a street legal dune-buggy which can do 0-60 mph in a blistering 3.9 seconds…

Maverick flying car (parawing furled and stowed).

Maverick flying car (parawing furled and stowed).

…and which can also sprout a parawing to fly at 40 mph:

 Maverick flying car with parawing deployed.

Maverick flying car with parawing deployed.

The parawing is supported by a clever telescoping mast, which helps get the parawing inflated without dragging it on the ground, and gives extra stability in crosswinds. It sells for $94,000 in kit form. This is much less than the $300,000 price tag for most other flying cars , and its simplicity and standard automotive engine make for low maintenance.   Since this is essentially a powered parachute, only modest piloting skills are required.

This flying car was developed by the Indigenous People’s Technology and Education Center (I-TEC). This non-profit organization develops technology to meet the needs of indigenous peoples such as those in the Amazon basin. It was founded by Steve Saint. His father, Nate Saint, was one of five American missionaries who were killed in 1956 by the people that they made contact with in the Amazon jungle of Ecuador. Two years later, Nate’s sister and one of the five widows went to live among this tribe and share the love of God with them. At age 10, Steve started spending summers with the tribe, and was later baptized in a jungle river by the man who had years earlier speared Steve’s father by that same river.

Steve went to the U.S. for education and settled in Florida. In 1995, at the request of the elders of the Ecuadorean tribe, Steve returned with his family to live among them for a year. There he realized the need for appropriate technology and training to allow indigenous peoples to better their lives with minimal ongoing dependence on outsiders. Steve’s ITEC organization does things like re-engineer dental and eyeglass equipment to make it more portable and affordable. They developed the Maverick as a means to e.g. deliver emergency medical assistance where there are no good roads.

APPENDIX B. How a Gyroplane Works

The blades of the gyroplane rotor have an airfoil cross-section, similar to an airplane wing. This creates lift as the rotor rotates through the air. For a gyroplane to climb or keep going in level flight, there must be an engine and propeller to push the craft forward. The plane of the rotor rotation is tilted slightly backward, so that there is a net airflow up through the spinning rotor disk. The blades are pitched so that the net force of the relative airflow keeps the blades spinning. This is called autorotation.

This may be hard to visualize. This essay by Jeff Lewis uses diagrams like this to show the forces on the rotor blades:

 Sketch of forces on gyroplane rotor blade. Source: Autogyro History and Theory , by Jeff Lewis

Sketch of forces on gyroplane rotor blade. Source: Autogyro History and Theory , by Jeff Lewis

I find it helpful to think of how a sailboat with its sail at the correct angle can actually sail into the wind. Perhaps the simplest case to think about is if the forward-driving propeller is turned off and the gyroplane is descending with no forward driving. This type of autorotation situation is how helicopters can land safely even if their engine stops. This Wikipedia article on autorotation gives insights here.

It gets a bit more complicated if you dig deeper into the rotor aerodynamics. The middle half of the rotor blade generates the net rotational driving force, and drives the outer quarter of the blade, which is where much of the lift is generated. Centrifugal force straightens out the droopy blades. The blade holder is hinged like a see-saw at the hub, so the blade that is advancing into the oncoming air can flap up, and the retreating blade flaps down. This equalizes the lift on either side. The bottom line is, once the blades are spinning and the rotors oriented so there is net air flow up through them, they will spin and generate lift.

Juan de la Cierva of Spain invented the modern “autogiro” in the early 1920s. Improved versions were produced in the U.S. by Harold Pitcairn’s Pitcairn Autogiro Company. These early gyroplanes looked like regular airplanes with stubby wings, and with a rotor added on top. Here is a photo of two of these birds (one autogiro in the foreground, the other far behind it) flying past the partly-completed George Washington Bridge over New York’s Hudson River in 1930.

“Pitcairn PCA-2 Certification flight over George Washington bridge (under construction) November, 1930. Courtesy of Stephen Pitcairn”. Source: brochure for conference “From Autogiro to Gyroplane: The Past, Present and Future of an Aviation Industry”, Hofstra University 2003.

“Pitcairn PCA-2 Certification flight over George Washington bridge (under construction) November, 1930. Courtesy of Stephen Pitcairn”. Source: brochure for conference “From Autogiro to Gyroplane: The Past, Present and Future of an Aviation Industry”, Hofstra University 2003.

These gyroplanes were seen as cutting edge aviation technology in the 1930’s, appearing in movies and adventure stories and on the pages of popular science magazines. With their short takeoff and landing capabilities, they were used for a U.S. mail shuttle from between the Camden, New Jersey airport and the top of the post office building in downtown Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Commercial interest in gyroplanes largely died out after World War II with the advent of practical helicopters which could hover and could take off and land vertically.

The gyroplane was reborn as a recreational aircraft when Russian-American Igor Bensen came up with a minimalist, easy-to-build design, with an engine and a pusher propeller mounted behind the pilot’s seat. Starting in 1955, thousands of enthusiasts purchased plans, mounted VW engines, and took to the skies in their home-built Bensen and similar “gyrocopters”.

Bensen model B-8M in Canada Aviation Museum.

Bensen model B-8M in Canada Aviation Museum.

It was exhilarating to swoop around like a bird and perch on a seat with no cockpit or wing to block the view. This 1970’s gyrocopter training film is like a time capsule – – it features one of these old-style gyrocopters and shows the pilot reaching up and getting his rotor spinning by hand, the old-fashioned way.

Unfortunately, many of these home-grown aviators were killed in accidents. This was partly because they often tried to learn to fly by themselves, without sound instruction. The other factor is that the gyrocopter designs of those decades often had serious safety flaws that the autogyros of the 1930’s were not subject to. If the thrust centerline of the pusher propeller lies above the center of gravity, a wrong move on the pilot’s part can lead to irrecoverable forward tumbling of the machine. Also, because they lacked a substantial horizontal stabilizer fin out on the tail, they were unstable toward disturbances like wind gusts. If a pilot overcorrected with the control stick in one direction and then overcorrected in the other direction, he could again end up putting the gyro into a tumble. All this gave gyroplanes a poor reputation for safety.

As these problems became known, gyroplane configurations were changed to correct them. All modern gyro designs have horizontal stabilizers and seat the pilot high enough to closely match the thrust centerline and center of gravity. Also, since gyros are too heavy enough to qualify as ultralights, new users now must get training as they go through the flight instruction for a Sport Pilot license. This is a video of an hour-long lesson in flying gyros.

For most aircraft, taking off is extremely easy: once the plane gets enough speed to leave the ground, you can commence climbing at a fairly constant rate. With gyros, there is a minor quirk — it is often necessary after the initial lift-off to bring the nose down, level out, and fly low for a few more seconds to build speed and to get the rotor revved up, before resuming a climb. This is demonstrated in this smooth take-off and landing on a runway in Quebec.

Modern gyros have pre-rotators to get the rotor spinning at close to take-off speeds, but usually it takes a bit of a take-off roll plus this brief level flight to rev the rotor up. I have looked at a number of YouTube videos of gyros crashing upon take-off, and most of them are due to pilot error in this regard. (The comments posted on gyro and trike crash YouTube videos usually analyze exactly what went wrong). Hauling back on the stick at low rotor speeds will not generate more lift. These crashes look spectacular, with pieces of broken rotors flying in the air, but since they are from low altitudes and since the gyro landing gear and rotor mast form a sort of roll cage around the pilot, pilots do not seem to get hurt.

A good pilot in a first-class machine can get away with revving up the prerotator to the max, and leaping into the air with almost no take-off roll. That is illustrated with a turbocharged Vortex M912 in this video. That video also shows the gyro plopping down to land in a rough field with almost no landing roll. With a gyro you can haul back on the stick at the last minute, and let the stored energy in the rotor stop the forward motion and lower you to the ground.

CarterCopters is working on advanced gyroplane technology which will allow fully vertical take-offs and landings , and also higher-speed cruising flight.

APPENDIX C. Safety Issues

I have mentioned a number of safety concerns here, but these should not be exaggerated. I have seen references to various studies indicating that owning and operating one of these aircraft is no more dangerous than having a motorcycle.

In general, these aircraft do not just fall out of the sky. Problems typically stem from pilot error on take-off and landing, or from a forced landing due to engine failure in flight. Engine failures seem more common with two-cycle than with four-cycle engines. Two-strokes are lighter and cheaper, and have fewer moving parts. However, they require frequent overhauls which may be neglected, and it is essential to take time to warm them up. Some users claim that if you stick with the premier Rotax brand two-stroke and keep it maintained, it is quite reliable.

A key rule here is to never fly where you cannot glide to a decent landing spot if the engine fails. This may involve flying higher in order to have a longer glide path to a distant field in the event of engine failure. This may confine low-flying PPCs to flat agricultural areas which always have a field nearby. There are numerous YouTube videos of engine-out landings in some farmer’s field with PPCs, trikes, and gyroplanes, and they usually end well. Trikes that fly cross-country over mountains and forests often have a rocket-assisted big parachute attached to the frame – if the machine has to descend but there is no level smooth place for a regular landing at 35 mph, deploying this parachute can bring the craft straight down fairly safely.

Some other safety practices are to keep people on the ground away from the invisible disk of the spinning prop, and to wear flotation gear when flying over water. Also, do not try to fly in winds that are too much for your machine and your level of skill. That is a good way to crash a PPC or trike on take-off or landing, though because the speeds are relatively low and the occupants are somewhat protected by the seat cage, serious injury is unlikely.

As noted above, in the past gyrocopters had a poor safety record, and they do take more skill and training to fly. However, I have read several comments by seasoned pilots stating that they regarded gyroplanes as the safest of all aircraft when flown properly. This is due to their stability in the face of wind gusts, and their ability in case of engine failure to glide down (the rotor will keep rotating) and set down in a tiny space.  This three-minute video illustrates this – the gyro pilot lost power shortly after take-off, and flutters down with a cliff on one side and a road with cars on the other. Only a tiny flat spot is available among the boulders, and he manages to set the gyro down there, undamaged. No plane or trike could have done that.

APPENDIX D. Parkzone Night Vapor Remote Control Plane

As noted above, part of what got me reading about inexpensive/light/slow sport aircraft was finding a high performance inexpensive/light/slow remote control (R/C) airplane. The Parkzone Night Vapor, available for about $125 from Amazon or a local hobby shop, flies well and looks nice. I’d recommend it for good clean fun, and as a present for any guy over age 8 or so. A 40-second video of it flying is here .

Parkzone Night Vapor lightweight R/C plane. From .

Parkzone Night Vapor lightweight R/C plane. From .

It only weighs 16.4 g (0.6 oz), and flies along at the pace of a brisk walk. That gives beginners plenty of time to make their moves on the controls without stressing. The slow speed does mean that you can only fly it in near-calm winds, or else indoors (e.g. in a gym or large garage). The large control surfaces give lots of maneuverability. The LED lights allow for flying at dusk or night. Unlike cheaper R/C planes which appear on Amazon, this plane has high-quality parts and uses the Spektrum DSM2 radio technology which is standard in the R/C world. With the Bind-n-Fly (BNF) version, you supply the transmitter (which is what you hold in your hands and has the control sticks). The Ready-to-Fly (RTF) version includes a transmitter.

As long as you keep it over grass, you can crash it innumerable times without damage. It will take off and land nicely on pavement, but if flown on pavement or indoors, at some point you will likely break the propeller shaft. Like all the parts on this plane, the prop shaft can be replaced, but you might want to pre-order a spare pair of prop shafts and props from Amazon. I ripped the wing cover away from the wing frame whilst retrieving the plane from a tree, and was able to re-glue it with a tiny thread of epoxy applied with a toothpick.

A couple of spare batteries with the ultra-micro connection will extend the flight time. I got larger-capacity batteries (125 mAh) for longer flights. I secure them in the airplane battery holder with a thin strip of masking tape. I also got a battery charger which plugs into a USB port. Other tips on getting the most out of the Night Vapor can be found on the internet.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

A Creationist Speaker Comes to Town

By the early 1800s European geologists (many of them devout Christians) realized that the rock layers they observed had to be far older than the 6000 years allowed by a literal interpretation of Bible chronology. For instance, as discussed here , angular unconformities like that shown below could not been formed in the course of the one-year-long Flood of Noah.

Angular Unconformity at Siccar Point, Scotland. Siccar Point, Scotland (Photo: Wikipedia “Hutton’s Unconformity”)

Angular Unconformity at Siccar Point, Scotland. Siccar Point, Scotland (Photo: Wikipedia “Hutton’s Unconformity”)


Numerous other evidences for an old earth have been observed by scientists over the past two hundred years. These include fossil soils, and massive deposits of salt and of limestone in the midst of sedimentary rock layers, and tens of thousands of annual layers in lake bottom deposits (“varves”) and in glaciers (see Some Simple Evidences for an Old Earth). We can trace, in reasonable detail, the movements of the sections of earth’s crust over the past half-billion years. The common ancestry of living things (implying that humans descended from other primates) is established by many lines of evidence (see, e.g.   29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent ).

Nevertheless, something like 20%-40% (depending on how the questions are phrased) of Americans believe that the earth and its plants and animals were formed less than 10,000 years ago. The table below is an excerpt of the results from a 2008 Harris poll. It shows a large minority rejecting the findings of modern science in favor of a recent, supernatural creation.

How is this possible? The Harris poll identified the generally weak scientific knowledge in the American public as a key contributing factor. However, that is only part of the explanation.

Creationist Organizations Spread Their Message

The major driver for the popularity of young earth (YE) creationist beliefs is the ongoing activities of organizations such as Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society, and Creation Ministries International.   These groups energetically publish books, journals, magazines and web articles to promote their message. Here is an example of a glossy quarterly put out by Answers in Genesis:

Answers magazine, Oct-Dec 2014 issue

Answers magazine, Oct-Dec 2014 issue

Like many of the YE creationist magazines aimed at the general public, this issue has a large, colorful photo of an animal on the cover. In this case it is an Allosaurus. Various articles in this magazine tell readers that the physical facts (including dinosaur fossils) are best explained by a recent creation, and that any interpretation of the Bible other than YE creationism is untenable.

Most of these organizations also send out speakers to promote their message. I have first-hand experience of how effective these presentations can be. In the 1970’s I attended lectures by John Whitcomb. Whitcomb was a co-author of The Genesis Flood (1961), the book which launched the modern YE creationist movement.     This encounter with Whitcomb converted me, for a time, to his view that the earth was created only about 6000 years ago and that most of the sedimentary rock layers were laid down in Noah’s worldwide Flood. He presented a number of evidences (e.g. failures of radiometric dating, polystrate fossils, fossils out of order, etc.) to demonstrate that the geologists were wrong to claim that the earth is many millions of years old. It was encouraging to me as a Christian to be told that the physical evidence showed the Bible was right (and the secularists were wrong) on origins. It was some years later that I learned enough about the science to realize that none of these young earth evidences are valid.

I recently noticed that young earth (YE) creationist author Jonathan Sarfati would be giving a presentation at a church within driving distance of where I was, so I decided to drop in and check it out. I have read many books and articles by young earth (YE) creationists in the past decade, but had not heard a young earth speaker in person since those lectures by Whitcomb forty years ago.

Jonathan Sarfati, YE creationist author and speaker. Source:

Jonathan Sarfati, YE creationist author and speaker. Source:

Dr. Sarfati is one of several speakers from Creation Ministries International who have been crisscrossing America on an “Exposing Evolution’s Fatal Flaws” tour. He was born in Australia and was educated in New Zealand, earning a PhD in physical chemistry. He has been active promoting YE creationism for many years. He has authored a number of books, including Refuting Evolution, which has reportedly sold 450,000 copies, making it the best-selling YE creationist book ever. He is also a chess master. He was chess champion of New Zealand, and achieved a draw against former world chess champion Boris Spasky in tournament play. He has played up to twelve opponents at once in exhibitions where he is blindfolded and faced away from the chess boards and is only told the opponents’ moves.  He is obviously a bright man.


First Session: The rest of the Bible demands treating Genesis as literal history, with recent six-day creation

Dr. Sarfati seems to be a highly capable YE creationist advocate, so I was interested in what he had to say. Dr. Sarfati had a well-honed presentation, with professional-quality slides. His demeanor was pleasant but serious. The presentation was divided into three sessions. The first two sessions were lectures with slides, first on Bible interpretation and then on scientific issues. The final session was an extended question and answer time. In order to convey the experience of this presentation, I will first describe what happened in the three sessions. Afterwards, I will offer my assessment on the validity of what was said.

In this first session, he went through a number of Bible passages, arguing that Christians must take the Genesis creation account to be literally true – creation of the world about 6000 years ago and special creation of animals and of humans (no human common ancestry with other primates). All animals (this would include lions, sharks, etc.) were originally vegan, only eating “green plants” (per Gen. 1:30). There was no human or animal death until after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Carnivory only appeared after the Fall. He branded Christians who don’t embrace this literal interpretation of Genesis as “compromisers”.

To support this contention, Dr. Sarfati cited a number of passages where the author or speaker seemed to allude to the Genesis creation story as if it had actually occurred as written. These passages included Mark 10:6-9, Exodus 20:8-11, I Cor. 15:21-22, Romans 8:19-22, Isaiah 11:6-9, Isaiah 65:25 , and John 3:12.


Second Session: An attempt to disprove evolutionary science

After the break, Dr. Sarfati presented scientific evidence related to evolution. He showed various slides and videos demonstrating the intricacy of the molecular “machines” which operate within the cell to perform, e.g. duplication of DNA and synthesis of proteins. To have functioning life requires many things working together. It does not seem reasonable that all this complexity could have assembled by itself randomly, so natural selection cannot explain first life.

He told us that substantial lengths of dinosaur DNA have been found in dinosaur bones, yet scientific studies show that DNA decomposes within some thousands of years. Therefore, these bones cannot be millions of years old. This was Dr. Sarfati’s most powerful scientific evidence for a young earth, and it seemed to impress his audience. (It is also untrue, as we will discuss below).

He noted that to go from simple bacteria to vertebrates like humans requires an increase in information content. He pointed out that the breeding of dogs for e.g. short vs. long fur does not involve new genetic information, but is merely the sorting of existing genes.

Dr. Sarfati then proceeded to mislead his audience as to the availability of evolutionary mechanisms to increase genetic information. He characterized mutations as just making things worse (“going downhill”), so they cannot be a source of new information: “A typo [copying error] only makes things worse”.


Final Session: Question and Answer Period

The final portion of the workshop was a Q&A session. Dr. Sarfati made it clear at the outset that he did not welcome depth dialog. He stated that any question was welcome, “as long as it is really a question”. With that rule of engagement, he could shut scientists like me down from giving the audience the full information on an issue by interrupting and saying, “OK, so what is your question?” He could then give a pat half-truth answer and move on. So it did not seem productive for me to ask a question.

The first question from the audience was: How do evolutionists explain the DNA found in dinosaurs? Dr. Sarfati replied that they don’t seem to have any explanation; they just point to “unknown mechanisms”. He then flashed a slide showing some rates of decomposition of DNA at various temperatures, explaining that scientists have measured these rates and obtained chemical kinetics for them. This gave the impression that there is a single, standard, well-established rate of DNA decomposition, which precludes the survival of any DNA after millions of years.

Dr. Sarfati had stock answers for other questions. For instance, an obvious problem for young earth creationism is all the light that we can see coming from stars and galaxies and stellar explosion events which are millions of light-years away. When someone asked him about this, he did not directly answer it. Rather, he parried the question by replying that the Big Bang has its own problem with starlight – the “horizon problem”.

Another big problem for a young earth are all the radioactive dating measurements, the vast majority of which give self-consistent dates for a given rock. These dates are often millions or billions of years old. His response to a question about this was to claim that the YE creationist RATE program had found evidence of faster radioactive decay in the past.

Dr. Sarfati claimed that the fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution but rather special creation, and claimed specifically that australopithecine fossils are more different from both humans and apes than humans and apes are from each other, and thus are not valid representatives of ape/human intermediate species. To support that claim, he cited a quote from scientist Charles Oxnard to the effect that australopithecines are “further from both chimpanzees and humans than chimpanzees and humans are from each other”.


Brief Assessment of the Presentation

Dr. Sarfati’s scriptural case and his scientific case for a young earth are both deeply flawed. To dig through all this in full detail would require an entire book. In the two lengthy Appendices below I will point out the most basic mistake in his Bible treatment, and will note most of the errors in his science.

I did not talk directly with the folks who attended this presentation, but I would guess that they came away feeling more confirmed in their young earth views. Unless the audience had some science background and took the trouble to seriously assess the back-and-forth arguments on young/old earth issues like radioactive dating and fossils, his presentation would leave them with the impression that the physical evidence shows that the earth actually is young. And if one does not grasp the scientific picture, there is little motivation to think past simplistic literalism in Bible interpretation.

As noted earlier, the physical evidence for an old earth and for macroevolution is consistent and pervasive. However, it takes some careful thought to evaluate it properly. For instance, the occurrence of thousands of viral insertions at the same spots in human and chimp genomes is extremely powerful evidence for common ancestry (see here), but it is not something that is easily conveyed in a 30-second sound bite.

Unfortunately, Christians who have imbibed the young earth viewpoint will likely not have the motivation, energy, and capacity to really sift through the physical evidence that challenges their comfortable paradigm. There is a vicious cycle involved here – – believers who fear that an old earth threatens their faith will find it nearly impossible to give real science a fair hearing, and so they stay locked into the YE view.   For me, a PhD research scientist, it was a multi-year, emotionally-fraught process to realize that neither the YE creationists nor the Intelligent Design proponents were telling the truth  (see Evolution and Faith: My Story, Part 1  ).

Dr. Sarfati and his colleagues are sincerely working to try to support the faith of Christians in the face of modern science, and in many cases they accomplish their goal. YE creationist web sites display glowing testimonials by believers who were greatly comforted to be told that the physical evidence supports their simple, traditional understanding of Genesis, and that all the messy suffering and evil in nature and present human relations can be neatly explained away as the consequences of Adam’s sin. I myself remember the warm glow of certainty and coherence I felt in my former days as a YE creationist.

However, when Christians who have been told that a young earth view is an essential part of the faith realize that that view is based squarely on falsehood, the impact on their faith can be devastating. As Christian students in secular colleges engage in depth with genuine geology or biology, thousands of them find that all the physical evidence shows that the earth is actually old, and that humans actually physically evolved from other primates. Since speakers like Dr. Sarfati have taught them that “If an old earth or evolution is true, the Bible is false”, many of these students logically conclude that, since the earth is old and evolution is true, therefore the Bible must be false. Christian geology and biology professors routinely report disillusioned YE creationist students coming to their office in tears.

Also, most scientifically educated people will be unable to give the gospel a fair hearing, if they are told that a recent, sudden creation is an essential part of Christianity. A missionary to the former Soviet Union has lamented:

The worst aspect of YECS [Young Earth Creation Science] teaching is that it creates a nearly insurmountable barrier between the educated world and the church… How many have chosen to give up their faith altogether rather than to accept scientific nonsense or a major reinterpretation of Scripture? How much have we dishonored our Lord by slandering scientists and their reputation? How much have we sinned against Christian brothers holding another opinion by naming them “dangerous” and “compromisers”?

The scientific literacy of the mass of Americans remains at a relatively low level, which leaves them vulnerable to the advocacy of the YE creationist organizations. These groups show no sign of slowing down, so YE creationism will likely remain influential for many years to come.

It is very difficult to get an adult to change his or her opinion on a core value, such as politics or religion. However, younger people may be more open to considering a range of views before locking into one position. It is possible for a high school or college science teacher to become more effective in confuting the young earth/anti-evolution teachings that students may be exposed to at home. As time permits, the teacher should be aware of the specific claims made by YE creationists (e.g. “radioactive dating is unreliable” or “mutations only make things worse” or “the fossil record does not show intermediate species”) and present material in class which specifically refutes these claims.

Various resources are available for this task. The National Center for Science Education has a page with many links to resources for classroom teachers. That page includes, for instance, a link  to a Berkeley article which lists and corrects many common misconceptions regarding evolution.

There are articles on this blog deal with related topics such as transitional fossils, the Cambrian explosion, junk DNA, beneficial mutations and increases in genetic information, “out-of-order” fossils, fossils of pre-humans, genetic evidence for chimp/human common ancestry, geology of the Grand Canyon, soft tissue in dinosaur fossil bones, straightforward evidences for an old earth, and proposed evidences for a young earth.

Although it hasn’t been updated much in the past decade, the most comprehensive list of YE creationist claims, with rebuttals, is at TalkOrigins.  Old Earth Ministries has a shorter list which is more focused on geological issues.

In 2010 Dr. Sarfati published another anti-evolution book, titled The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution. This book makes many of the usual YE creationist claims. The book is critically reviewed, chapter by chapter, in a series of 2013-2014 posts at “”. These posts contain a great deal of general information refuting young earth assertions.


APPENDIX A. Assessment of the Science Claims in the Presentation

I will remark here on most of the scientific claims made by Dr. Sarfati in his presentation. There is an intrinsic asymmetry problem with addressing the alleged evidences for a young earth — it may take the YE creationist only a few seconds to make some claim (e.g. “the Big Bang has its own problem with starlight” or “the fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution”), but it often requires many minutes to refute the claim, since a good deal of background science must be brought in. This makes it difficult to counter the glib, well-honed claims of YE advocates.

This is why it is pointless to try to engage in an oral debate with YE creationists. They can rattle off false talking points far faster than a genuine scientist can possibly correct them. My lengthy treatment here of some of the scientific points raised by Dr. Sarfati will illustrate this asymmetry – – it takes many paragraphs to explain why some of his one-liners are erroneous. 

( a ) DNA in Dinosaur Bones

The key researcher in this area is Professor Mary Schweitzer. Dr. Sarfati’s claim that substantial amounts of dinosaur DNA have been found is based on her 2013 paper in the journal Bone. Her team found that some chemical staining agents, which bind to DNA, stained certain regions in the cells in a T. Rex bone. This result is consistent with the presence of some dinosaur DNA, but it is by no means certain that this is actually dinosaurian DNA. Again and again over the past twenty years scientists have claimed to have discovered dino DNA, only to be proven wrong. The only way to be sure this is actually dino DNA is to get it sequenced (i.e. determine the sequence of the “letters” of the DNA code along the strand).

However (and this is something that Dr. Sarfati did not tell us), the amount of DNA in the dino cells was so meager that nothing could be recovered for sequencing, and so we do not know if this is actual dinosaur DNA. In fact, only about 15-20% of the dinosaur cells showed any response to staining, and for those that did respond, the staining was very faint. These stains did not require very long sequences of DNA (only 10-20 base pairs) for binding. For reference, the human genome has about 3 billion base pairs.

Schweitzer herself has made it clear that it is premature to claim that authentic dinosaur DNA has been found [March 2016 interview, ]:

The challenge isn’t necessarily in finding DNA [in the bones], it’s in making a strong case that the DNA is dinosaurian in origin by ruling out other sources. Is it possible that we may someday recover authentic DNA from dinosaur bone? The scientific answer is “yes”…..all things are possible until disproven. Have we disproven this possibility? No. Have we recovered “authentic” dinosaur DNA? No.

Dr. Sarfati presented a slide with some numbers for the rate of decomposition of DNA at various temperatures. These numbers showed that DNA would completely decompose in a matter of thousands of years. Therefore, if any fragments of dino DNA remained in the dino bones, these bones could not possibly be tens of millions of years old. He presented these rates of DNA decomposition as “chemical kinetics”, implying these were appropriately measured, reliable rates which defined the rate of DNA loss in dino bones.

However, this is completely false. All we can say with certainty about the rate of decomposition of DNA in bones in the ground is “They vary wildly”. This is true in general for the decay of biological substances. For instance, as discussed here  all the flesh can decay from the face of a human corpse in a month under warm, humid conditions. On the other hand, a 2200-year-old corpse was discovered in a peat bog in Denmark with the face in largely perfect condition. This means that bog-man’s flesh decayed more than 25,000 times slower (one month vs 2200 years) than observed for other corpses. This illustrates the extreme differences that are possible for biological decomposition.

Tomas Lindahl [T. Lindahl, “Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA.” Nature 362(6422):709-715. 1993] reviewed the literature for DNA decomposition in water, concluding, “Fully hydrated DNA is spontaneously degraded to short fragments over a time period of several thousand years at moderate temperature.” However, even for these laboratory studies, the rate of decomposition could vary by a factor of 5-10, depending on the ionic strength (salts concentration). Also, factors such as dehydration, adsorption on bone pore surfaces, and exclusion of air make it impossible to directly apply these test-tube results to the survival of DNA in actual dinosaur fossils. So again, there is no one single authentic DNA decomposition rate.

Probably the most comprehensive study to date on the decay of DNA in fossil bones was made on leg bones of extinct giant moa birds in New Zealand [ “The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils“, Morten E. Allentoft, et al.    Proc. R. Soc. B (2012) 279, 4724–4733]. The 158 leg-bones, which were between 600 and 8,000 years old, were recovered from three sites within 3 miles of each other. Here are the data:

Residual DNA in fossil moa leg bones  [ "The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils", Morten E. Allentoft, et al.    Proc. R. Soc. B (2012) 279, 4724–4733].

Residual DNA in fossil moa leg bones [ “The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils”, Morten E. Allentoft, et al. Proc. R. Soc. B (2012) 279, 4724–4733].

There is a downhill slope to the data, showing a general decline in residual DNA with age of the fossils. When the authors fit the straight line through the data as shown, this fit gave a half-life of 521 years for the DNA. At a temperature of, say, 5 C, the author’s model predicts that all the DNA would decompose within 900,000 years.

If this model were rigorous and if it applied to dinosaur bones, this would preclude the possibility of finding any DNA in dino bones. However, the data here are enormously scattered; an R-squared value of 0.386 indicates a very poor fit to the straight line.   One could fit a slightly curved, instead of straight, line through the data and derive much different model predictions.

I circled in red a set of results all from about 2700 years ago. The DNA amounts vary from about 0.002 to 100. That is a factor of 500,000 difference from least to most, showing the enormous variability of results just within this relatively small, homogeneous data set. The authors of this moa study admitted that it could not be directly applied to dinosaurs. The fact is that we simply do not know what the decay rates of the last little traces of DNA should be inside a particular giant T. rex thighbone, buried under its own unique conditions.

To summarize all this: Dr. Sarfati claimed that (1) substantial amounts of dinosaurian DNA have definitely been found in a T. rex thighbone, and (2) the rate of DNA decomposition is clearly known, and is so fast that no DNA could survive for millions of years. He thus misled his audience, since both of these assertions are false.

It is worth noting that if the dinosaur fossils really were buried in a worldwide flood only 4500 years ago, we should easily be able to extract loads of DNA from these fossils. It is routine to extract long sequences of DNA from fossils of humans and other fossils that date back over 100,000 years, and even the in-vitro studies of DNA decomposition show that plenty of DNA should still be available in 4500-year-old dinosaur bones. The fact that no one has recovered verified dinosaur DNA, and we have to work to try to detect the faintest traces of DNA in a dino bone, indicates that dino fossils date back way older than 4500 or even 100,000 years. Thus, the actual state of DNA in dinosaur bones is strong evidence against, not for, a young earth.


( b ) Increase of Information in Genomes

Dr. Sarfati indicated that there was no plausible way for size or the information content of a genome to increase from generation to generation via mutations. I am sure that that is what his hearers took away from his presentation.

Here is what he did not tell his hearers:

( 1 ) It is well-known that during cell reproduction, segments of DNA genes (including whole genes) can become duplicated. That is, in place of one gene there are now two genes. If a gene is duplicated, this obviously increases the size of the genome. To a first approximation, a gene can be considered a segment of DNA which codes for the synthesis of one or more specific proteins. So a given gene is (roughly) like a specific instruction in a recipe.

( 2 ) Mutation of genes to alter their function is also well-known. If one of the copies of a duplicated gene acquires an altered function, now there are two differing instructions instead of just one. By any reasonable definition, this constitutes an increase in the information in the genome.

To use an illustrative analogy: suppose the original recipe for baking a cake included the following line: “.…Add one cup flour….”. Now let that line be duplicated, to read: “….Add one cup flour.   Add one cup flour….” This alters the composition of the cake a bit.               Now let a word in the second line be changed from “flour” to “pudding”, to give: “….Add one cup flour.   Add one cup pudding….”. Now we have two different actions in place of one. Again, it is clear that the information content here has increased, as a result of duplicating and then modifying part of the instruction set.

Both gene duplication and beneficial mutations can be observed in laboratory experiments. Thus, gene duplication plus mutation is a plausible pathway for increasing the information content of the genome.   Young earth creationists, of course, don’t like this conclusion, and try to mount all kinds of objections. These objections fail, but it would be tedious to trace all the back and forth arguments here.

Dr. Sarfati claimed that mutations can only make things worse for an organism. That claim is well known to be false. Numerous studies show that, while most mutations are either neutral or harmful, a certain percentage of mutations are helpful. While only a small fraction of mutations are beneficial, these beneficial mutations are selectively passed down to the next generation, while organisms with harmful mutations are less likely to have viable offspring. The figure below depicts the fitness distribution for a set of mutations in a viral organism.


Source: “Mutations” Wikipedia article.

Source: “Mutations” Wikipedia article.

See here for many other examples of beneficial mutations.

A laboratory example which ties all this together was a study by Brown et al. [Celeste J. Brown, Kristy M. Todd, and R. Frank Rosenzweig, “Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 15, 931-942 (1998)].  They let baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) evolve for 450 generations under glucose-limited conditions.

An improved strain arose, with multiple duplications of sugar transport genes. The mutated yeast species remained competitive at the original conditions. So this was an increase in the number of functioning genes, which was beneficial to the organism, showing that Dr. Sarfati’s claim that mutations “just make things worse” is incorrect. Moreover, the duplicated genes are chimeric: they combine the coding sequence of one parent gene with the promoter sequence of a different gene. Hence, the new genes are not completely identical to either of the parent genes. As discussed above, this gives some novelty and provides additional opportunity for modification of these genes. By any reasonable definition, the addition of these new, differentiated genes constitutes an increase in genomic information.

( c ) Origin of Life

I agree with Dr. Sarfati that it has not been shown how plain chemicals first assembled into the intricate molecular machinery needed to sustain the first living cells. That remains a gap in our knowledge.

However, strictly speaking, the origin of life is the subject of “abiogenesis”. “Evolution” usually refers to biological evolution, meaning the development of today’s biota from the first living cells. Once these cells were established, various mechanisms (mutation, including gene duplication, natural selection, epigenetic inheritance, etc.) can account for changes in populations over time to make new species. So the fact that there is complex machinery inside cells is irrelevant to the question of whether humans physically descended from other vertebrates.


( d ) Distant Starlight

The velocity of light in vacuum (186,000 miles or 300,000 km per second) is a fundamental physical constant. A light-year is the distance that light travels in a year. Many visible astronomical objects (stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc.) are located tens of thousands (or even millions or billions) of light-years away. If the universe is only 6000 years old, there would not be time enough for their light to reach us now. This is an obvious major problem for the young earth position.

When someone in the audience brought this question up in the Q&A, Dr. Sarfati dismissed it by replying that the Big Bang has its own problem with starlight – the “horizon problem”. That response seemed to placate his friendly and non-scientific audience. But it that really a suitable answer?

One could posit that God created all the intervening starlight along with the stars at the time of creation. Thus, the universe would look billions of years old, even though it isn’t. This “appearance of age” approach creates its own sets of problems, and most YE creationist organizations reject it.

The most popular YE approaches to the starlight problem are the “time dilation” proposals made by Russell Humphreys and others. Humphreys has followed up his initial “Starlight and Time” thesis with more recent variations (e.g. “New Vistas”) on time dilation. These proposals have been examined by the (old earth) Christian physicists associated with Reasons to Believe, and were found to be utterly unrealistic. The Reasons to Believe article concludes:

Starlight and Time/New Vistas is, from our perspective, one of the most obvious recent examples of manifestly erroneous “science” offered by the young-earth movement as a defense of the Bible. The errors are elementary and are almost entirely in the arena of comparatively simple mathematics. That these glaring errors have been widely accepted within the young-earth movement and widely propagated in the Church casts doubt on the credibility, reliability and trustworthiness of the leadership of the young-earth movement and, by association, the entire church…

The young-earth movement’s failure to recognize and repudiate the false science of Starlight and Time/New Vistas is a stumbling block to informed non-believing scientists and may become a stumbling block to many other unbelievers if the young-earth movement persists in affirming this manifestly untrue theory.

A more recent young earth proposal is the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) of Jason Lisle. As with the time dilation proposals, the details are too intricate to discuss here. In a series of articles starting here,  astrophysicist Casper Hesp explains why this proposal fails both in theory and in practice. So (despite YE creationist claims) there is no viable physical model that can account for distant starlight within a young earth framework.

And what of the “horizon problem” that surfaces within Big Bang cosmology? It stems from the observation that all the widely separated regions of space have the same background temperature. In the simplest version of Big Bang cosmology, these regions would have not have been in sufficient contact to thermally equilibrate. The theory of “cosmic inflation” resolves this problem. In this view, shortly after the Big Bang, there was a brief epoch of very fast expansion of the universe, after which the rate of the expansion of space declined to something like the value measured today. The rate of expansion has been measured to be increasing slightly over the past several billion years.

The figure below depicts the generally-accepted view of the expansion of the universe.

Cosmic history. Credit: NASA/WMAP science team

Cosmic history. Credit: NASA/WMAP science team

Not only does cosmic inflation resolve the issues of thermal homogeneity, it also accounts for the observed flatness of the universe and for the absence of magnetic monopoles. Its predictions have been repeatedly confirmed by observations.

Thus, cosmic inflation theory is robust and broadly useful and is endorsed by the majority of physicists. A minority of physicists are less enthusiastic, but their objections to inflation are largely on aesthetic (e.g. inflation theory seeming ad hoc or requiring special initial conditions), not substantive grounds. No underlying mechanism for cosmic inflation is known, but that is not a reason to reject it; no definitive mechanism is known, either, for the current gradual acceleration of the expansion of the universe which can be clearly deduced from observations.

Therefore, it is unrealistic for Dr. Sarfati to liken the easily-resolved horizon problem of standard cosmology to the devastating distant starlight problem of young earth models.

As Casper Hesp notes:

Does Big Bang cosmology have a big problem, comparable to the distant starlight problem of young-universe models? Definitely not. It is misguided to place the horizon problem and the distant starlight problem in the same box, despite their conceptual connection. Our limited understanding of the very early universe does not make or break the Big Bang model. The horizon problem results from minor theoretical concerns. Contrastingly, distant starlight is a devastating problem because it directly contradicts the central claim of young-universe models (i.e., that the universe is less than 10,000 years old). On top of that, we have seen in this series that the universe is filled with evidence of event histories stretching across millions and billions of years.


( e ) Radioactive Dating Measurements

The age of igneous rocks can be determined from the decay of radioactive elements in the minerals of these rocks. These decay rates have been measured in many laboratories in many ways for many years, and they are essentially invariant. They establish the earth to be over four billion years old.

There are some particular circumstances where radioactive decay rates can be accelerated, but these are well-understood within the framework of physics. For instance, in a nuclear reactor or bomb, an artificially high density of uranium means that the neutrons from one splitting nucleus have a high probability of striking another nucleus and causing it to split. Also, the “s” shell electrons interact with the nucleus, so perturbing these electrons can affect the nuclear decay rate, sometimes dramatically. However, these effects are understood and predictable. See Wikipedia article “Radioactive Decay” for more on this; this article also notes that many independent observations indicate that nuclear decay rates have been constant for millions of years: “Comparison of laboratory experiments over the last century, studies of the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (which exemplified the effects of thermal neutrons on nuclear decay), and astrophysical observations of the luminosity decays of distant supernovae (which occurred far away so the light has taken a great deal of time to reach us), for example, strongly indicate that unperturbed decay rates have been constant (at least to within the limitations of small experimental errors) as a function of time.”

Since radioactive dating militates for an old earth, of course young earth creationists will not concede to its validity. They advance various objections, but these objections have been refuted over and over again by practicing scientists. For instance, see these resources:

Radiometric Dating  A Christian Perspective – – This is a classic, in-depth discussion of radioactive dating of rocks, by an evangelical scientist.

What evidence is there for the earth being billions of years old?   Brief discussion of radioactive dating of rocks, answering objections raised by YE creationists.

Radiometric Dating Does Work! – – By geologist and National Medal of Science winner Brent Dalrymple.

When the question of radioactive dating was raised in the Q&A session, Dr. Sarfati deflected it by saying that the YE creationist RATE program had found evidence of faster radioactive decay in the past, which would explain away the mainstream scientists’ radioactive dating results.

Once again, Dr. Sarfati was incorrect. The RATE scientists did not find any evidence of faster radioactive decay; they simply asserted that there MUST have been accelerated radioactive decay, in order to meet their existing young earth model. They presented no valid physical support for this. They rehashed four arguments against conventional old-earth dating, but these arguments have been thoroughly debunked by practicing scientists. See the discussion by Randy Isaacs here and here for the details.

Furthermore, the high rates of radioactive decay proposed by the RATE would have generated so much heat that the earth would have melted, and all the occupants of Noah’s ark would have been killed from radiation. So this whole “faster radioactivity rates in the past” proposal is a nonstarter.


( f ) General Fossil Record

A species typically appears suddenly in the fossil record without a clear, graduated set of intermediate forms between it and some previous species. Young earth creationists like Dr. Sarfati claim that this represents a failing of evolutionary science, but they are incorrect. This pattern is precisely what we expect from the following two facts:

(1) Very, very few of all the organisms that have died in past eons become fossilized. As we can observe today, nearly all carcasses rot or are eaten by scavengers rather than being buried intact in rock layers. Of the remains that do get fossilized, many are later eroded away, or smeared beyond recognition in metamorphic transformations deep in the earth. Also, of all the potential fossil-bearing rocks, only a small fraction of them are available near the surface for paleontologists to examine. Thus, it is unreasonable to expect that most or all of the species (including all the transitional species) that ever lived will show up in a fossil collection.

(2) Basic population genetics shows that it is difficult for new genetic mutations to become established in very large populations. Thus, it is far more likely that a new species would develop within a small, isolated population, especially if that population is under some environmental stress that would favor genetic changes. But these small, transient populations are unlikely to leave a fossil trace. If the new species becomes more fit than the old species, the new species will expand, and only then is likely to appear in the fossil record. But once a species is widespread and successful in its ecological niche, there will be diminished selection pressure for changes, so fossils of this now well-adapted, stable species may appear for millions of years showing little change.

Evolutionary lineages tend to be “branchy”. From points (1) and (2) above, the expectation from evolutionary science is that we will generally not find fossils of the species of the direct ancestral transitional organisms along the main “trunk” of the family tree. Rather, we should find some fossils of successful, stable organisms on the side “branches” of the tree.

Thus, we should not normally find the transitional forms going from one individual species to another. However, we should find, in many cases, fossils with intermediate features between, say, one family or order and the next. (“Family” and “order” are higher-level groupings than species). And that is what we do find.

For instance, here are two graphics depicting some of the fossils which span the gap between common fishes, and 5-toed amphibians. The first graphic is specifically drawn to show that these intermediate species (which are all off on their own little “branches”) are not claimed to be direct ancestors, but are simply related to the direct transitional forms which would lie along the long diagonal arrow. Nevertheless, a progression in features is evident.

Source: P. E. Ahlberg and J. A. Clack, Nature 440, 747-749 (2006)

Source: P. E. Ahlberg and J. A. Clack, Nature 440, 747-749 (2006)

Source: K.  Padian, Integra Comp Biol 2008; 48: 175-88, reproduced in A. Thanukos, Evolution: Education and Outreach 2009; 2: 84-89.

Source: K. Padian, Integra Comp Biol 2008; 48: 175-88, reproduced in A. Thanukos, Evolution: Education and Outreach 2009; 2: 84-89.


This richness of intermediate forms is evident in many portions of the vertebrate fossil record. The rock layers show a general trend of one celled life forms, then multi-celled eukaryotes, then things crawling on the ocean floor, then fishes, then amphibians, then reptiles, then early mammals, and then mammals more and more like today. This TalkOrigins article has more examples of transitional fossils, such as the reptile-mammal transition.

Likewise, for ape-human intermediate species we expect to find various fossils of side-branches on the evolutionary tree, having ape-like and then more human-like features, although not fossils of the direct transitional species. And that is what we do find when the fossils of human ancestors are examined.

There will always be some transitions where the fossil evidence remains scanty. However, the general pattern of the fossils matches expectations for evolution, and gaps in the fossil record continue to be filled in with ongoing discoveries. “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.” [Science, Evolution, and Creationism by the National Academy of Sciences].  See   Realistic Expectations for Transitional Fossils for further discussion of the nature of transitional fossils.

Young earth creationists, of course, try to dispute all this. They frequently do this by reproducing some quotation from a bona-fide scientist which seems to admit that the fossil record does not support evolution. But when you look closely into the source of the quotation, you often find that it has been deceptively taken out of context, and the author did not mean what the young earth creationists are claiming.

To sum up here, Dr. Sarfati’s claim that the fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution is easily refuted by the facts.


( g ) The intermediate features of the Australopithecine “Lucy”

Australopithecine fossils display features that fall between apes and humans. As such, they provide supporting evidence for the evolution of humans from earlier primates. Let’s first look at the facts, then at Dr. Sarfati’s treatment.

Australopithecus afarensis was a hominid which lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago. Its brain size was about 380–430 cm3, roughly the same as modern chimpanzees. The Wikipedia article lists at least eight major fossil specimens of this species, so it is well-established. The most famous specimen is “Lucy”, a female partial skeleton found in 1974. It had a mixture of ape-like and human-like features: while features of Lucy’s arms and hands resemble those of apes, “in overall anatomy, the pelvis is far more human-like than ape-like. The iliac blades are short and wide, the sacrum is wide and positioned directly behind the hip joint, and evidence of a strong attachment for the knee extensors is clear.”

Young earth creationists sometimes try to dismiss the significance of Australopithecus afarensis fossils like Lucy by saying these were merely chimpanzees. This assertion is so straightforward to disprove that one professor developed a classroom exercise for biology teachers, which shows students the fossil evidence and lets them draw their own conclusions. In the main figure of that exercise, chimpanzee bones and teeth are shown on the left, human bones are on the right, and “Lucy” remains are shown in the middle. Anatomical traits are numbered, and numbers that represent humanlike states are underlined. Below is a portion of that figure dealing with just the lower jaw and teeth. It is obvious that some Lucy features more closely resemble chimps, and some more closely resemble humans, just as expected for a species which is intermediate between humans and other primates. Over a dozen studies have appeared which analyzed the features and come to the same conclusion.

Skeletons of chimpanzee (left), the australopithecine specimen AL 288-1 (“Lucy”) (middle), and a modern human (right), with anatomical traits numbered according to Table 1. Numbers that represent humanlike states are underlined. Source: Were Australopithecines Ape–Human Intermediates or Just Apes? A Test of Both Hypotheses Using the “Lucy” Skeleton, by Prof. Phil Senter  (Fayetteville State University, NC)

Skeletons of chimpanzee (left), the australopithecine specimen AL 288-1 (“Lucy”) (middle), and
a modern human (right), with anatomical traits numbered according to Table 1. Numbers that represent humanlike states are underlined.
Source: Were Australopithecines Ape–Human Intermediates or Just Apes?
A Test of Both Hypotheses Using the “Lucy” Skeleton, by Prof. Phil Senter (Fayetteville State University, NC)

The link to this classroom exercise is: 2010/FebABTonline.pdf

That site shows arm and hip features as well as the jaw features shown above.

Young earth creationists resort to various tactics to try to downplay the evolutionary importance of australopithecines and other transitional fossils. They commonly cite long-outdated or out-of-context quotes from researchers in the field which seem to contradict the intermediate status of these fossils. This tactic is known as “quote-mining”, and there is a whole section of the TalkOrigins site dedicated to exposing the misuse by YE creationists of various quotes from scientists.

That quote-mining is what Dr. Sarfati did in his presentation. He cited scientist Charles Oxnard to the effect that australopithecines are “further from both chimpanzees and humans than chimpanzees and humans are from each other”. This implies that australopithecines could not be considered any sort of intermediate between apes and humans.

The information provided above shows that that is not correct. The features of Lucy fall very much in between chimps and humans. For the quote he cited, Dr. Sarfati reached back more than 40 years, to a 1975 article by Oxnard which analyzed an early, very incomplete data set (just a few bones of a different type of australopithecine, before the Lucy findings were available), and which was soon acknowledged by other paleontologists to be erroneous. So Dr. Sarfati selected a quote which is known to be incorrect, but which would seem convincing to his nonscientific audience.

Dr. Sarfati has been citing this Oxnard quote in his publications for more than 15 years, and scientists have repeatedly called him out on this. See, for instance, the comment by Brown University biology professor Christine Janis on Sarfati’s treatment of australopithecines:

Sarfati is the master of the “opposition soundbite”…he cherry picks some data from the science literature that appears to combat the claim in one way or another (usually he has set up a strawman marginally relevant to the issue to be attacked), and ends up appearing to the naïve reader as if he (Sarfati) is the one with the specialized scientific knowledge while Dawkins comes off as speaking nonsense. Nobody can deny that Sarfati is a clever man…. Oxnard never concluded from any of his work that australopithecines were unrelated to humans, as Sarfati claims insinuates.



Learning (or Not) from the Galileo Affair

It is true that the simplest, most literal reading of Genesis 1-3, and of the other passages listed above, points to a recent creation and to the special creation of humans. For an audience predisposed towards this viewpoint, Dr. Sarfati’s case for a young earth interpretation of Scripture was probably persuasive.

However, it is also true that the simple, literal meaning of many Biblical passages shows that the earth is stationary, and the sun and other celestial objects revolve around the earth. These verses include Psalm 104:5 (“He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved”), Ps. 93:1 (“Surely the world is established, so that it cannot be moved”), I Chron. 16:30 (“The world also is firmly established, It shall not be moved”), the philosophical discourse of Eccl.1:5 (“The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it arose”), and also the historical chronicle of Josh. 10:13:

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had revenge upon their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

Isa. 66:1 has God saying, “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool”; but surely God’s “footstool” could not be spinning and flying through space.

In the 1500s and 1600s, the literal interpretation of these passages was seen as an essential element of Christian belief. Here is what John Calvin in his sermon on 1 Corinthians 10-11 had to say about those monstrous, malicious, devil-possessed people who claim that the earth “shifts and turns”:

We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds we must indeed confess that the devil possesses them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence.

This is the sort of accusation that today’s YE creationists make against those who teach that evolution is compatible with biblical Christianity.

Cardinal Roberto Bellarmine, a prosecutor of Galileo, stated in 1615: “…to affirm that the sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens and the earth revolves swiftly around the sun is a dangerous thing, not only irritating the theologians and philosophers, but injuring our holy faith and making the sacred scripture false.” Note well: “…injuring our holy faith and making the sacred scripture false.” That is what today’s YE creationists say about an old earth and evolution, i.e. that these concepts injure our faith and make the sacred scripture false.

Practically every Bible commentary since 1800 offers explanations of why these passages which depict a stationary earth need not be taken literally. Is this because our exegetical skills or our command of the Hebrew language are superior to everyone living before 1700? No, it is because by 1800 nearly everyone accepted what the scientists had been telling them about these aspects of the physical world. (Although Copernicus proposed heliocentricity in the early 1500’s, it took well into the 1700’s to overcome all the skeptics). It was not because anyone in 1800 could travel out into space and directly observe a rotating earth. Rather, folks mulled the accumulated observations and arguments of the scientists and realized that the data clearly indicated a moving earth. Once this physical picture was accepted, the theologians took a fresh look at the issue and found that, lo and behold, a literal acceptance of a stationary earth was not essential to the Christian faith after all.

Nowadays any evangelical Christian will say obviously these verses were not supposed to be taken literally. Obviously, these passages reflect the thinking and language of ancient times, and obviously were not intended to be making authoritative statements about the physical world. But it is only “obvious” AFTER one has accepted the physical evidence that the earth moves, and has recognized that it is proper to use the information we get from God’s creation to help interpret the meaning of the scriptural texts. Since YE creationists refuse to acknowledge the evidence that the earth is billions of years old, they are repeating the mistakes of the Christians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who insisted that the passages regarding the fixed earth and moving sun must be regarded as literally true.

You might think that the Copernican controversy is all behind us now, but that is not quite true. There are still fundamentalist groups, both Roman Catholic (e.g. ” GalileoWasWrong “) and Protestant, who maintain that true believers must retain the plain, literal sense of the biblical passages on the earth and the sun, and that the physical facts support a stationary earth; Christians who go along with the moving earth are denounced as compromisers.

For instance, at we are told that:

The Earth is not rotating…nor is it going around the sun. Today’s cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as “science”. The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie. Those lies have planted the Truth-killing virus of evolutionism in every aspect of man’s “knowledge” about the Universe, the Earth, and Himself.

The site lists “Sixty-Seven Scriptural References Which Tell Us That It Is the Sun And Not the Earth That Moves”  ,   and tells us that “GRAMMATICALLY AND SEMANTICALLY THE BIBLE DENIES COPERNICANISM (AND THUS DENIES THE “THEISTIC COPERNICAN” POSITION AS WELL…) ” .

Thus, it is inexcusable for Christians to fail to stand up for the “numerous and abundantly plain non-moving Earth scriptures”:

The excuses Christian Churches have used to avoid standing up for numerous and abundantly plain non-moving Earth scriptures–and the true science that supports those Scriptures!–are no longer valid excuses. The fact that the Pharisee’s evolutionary 15 billion year Big Bang Model has come out of the closet with its anti-Bible ‘creation scenario’ leaves no more wiggle room for Christian Churches.

This language is practically identical to how YE creationists decry “anti-Bible” mainstream geology and biology, and the “compromising” Christians who accept this modern science. All this further illustrates the folly of assuming that the Bible was intended to teach us physical science.

The Core Error of Young Earth Creationism

The core error of YE creationism is not honoring what the Bible states is the purpose of the Bible. This purpose is spelled out most clearly in II Tim. 3:15-17, and it has nothing to do with the age of the earth:

…from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Likewise, Jesus said that the function of the Old Testament was to testify about him and his saving work (John 5:40; Luke 24:44). Peter (I Pet 1: 10-12) wrote that prophets spoke of the sufferings and glory of Christ. This is all theology and morals. There is nothing here about authoritatively teaching geology or biology.

YE creationists go beyond what the Bible says when they insist that the Genesis narrative must be taken literally. That is merely their own opinion, which they then elevate to divine status. They think they are defending the infallible Bible, when in reality they are defending their fallible interpretation of the Bible.

Because they are so enamored with their interpretative scheme, they feel logically justified in distorting or ignoring whatever physical evidence points to an old earth – they KNOW that old-earth evidence must be invalid, so they need give it no credence.

In the preface to the sixth printing of The Genesis Flood, YE creationist authors John Whitcomb and Henry Morris frankly acknowledge that this is their approach:

We take this revealed framework of history as our basic datum, and then try to see how all the pertinent data can be understood in this context.

Their “basic datum”, which they presume to be God’s revelation but which actually is just their literalistic opinion, is that the earth and all life was created in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago. They then shoehorn all physical observations into “this context”. Any evidence that doesn’t fit their young earth model is automatically rejected, because it must be wrong.

Plenty of conservative Christians have come to different conclusions than YE creationists as to the interpretation of Genesis. A century ago, nearly all fundamentalists held that the world was millions of years old: W.B. Riley, editor of The Christian Fundamentalist and president of the Anti-Evolution League of America, stated in the 1920s that there was not “an intelligent fundamentalist who claims that the earth was made six thousand years ago; and the Bible never taught any such thing” [R. Numbers, The Creationists, p. 45].

Hundreds of millions of dedicated Christians today accept the physical evidence for an old earth and for evolution, and find no conflict between those truths and the Bible. Reasons to Believe lists about 40 well-known conservative Christian leaders and writers that endorse or are at least open to an old-earth perspective. These include names like Gleason Archer, Michael Behe, Chuck Colson, Willian Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Hank Hannegraff, Jack Hayford, C. S. Lewis, J. P. Moreland, Francis Schaeffer, C. I. Scofield, Lee Stroble, and B. B. Warfield.

Throughout the Bible, stories are told by God or His agents which are which are not literally true. Rather, these narratives are intended to convey spiritual truths. The many parables told by Jesus is just one class of such stories. So it is entirely consistent with the pattern of divine revelation for God to provide key teachings to the ancient Israelites about His sovereignty over nature and His purposeful creativity in the form of a figurative story.

In the same way that the Christians of the eighteenth century realized that the seemingly clear descriptions of a stationary earth were not really intended for teaching astronomy, today’s Christians who understand modern science realize that the inspired creation narrative was given to the Israelites for purposes other than teaching natural history. The Genesis creation account effectively accomplished what II Tim 3:15-17 says is the purpose of the Scriptures. It vividly conveyed to an ancient people a high doctrine of God’s goodness and power, and His authority to give moral direction to humankind. It was thus “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

It is crucial to take into account the original audience. Retaining ancient physical concepts such as fixity of species (instead of trying to correct these concepts) was essential in accomplishing this divine purpose for the ancient people to whom this revelation was given.

But What About…..

All that said, how exactly do scientifically-informed believers handle the New Testament passages which seem to endorse a recent creation and a literal Adam? There is more than one hermeneutic approach among old earth and evolutionary creationists, and it is too large a topic to cover here. I have sketched out my own thoughts on Bible interpretation here, but I do not claim it is the only valid approach.   I might address the specific scriptural issues raised by Dr. Sarfati in more detail in a future post.

YE creationists try to panic evangelicals into embracing a six-day recent creation by claiming that apart from a literal Fall by one man in the Garden of Eden, there would be no point for Jesus’ mission. For instance, a publicity pamphlet for the creationist film Is Genesis History states, “No Adam, no sin; no sin, no death and corruption; no death and corruption, no point for Jesus. Jesus came to save us because Genesis is history. The entire gospel is based on it.” This same claim is made over and over again by YE creationists, and it is completely bogus.

I have dealt with the theological implications of the Fall here:  Adam, the Fall, and Evolution.  That essay also deals with the “slippery slope” argument, by noting the fundamental differences between the Genesis story and the more or less eyewitness accounts of the New Testament events. Thus, the fear-mongers are incorrect to claim that rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 leads inevitably to denying a literal Resurrection.

I won’t rehash all those arguments here. The bottom line is that a literal Adam and a literal Fall are not essential to the gospel. Paul develops the universality of sin in Romans 1-3 with no mention of original sin. He moves from, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness… although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him” (1:18-21) to “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23) quite apart from Adam.

In all the gospel proclamations to both Jews and Gentiles recorded in the Book of Acts, there is not a single reference to Adam’s sin. The Fall is never mentioned in any of the sayings of Jesus in the four Gospels.  On the contrary, Jesus directed people away from religious speculations or blaming others, and towards a consciousness of their own shortcomings and their personal need for mercy. If our Bibles lacked the passages in Romans 5 and I Cor. 15 where Paul compares and contrasts Christ and the Adam of Genesis, Christians would not be wandering around bewildered as to why Jesus came.

Some Christians are particularly puzzled at how Jesus could refer to aspects of early Genesis (e.g. “the beginning of creation” in Mark 10 and Noah’s global Flood in Matthew 24) as if they occurred, when in fact they didn’t. The resolution comes by recognizing that Jesus routinely conveyed his spiritual and moral points by figurative language and by telling stories that did not actually happen.

It is key to note that Jesus did not always make it clear whether he was speaking figuratively or not. His disciples were frequently puzzled by his utterances, (e.g. Mat 16:7, regarding the “yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees) and were relieved when he occasionally spoke “plainly, and using no figure of speech.” (John 16:29). Thus, if we take the witness of the gospels seriously, we should expect that Jesus is normally speaking in figurative, illustrative, analogical terms when he tells or refers to a story, not that he intends the story to taken as literally true. YE creationists do not respect the way that Jesus chose to communicate. Instead, they impose their own modern, Western thought categories onto his words.

When Jesus cleared the courts of the great Temple in Jerusalem, saying “Stop turning my Father’s house into a market”, the Jewish leaders demanded a sign to prove his authority to do this. Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). Note that their question had to do with his actions regarding the physical Temple, and they were presumably standing there looking at that specific Temple, located in time and space right there. Obviously, he must be referring to that literal Temple. That is what the Jews thought, and that is where the YE creationist hermeneutic leads. But, as usual, he was speaking in figurative terms: “But He was speaking of the temple of His body” (2:21).

Since Jesus spoke so often in figurative terms, he expected his hearers to look for the underlying message in his words, rather than to fixate on the literal, physical aspect. For example, on a boat trip Jesus told his disciples to “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matt. 16:6) The disciples made the mistake of thinking that Jesus was concerned with literal yeast and literal bread, and concluded that Jesus said this because they had no brought any bread with them for the journey. Jesus rebuked them for this literalistic mindset, saying, “How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread?” (v.11). Eventually they realized he was not really talking about literal yeast, but about the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees (v. 12).

An encounter between Jesus and a devout, learned Jew named Nicodemus is described in the third chapter of the Gospel of John. Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be “born again”. Nicodemus made the mistake of thinking what was important was the literal, physical meaning of Jesus’s words, and it distracted him from their real import. Nicodemus objected, “How can someone be born when they are old? Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” (v.4). Jesus chided him for focusing on the literal aspect of his teaching, and not understanding that this physical picture of being “born again” was an analogy for spiritual transformation of humans on earth: “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” (v. 12).

In his presentation, Dr. Sarfati argued from this verse (“I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” ) that Jesus’s remarks to his Jewish hearers about creation imply that the Genesis narrative must be taken literally. That is ironic, since in this passage Jesus actually teaches against the sort of literal, physical focus practiced by YE creationists.

In the course of telling the parable of the mustard seed, Jesus makes a blanket, apparently factual statement that the mustard seed is “smaller than all the seeds on earth.” (Mk 4:31). By YE creationist logic, we should be defending that statement as literally true, no matter the physical facts. However, the point of this parable was not to make a statement about botany, but to illustrate the growth of the kingdom of God from small beginnings. Thus, I can make use of the God-given extrabiblical evidence to assess whether Jesus’s statement about seed sizes is literally true or not (it is not). And that is what I and millions of Christians do with the other statements of Jesus which seem to bear on the physical world, including Noah, the Flood, and human origins.

The fact that Jesus referred to Noah in Matthew 24 as a specific person with specific details on the Flood has no bearing on whether the Noah story is literally true. Jesus gave a specific name (Lazarus) to the poor man in the story of the rich man and Abraham’s bosom in Luke 16:19-31. In the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-35) Jesus provides a specific location (the road from Jerusalem to Jericho). In both that story and the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) there are far more details given than in the Noah passage in Matt. 24. So we cannot use the presence of specific names, locations, and many details to claim that a certain story is literally true, whether or not we would classify it as a parable.

Jesus, as the Word and God the Son, was presumably involved in some measure with the divine initiative to give the ancient Israelites a creation story (including Noah’s Flood) which met their spiritual needs by accommodating within their physical worldview (fixity of species, relatively recent creation, etc.). Since Jesus was speaking to Jews with that same ancient worldview and who thus had a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was the wise and loving thing for him to do to continue to work within that ancient physical framework, rather than trying to correct their notions of natural history.

Jesus’s point in the passage in Matthew 24 was not to teach that Noah’s Flood actually happened. His point was to urge his hearers to “Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming” (Mat 24:42). Jesus wisely and effectively drew on a dramatic story (Noah’s Flood) which all his hearers were familiar with, as an illustration of unexpected and catastrophic judgement.

If there really were clear evidence (e.g. rock layers from a recent worldwide Flood) of supernatural intervention on a geologic scale, or clear evidence of the un-natural origin of the human species, that would constitute a widely-accessible miraculous “sign” for unbelievers. However, Jesus flatly declared (Matt. 12:39-40) that no such sign would be given. His resurrection, as reported by his followers who encountered him after he came back to life, is the only general “sign” to be given to the world. YE creationism is thus founded on premises which run counter to what Christ himself taught.

Posted in Uncategorized | 21 Comments