While browsing through the DejaNews archives,
I found the following message that Frank Steiger had posted in talk.origins about
creationist Bill Morgan's AOLCREAT; specifically
about Bill's "Top Ten List" contained therein.
Frank Steiger was, I believe, a retired engineer in Orange County, California.
He had followed creation/evolution issue for several years and used his scientific training
to respond to creation science claims.
I think he was best known for his essays explaining thermodynamics and how creationists misunderstand it.
I met him once when I attended a creationist meeting to hear
John Peloza speak.
That was when Peloza, a creationist, was suing his school district for "violating his religious rights" by
requiring him to teach evolution, which he claimed was a religion.
Frank arrived after me with a stack of papers which he placed on the table next to the door, announcing to everyone that it explained thermodynamics and how creationism gets it wrong.
As everybody left at the end of the meeting, I watched as all the creationists would pause a bit as they came near that stack and glance it with a scared look on their faces and then hurry past it.
None of them took one.
I just read on his web page that he passed away on 29 July 2010.
He had asked his family to keep his web active after his death.
His daughter now maintains it.
I cannot find this page on his web site.
NOTE: I have updated old and broken links in the text.
Subject: Morgan's List
From: Frank Steiger
Date: 1997/03/20
Message-ID: <33319951.9A3@deltanet.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
[More Headers]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------3EA02594545
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Attached is my comment on Bill Morgan's list:
--------------3EA02594545
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BILJACK.REP"
In a talk.origins post dated March 16, 1997, creationist Bill Morgan
listed the "top ten" reasons why he believes that the creation model is
a better explanation for the origin and current state of the universe
than the evolution model. Most of his dissertation is based on the usual
creationist tactics of ascribing attributes to evolution that are
not part of science.
The following is my comment on each of his "top ten" reasons. Since Mr.
Morgan's original post was very lengthy (836 lines), it was necessary to
paraphrase his statements.
(1) Design: evolution requires that the development of living things
came about by mere chance.
This is a total falsehood. Evolution does not require creation by
chance. It does not rule out the possibility of creation by God. It only
requires that creation took place through a process of evolving from
primitive ancestors. However, science, by its nature, can not deal with
matters of faith and spirituality, so evolution takes no position on
whether or not God created living things.
(2) First Law of thermodynamics: atheists believe that the universe
created itself from nothing, and this violates the first law of
thermodynamics.
The lack of reasoning on this point can only be described as bizarre.
Evolutionists are not necessarily atheists. Whether or not the universe
was created from nothing has no bearing on whether or not present-day
living things evolved from primitive ancestors. The Bible states that
the universe was created from nothing. Scientists generally accept, as
the most plausible explanation, the explanation that the universe was
created from a singularity. Either way, it is impossible for us to
visualize the creation process.
(3) The "Big Bang" theory violates the Second Law of thermodynamics.
This is a falsehood. Read the thermodynamics sections of my web page,
http://users.deltanet.com/~fsteiger
[DWise1: URL changed to http://www.fsteiger.com/creation.html; pick from three links about 3/4 of the way down the page]
for details. However, this argument
has nothing to do with the evolution of living things.
(4) Biogenesis: evolution claims that living things arose from dead
things by mere chance. It refuses to recognize that a brilliant
designer (God) is necessary for life to develop from non-life.
This argument is merely a repeat of "reason" number 1: that evolution
requires creation by chance. It does no such thing. What creationists
are really saying is that their model is sanctified by God, while other
models are not. There is no scientific support for this contention;
science does not deal with matters of faith and religion.
(5) Living Animals produce their own kind. Therefore evolution could not
have occurred.
The fossil evidence clearly shows transitions from one species to
another. Check out sections /kinds.htm and /therapsd.htm and /triado.htm
and /ichthyo.htm and ambulo.htm of http://www.users.fast.net/~lflank
[DWise1: URL changed to http://www.fsteiger.com/lflank.html]
for detailed information. Creationists admit that microevolution can
occur over a few generations. If that be the case, then why couldn't a
series of small changes add up to a large change over a long period of
time? Creationists can only insist that the universe is too young for that
to occur, but that claim is not supported by the facts.
(6) Dead Animals (Fossils). Evolution predicts that evolutionary change
must occur gradually. Therefore the fossil record should show continuous
transitional evidence of invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to
amphibian, amphibian to reptile, and reptile to mammal. It does not.
There is no logical reason why evolution must occur at a uniform slow
rate for all species. Evolutionary change can be either slow or rapid.
There is a great deal of fossil evidence supporting trans-species
change. See (5) above. Morgan resorts to misleading quotes and gross
distortions of fact. He quotes Stephen Jay Gould: "The fossil record
with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..."
(notice the ellipsis...) The implication is that Gould is rejecting
evolutionary change, when in reality he is merely saying that evolution
does not necessarily take place in a gradual manner. Morgan also
states: "Recently from a piece of one shin bone, the 'scientists' told
us what this 'ancestor' looked like, how he lived, where he lived and
how long ago he lived." Of course, Morgan supplies no background
information to enable us to check this whopper, so we can only
conclude that it is just another in the continuing series of creationist
falsehoods.
(7) The Theory of Evolution Keeps Evolving. Scientists and teachers
disagree on the mechanism of evolution, but the students and public are
never told about these conflicts.
There is no disagreement on the basic premise that present day species
have evolved from primitive ancestors. There is some disagreement on the
details: which species is ancestral to which species, and how they
lived, for example. This is because all the detailed evidence is still
not known, and may never be. These disagreements are not secret; they
are openly discussed in the scientific journals. Text books would have
to be revised several times a year to include all the latest views and
information. Creationist paranoia seeks out any pretext to attack
science; that is the basis for "reason" no. 7.
(8) Cause and Effect: evolutionary scientists subscribe to the atheistic
belief that there was no first cause for the creation of the universe;
that it merely happened by chance.
This is a repeat of "reasons" no. 1 and 4. Evolution does not rule
out the principle of first cause. Science deals with observations
and measurements. It neither rejects nor supports matters of faith and
religion; it simply does not deal with faith and religion.
(9) Extinction, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest.
The message here is that creationism is good, evolution is bad, simply
because it seems that way to Bill Morgan.
(10) The Requirements for Life. Religion, specifically biblical
fundamentalism, is necessary for life and morality. Since evolution does
not agree with with the Book of Genesis, it promotes atheism, premarital
sex, and alcoholism.
This isn't science; it is merely religious bigotry. Mr. Morgan is
unable to objectively evaluate the factual evidence. His whole approach
is that of a proselytizing zealot uninterested in dealing with factual
information.
--------------3EA02594545--