American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
-
Upload
american-atheists-inc -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
1/40
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
2/40
~ -mericanatheists
T hink you 're a lone? A merica Is hom e to
m o re a th eis ts than Jew s, M uslim s,
Hindus , a nd B ud dh is ts, combin ed and
doubled. F ind out about Athe ist H isto ry
an d leam the steps you can fo llow to
come
o ut o f th e a th eis t c lo set
atheist viewpoint
Atheist News
Presents for the Jod less: the 3 days of a the t C IS
2009) - Don't believe in God, but want to celebrate C h
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
3/40
Ps yc h o lo g ic al W el lbe ing
How does your secular m lndset factor in? H elp a U niversity
re sea rch er b y
taking
th is c on fid en tia l s urv ey:
lJ
Take1tle S urvey
Quell ioQ[S? Conta ct th e R ese arche r
.
.
}-
's
No God 8109
A th eis t E le cte d
In
N C. E ven Though
It Is
A g ain st T he ir C o ns titu tio n: U S
~~~~.~.~~ .~.~.~-~.~~.~~~~.
~.~.~.~:.~ ~.~~. :..
~.~ .~.~.~ ~~.~- -...
Neutrality
is
O ls aim ln atio n A ga In st T ho se \lIJ ho H ate N eu tra lity : The new
C hr ist ian buzzword of the day is ...
_ __u_ ..~__ ..._ .. _ _ __ 'OC •••••••••• •••• _
A me rica n A th eists A ffilia te o f th e Y ea r 2010:
,
that
In the rain ana the snow , people sholN : P ress ski ps du e to rain?
_. ••••..•• .... •• • .-. -*' ••_ ••••••••-......... _.. -' ••- .~ .- ••••.•.
S neak P eek at M y M a rria ge Egu a ity S p ee ch: G ay M arriag e is a
~p ~ ~~_~~_~~.~ .~u~~ .~ ~ .~ ~t~ i.~~~.~._ , _,_ _,_,,, ,,, .. _ _. __
A FA loses. C la im s W in Anvways: AFA folds, cla im s victo ry fo r hav ing no
effect.
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
4/40
Nov/Dec 2009
Vol 47, No 8
Geologist
&
Biologist
Frank R. Zindler
Christian Geologist
John D. Morris, Ph.D
on the scientific
,...,.-r-zedebate you are about to read with Frank R. Zindler,
literally changed my life. It not only allowed me to accept
and announce my Atheism, it catapulted me into activism, and
ultimately into joining the American Atheist family. I couldn t
be more thankful to Mr. Zindler for his contribution to reason
andfree thought, and it s an honor to have him as our featured
story for this edition of the American Atheist.
- David Smalley, Editor
debates
ISSN 0516-9623 (Print)
ISSN 1935-8369 (Online)
AMERICAN ATHEIST PRESS
Managing Edi tor
Frank R. Zindler
AMERICAN ATHEIST
'A Journal of Atheist News and Thought'
Editor
David Smalley
possibilities of
Noah's Flood
AMERICAN ATHEIST
Cover Art & Magazine Designer
Dav id Smalley
Graphic Designer
Gabriel Sheridan
Cover Photo
Ann Zindler
Published monthly
by American Atheists Inc.
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 158
Cranford, NJ 07016
908.276.7300 P
908.276.7402 F
www.atheists.org
©2009 American Atheists Inc.
All r ights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without
written pe rmission is prohib ited.
American Atheist is indexed in the
Alternative Press Index.
American Atheist magazine
is given free of cost to members of
American Atheists as an incident
of their membership.
Subscription fees for one year of
American Atheist:
Print version only: $20 for 1 subscription
and $20 for each additional gift subscription
Online version only: $35
Sign up at www.atheists.org/aam
Print & online: $55
also in this edition ...
6 Book Review: The Infernova
Movie Review: Creation
The Rise of Secularism
8 Under God
30
The Christian Cave of Shadows
Confronting the Armchair Atheist
AMERICAN ATHEIST - NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009
Discounts for multiple-year subscriptions:
10% for two years
20% for three or more years
Additional postage fees
for foreign addresses:
Canada & Mexico: add 15/year
All other countries: add $35/year
Discount for libraries and institutions:
50% on all magazine subscriptions
and book purchases
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
5/40
Editor s rupdate:
Magazine De[ays and Resolution. 'Pian. .
I •• • _• _
I
as with mixed emotions that Bill Rampl, our
magazine Editor for the last 11 months, stepped down
and assumed a new role as a father. We thank him
for his dedicated service, and also for the material he
edited and submitted that appears in this editon, and that
will appear in the next. Congratulations to Bill on the recent
addition to his family, and we wish him the best
Considering my passion for this movement, there was
little hesitation when I was asked to step up from the Design
Editor position, and take the lead on this publication as
the new Editor. I immediately began working around the
clock to continue the tradition of producing a magazine our
members will be proud of, and also to set and meet new
deadlines for our readers.
It is my personal guarantee to every one of you that I
will begin producing a timely publication you can depend
on and look forward to. I am so confident in my plan to get
this caught up, I've revealed it for all to read.
My first order of business is to put together a staff
of volunteer writers, journalists, graphics designers, and
photographers that will contribute each month, along with a
featured author or two. These individuals will be announced
in the first official magazine of 20 1O.
To the right, I've outlined the production schedule so that
you can know when to expect your magazines. Please keep
in mind, that 5-6 weeks is allowed for printing and delivery,
so I've accounted for that in each arrival date. According to
the plans below, by March 2010, each magazine will arrive
no later than the 15
th
of it's title month.
l. Nov/Dec .in your home by Feb. 15
2. Jan/Feb .in your home by Feb. 26
3. March .in your home by Mar. 15
4. April.. .in your home by Apr. 15
(Double)
(Double)
(Single)
(Single)
I have a lot more plans for this magazine, and I will
keep you updated as things progress. I am honored to be a
part of such a wonderful movement, and I want you to know
I understand how important this magazine is to you, and to
our organization's success. I will never lose sight of what's
important.
I'd love to read your thoughts, so please email me
anytime I look forward to hearing from you.
email: [email protected]
David Smalley
Editor, American Atheist
No God Blog
atheists.orglbiog .
Atheist Elected in NC, Even Though It Is Against Their Constitution
Ceeem Ile < H il i. 2 00 9
Them was a bit of suspense
In AsheVille .
NC ~ T ue Sd ay
mo rn lf19
a bo ut w he lh er new ly..elected
ty
c oUncil
member C ed i 8 01 hweH S hO u ld o r w ou ld be swom inlD off ic e B ot hwell, w h O was elected las t
m on th , is a n ath eis t T he N O I1 hc ar olin a c on s lU n on stillO l lI 'S a th e is t s f ro m h o ld in g e le c te d o ft loe.
fm not sa
r ig t ha t
Ce cil B oth we ll is n ota g oo d m an, b ut if h e· s a n a tn eis t. hes
no t
el ig ib le t o s er ve i n
pubUc
011I«> ,
according
10
lIle
slate
oonsuamon, said
H. K
EdgerlDn.
a f o l 1 1 l e r AshelJJlle NAACP
p re s id e nt lO l d t he
Ash e vUl e
C'bzen-Ttmes.
Decem be r 2 00 9
M T W T F S S
_ 3 5
7 6 9 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 2
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Mele 6, seeuen 8 of the
North
C ar olin a c on st itu tio n staleS : 1 he follOW ing persons shall be
disqualif ieD for
office: F irst,
an y
person wh o
sh al l
deny 1 M
l:I ei f19 or Almighty
God.
fo rwnal i l ly
for
B
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
6/40
S
.
. Alenthony has presented to
all of us freethinkers, ofwhatever
stripe, a truly masterful work
of literary achievement. The
Infernova is a parody of Dante Aleghieri's
(1265 - 1321) time honored classic, The
Inferno. The reader does not need to be
familiar with the nearly seven hundred
year-old original in order to greatly enjoy
this new and remarkable take-off. Perhaps
the only thing that it would be helpful for
the reader to know is that Dante was the
scion of a well-to-do Florentine family and
a real toady to the Catholic Church. Dante's
imaginary hell is not only richly populated
with ordinary sinners but also packed with
enemies of the Church both real-often
identified by name-and imaginary, such
as the mythological gods of paganism.
Dante's nine circles, or levels, of hell
are filled with suffering souls who range
from those who were simply guilty of
doubt, to those who led thousands or even
whole nations to-the worst sin of all-
disobedience of the Church's teachings. Just as Dante was
guided on his journey through hell by a celebrated writer,
so too here-but it is the irreverent Mark Twain taking the
role of Virgil. What a perfect choice
In The Infernova, as in any good parody, the situation
is reversed.
In
Alenthony's hell, the religious receive their
just desserts at various levels of severity. Names are named,
from early snake-oil salesmen such as Mary Baker Eddy
and L. Ron Hubbard to those who lead larger movements
such as Jim Jones and Charles Taze Russell. In deeper
levels of hell, the founders of national and international
religions such as Joseph Smith, Abraham, and Moses are
Boo
vi
AMERICAN ATHEIST - NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009
called out. Finally, in Canto XXX, our boy J.e.-simply
referred to as 'Christ' -and the Islamic Mohammed are
not spared.
The descriptions of each succeeding level of hell
are, like Dante's original, one of the most fascinating
and engaging features of the book. Although Alenthony
thankfully does not quite share Dante's fascination
for sheer blood and gore, the depictions of each level
dramatically involve the reader's senses of vision, hearing,
and even smell. Each dreadful circle of hell is eloquently
drawn for the reader to clearly imagine. In addition, the
exact punishment chosen for the particular offender is
often cleverly devised to perfectly fit the offense. For
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
7/40
O N C E
G IN
T H E
T H IS T
G E TS TH E D Q U M S l C K
review by Don Havis
example, one large group of former humans on earth was
transformed into plants and animals, and as Mark Twain
explains in Canto XXI, 'But their awareness kept intact.
They've been transformed to live in a primitive state, /
and to first-hand witness the origin / of new species. That
is the timeless fate / for Creationists.' I laughed when I
heard / all this, as the irony was so great.
Perhaps the most amazing feature of Alenthony's
book is his skill and use of the particular narrative poetic
form that he employs. The poetic pattern used is the rather
difficult form of three line stanzas where the first and
third lines rhyme, and the middle line forms the model
for the first and third lines of the succeeding stanza. In
other words, the rhyming pattern is as follows: ABA,
BCB, CDC, etc. (see above). Each Canto, or chapter, of
approximately the same length as was Dante's-thirty-
four Cantos in all-contain a long series of triplet stanzas
ending with a dramatic rhyming couplet. All of this is done
in such a subtle way, with many rhymes often occurring at
mid-sentence, so that the reader is often only dimly aware
that there is a regular rhyming pattern at all. The story
just flows in a very natural story-telling way. Incidentally,
Alenthony chose this more rigorous route because it was
the exact pattern that Dante followed, even though most
translations of The Inferno rhyme only the first and third
lines of each stanza. Translation from the original old-
Italian is just too difficult for the translator to retain both
the meaning and the complex rhyming pattern.
It is difficult for this reviewer to come up with even one
slight criticism, which I know is somewhat traditional for
reviewers to do. If absolutely pushed to the wall, I would
say that I might have enjoyed the naming of a few more
names of religious rapscallions, and a few less naming of
extremely obscure ancient Aztec gods and/or the names of
millennia-old water-spirits featured particularly in Canto
XXXI. I may be playing personal favorites here, but I'd
like to be reassured that the likes of Jerry Falwell, Oral
Roberts, Garner Ted Armstrong, Tammy Fay Baker, and
Aimee Semple McPherson, to name just a few, are down
there somewhere. However, judging from the books
otherwise inclusivity ofreligious sinners, I can rest assured
that they have not escaped Alenthony's hell.
NOVEMBER/ DECEMBER 2009 - AMERICAN ATHEIST
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
8/40
THE QUESTION OF NOAH S
FLOOD: A DEBATE
BElWEEN
JOHN D. M ORRIS,
oftbeInstitute ForCreation~
AND
FRANK
R . ZIN DLER
ottbe OhioChapterofAmerican At.beists
more specifically today, we want
to talk about whether in fact there
was a flood, Noah, and the ark. Was
that a reality? We're going to talk
about the archaeological evidence.
We're going to talk a little bit about
creationism, and whether in fact
man began as Adam and Eve and
whether there was a flood. Let me
introduce our guests here right now.
Our first guest is Professor John
Morris. Dr. Morris is a Ph.D. in
geological engineering and is a
leading expert in the world on Noah
and the flood, among other things.
He has written books, including
Adventure on Ararat
and
Ark on
Ararat,
and made a couple of trips
to the mountain, is that correct?
How many trips?
ON AM INDIANA,n ,
TBEDIC KWOLFSIESHOW MORRIS: I ve been to Turkey on
CHANNEL 18TV, INDIANAPOLIB . iNDIANA, several occasions. I've wanted to
BROADC ASl' FEBRU ARY 18,1989 see if perhaps the remains of Noah's
~~i:o~by ark were still on Mt. Ararat.
M ay , 1989
This text is the actual
transcription from the full debate,
including words from the show host
and moderator, Dick Wolfsie.
WOLFSIE: I'm glad you're with us
this morning on AM Indiana. On our
program today, well, we have two
gentlemen who are both geologists:
one says there was a Noah and a Noah's
ark, and the other says not so. We'll
talk to them in just a moment... [1]
[commercial]
WOLFSIE: Good morning everybody,
we're glad you're with us this morning
on AM Indiana. We have an excellent
show for you today, and I am sure
you will find it very provocative and
controversial. Both of our guests this
morning were educated in a similar
way, both educated as geologists; but
they have very different points of view
as to the origin of man. And a little bit
AMERICAN ATHEIST - NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009
WOLFSIE: Good enough, sir.
Also joining us, Frank Zindler.
Mr. Zindler is formerly a professor
of geology and biology. He is now
a science writer in Columbus, Ohio,
and he's a leading spokesperson on
Atheism in the country. He is presently
the director of the central Ohio chapter
of American Atheists.
And good morning to both of you
gentlemen. It's good to see both of you.
Professor Morris, let me start with you.
As you know I'm wrestling with how
to begin this, because I know there are
so many things we could talk about.
But let me suggest something to you
and have you respond, and then I think
I can probably sit back for the rest of
the show. Is it your contention, sir,
that until Mr. Zindler proves otherwise
you're going to accept the fact that
there was a Noah and a Noah's ark, or
do you believe it a fact, sir, that based
on your trips, you have some proof?
MORRIS: Let me tell you something
about science, Dick. [2] Science exists
in the present. Scientists all live in
the present, and all of the facts are in
the present. The fossils, the rocks,
everything is in the present; and we do
our experiments in the present we study
in the present, we make our conclusions
in the present,and that's what science is.
The scientific method of experimental
observation, reproducibility. When we
start talking about the long-ago past,
the unobservable past, the even in
principle unobservable past, we've left
the realm of strict science and we're
into this area of faith. [3 .] Now there
are at least two ways of looking at the
past. One is this evolutionary world
view that the earth is billions of years
old, and another world view is that
perhaps the Bible is right, and that it
does represent accurate history. But in
a real sense either view is outside the
realm of science and into the realm of
faith.
[4]
WOLFSIE: One more question, Frank.
Let me ask you, John, one question,
and then I promise I'll let you go
at it-because I want to understand
something from where you're corning.
You and Mr. Zindler were trained in a
similar fashion, at good schools. You're
both in the area of geology. Let me ask
you this, and then I'll let Frank jump
in. You I'm sure were taught that the
earth was billions of years old. Is that
correct sir?
MORRIS: That's right.
WOLFSIE: Okay. So are you here to
say that what you were taught, and the
method that they reached to come to
that conclusion, was inaccurate?
MORRIS: The idea that the earth is
old is a historical reconstruction. I
mean, nobody was back there to see it
or to measure it. What I say about the
creationist young-earth world view ...
We can't prove that the earth is young.
We can't prove that the earth is old.
The facts of geology are compatible
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
9/40
MORRIS : You can t tes t hi sto ry.
to Some extent w ith the id ea th at the
ea rth is ol d . The fac ts of geology are
co mpatibl e w ith the id ea th at the earth
is Young. L i Now I'm a geologist. I
love roCks, I love fOSsils, aod I have a
lot of
them;
but I've never
had
a
rock
ta lk to me. I never ha d a roc k tell me
how old it Was. You ve got to inteIpret
the rock.
MORR.IS: You can test the
reSUlts uf
hi sto ry.
MORRIS: Date4 as Cretaceous sOfl,
of t hi ng s, s uPPOsed ly on th e o rd er of a
hUndred million years or Soold. Now, 1
don't buy the date, but that s the normal
C on Ve ntio na l d ate fo r it.
ZlNDLER: Yes, from the results
You ca n in fer quite de fin ite ly What
happ ened.
WOLFSIE: Let's See if the rOCks talk
to F rank .
ZlNDLER; Now, Were these xenOliths
]
that had been brought up With the
18 or W at ?
M ORRIS: They m ight talk to him .
ZINDLER: WeH, fir of all, his
definition of science is r at he r b iz ar re .
It would rule Outalmost all of science.
Science is hYPOthesis testing, JOhn, and
You ce rta in ly ca n tes t hYpo th e ses about
th e p ast.
Z lNDLER: Wha t ty p e of shells?
ZlNDLER: Creationists don t
understand
mOUntains, basicaHy.
They
find fossil., in the tops of mOUntains and
think thatthat is prOof of NOah s flOOd.
Now Why theY re in the mountain tops
instead of on the moun,, n tops is
something they rarely ansW er. In th e
case of M t. Ararat, this is a curious
probl em ,
bec ause
Mt. Ararat is
a
VOlcano. It s not a mOUntain made up
of Se4imentary depos;,s. And to say
ZlNDLER: Yes you Can AbSOlutely,
Yo u Can That s W here you re W rong.
MORRIS: Talk
about
SWitch
of
Subjects To ansW er Y OU r q uestion , th e
fO SS il s Were Shells .
[n ]
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
10/40
that there are fossil deposits on top of
Mt. Ararat would imply that it had been
under water. [8]
MORRIS: Frank, your problem is
that you say that I don't understand
geology. What you don't understand
is creationism. In your articles written
about me... You have such a total
misunderstanding of what creationists
do say...
WOLFSIE: Be specific, Doctor Morris,
tell Frank what he misunderstands ...
MORRIS: In this subject, I have never
said that those fossils were on top of
Mt. Ararat. Those fossils are in sight of
Mt. Ararat...
[2]
ZINDLER: No, you said that there
were sedimentary strata on the top of
Mt. Ararat, or on Mt. Ararat, I don't
know that you said that they were
exactly on the top ...
MORRIS: I reported that in 1969 a
glaciologist [10] claimed he found a
fossil layer about the 14,000-foot level.
The fossil layers that I've studied are
some ten miles away. [ll]
ZINDLER: I know that you said that
also, but you claimed that there were
fossils in the rock on Mt. Ararat, and
that's why I wrote to you ...
Zindler: That would imply that Mt.
Ararat had been under water. You also
said that there were pillow lavas. Now
no one else has ever found pillow lavas
on Mt. Ararat.
MORRIS: Oh, that's not true.
ZINDLER: That's crazy, to think that
there would be pillow lavas there. In
fact, we have an ark-ologist from
Columbus, by the name of Garbe.
Every time he goes climbing Mt.
Ararat I say, Well now you look for
those fossils and you look for those
pillow lavas, and they never find
them. The photograph in your book
is not of pillow lavas. You say they're
pillow lavas ...
WOLFSIE: What are pillow lavas?
ZINDLER: Pillow lavas are lavas
laid under water, under great depths
of water, and they form like pillows
because the lava congeals so rapidly.
They have a glassy constitution ...
WOLFSIE: I've got to stop you. What
do you say ...Again, I've got to think
about the person at home. Like, if I
were home, I'd be lost here. What is
it that you would have liked to have
found, or did you find on the mountain,
that would have suggested to you that
there was a Noah's Ark? And then I
want Frank to jump in.
ZINDLER: That's a good question.
WOLFSIE: What did you find, or what
would you have liked to have found
relating to the ark?
MORRIS: In a schizophrenic fashion,
he's brought up so many different
subjects ... [12] I never claimed that
there were fossils on Mt. Ararat. I do
claim that one fellow claims he found
some at the 14,000-foot level. I have
never seen them, and I have looked for
them.
[U]
The mountain is a volcanic
mountain. The type of lava that is on
Mt. Ararat is consistent with the type
that's laid down under water under
great pressure. The aspect of it's being
pillow, that's a very specific type of
lava found in a deep-sea trench and
different things, that is recognizably
laid down under water. It is a field-
judgement call. As a geologist, trained
in these sorts of things, I found lavas
that in my opinion were pillow.
WOLFSIE: And that would mean ...
MORRIS: ...and I have pictures of
those ...
ZINDLER: ...that they were laid down
under water.
Now you say, on page seven, of your
Ark on Ararat
that Mt. Ararat was
created on the third day ...
. .
.r=:.
-.-./.1 ~
OK.
mister
smart4 ..pants Noah -where do THOSE two
9 7
AMERICAN ATHEIST· NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
11/40
WOLFSIE: Don't laugh He read the
book, he bought it
ZINDLER: ...created on the third day
of creation week, [ 14] along with the
ocean basins, but that at that time Mt.
Ararat was only about ten to twelve
thousand feet high. Now if all the water
came down in forty days and drowned
all the mountains of the world, that
would require the rain to come down
at about eleven and a half feet per hour.
John, that's not rain, that's hydraulic
mining Everything would have been
swept off the surface of the continents.
The continents would be absolutely
denuded down to crystalline rocks.
All the sedimentary rocks would have
been deposited in the ocean basins.
Now clearly, that's not the pattern that
we see ... and it would certainly imply ...
that does away with Noah's flood
MORRIS: Frank, let me say that if
you're going to be critiquing my book,
or if you're going to be critiquing the
Bible, which I do believe, what you
need to do is handle that [sic] data
honestly [15] ... Now what you just
have said ...
ZINDLER: What have I done
dishonestly?
MORRIS: ...is not what I wrote in that
book
ZINDLER: Oh, on page seven it's
there [16]
MORRIS: Okay, but I go on, page
eight, nine, ten ...
ZINDLER: I know, you contradict
yourself later in the book ...[hubub] ...
the ocean basins come later... [17]
MORRIS: If you're going to talk about
my work, or if you're going to talk
about the Bible, I'm going to hold your
feet to the fire. I'm going to make sure
you characterize accurately ...
ZINDLER: I'm going to try to keep
you honest.
MORRIS: ...and not an unfair caricature
of what I said; I did not say that...
ZINDLER: It's not a caricature, it's
comic-book science [18] that you
write, John.[hubub]
MORRIS: We need to come to an
understanding here
ZINDLER: Now, if that mountain was
ten thousand feet high, where did all
the water come from?
MORRIS: We need to talk honestly,
Frank. [19]
ZINDLER: Where did the water come
from?
MORRIS: We really need to make sure
that we're talking facts, that they're not
your cartoon caricature ...
ZINDLER: Well I'm just repeating
what you said. If they' aren't facts, I
can't help that, John. Where did the
water come from to drown Mt. Ararat,
ten thousand feet in forty days?
MORRIS: What happen to page seven,
being created on day three? You know
if we're going to talk about a subject,
let's talk about a subject. You change
the subject...
WOLFSIE: All right, we have to take
a break ...
ZINDLER: We've got to figure out
where the water came from ...
WOLFSIE: I'll tell you what we'll do.
You decide what question you want to
ask, I'll ask it...
ZINDLER: I've asked it
WOLFSIE: ...and you decide what
question you want to answer, and we'll
do that when we come back. Stay with
us.
ZINDLER: Where did the water...
[Commercial]
WOLFSIE: We're back on AM Indiana.
Both of our guests this morning were
trained as geologists; but if you tuned
in even a couple of minutes ago,
you know we have some real basic
disagreements here-about the origin of
the earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's ark,
and that's what we're talking about. Let
me, let me ask a question, and therefore
neither of you can avoid it, okay? If
you just take the story of Noah, as I
understand it, it seems to me there
are certain aspects of it that appear to
be, on the surface, rather implausible-
if not a miracle: how he got all these
animals on the boat, how big the boat
was, how big the boat had to be ... So
my first question to you, sir, is do you
need to explain those things, or are you
simply going to say God did it, it was
a miracle, no explanation is necessary.
MORRIS: I think the story of the flood
clearly has its miraculous aspects to it;
but by and large, the kinds of things
that are mentioned in the scriptures
regarding Noah's flood are natural
processes. I mean we're talking rainfall
and erosion and deposition; and these
sorts of things are present processes
that are studiable and understandable.
[20] And in those areas, by all means,
I do believe that the flood account is
compatible with the geologic data.
Now we can't prove the flood; [21] we
didn't see the flood. It's totally outside
the realm of our experience, and so we
can only argue by analogy of that. My
study of geology has shown me that by
and large all of the rock units that are
on the earth's surface were laid down
by catastrophic processes. [22] We've
studied, we have a big study of Mt.
St. Helens, for instance, and we study
that terrible catastrophe and we see
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009 - AMERICAN ATHEIST
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
12/40
the sorts of things ... that dinky little
volcano- I mean it wasn't too dinky
for people living on the north side of
the mountain in 1980 . .. But that dinky
little volcano did the sorts of things,
laid down the sorts of layers that we
see in the geologic record throughout.
All of geology is beginning to move
toward this catastrophic interpretation
of the rocks ...
WOLFSIE: Okay, so your...this is what
I should have asked before... your
contention is that your approach that
your study of the geologic data show
that evolution as we understand it may
not be right or your study shows you
that in fact that there was a Noah or
you're still unclear about the proof on
either side?
MORRIS: The point is, science
can't prove the past. What a scientist
can do is study the present and do a
historical interp ... or reconstruction ...
what happened in the past to bring the
present in the state it is now. That's
what a scientist can do, that's what I
do ... that's what Frank claims he does.
WOLFSIE: Okay, Frank? [hubub] ...
what about the ark story?
ZINDLER: We certainly can see the
past. For example, whenever we look
through a telescope, we see the stars or
galaxies ...
MORRIS: Dr. Who, here He goes
back in time
ZINDLER: ...the galaxies as they
appeared millions of years ago [23]
...But getting back to Noah's flood, he
hasn't answered the question: Where
did the water come from? As I pointed
out, we would have had so much water
come down in forty days in order to
raise~ea level almost two miles ... that
we would have had ten, eleven and a
half feet of water coming down per
hour. This would have scoured off the
surface of all the continents. All the
AMERICAN ATHEIST- NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009
sedimentary rocks would have been
laid down in the ocean basins in one
great, jumbled mass. That is not what
we find. The fossil record, the rock
record, shows many cases of rock ...
things that had to have been formed
very slowly and gently. For example,
the Chalk Cliffs of Dover, the chalk
deposits. These rocks are made entirely
of the remains of fossil, microscopic
organisms. You couldn't possibly form
a deposit like that in one year's time,
[24] let alone in the jumbled mess of
Noah's flood. How could you get the
chalk deposits in one year?
MORRIS: In order to interpret the
past, in order to try to explain how any
particular rock unit was laid down, we
stay in the present, we're staying in the
present...
ZINDLER: Sure ...
MORRIS: We don't have Dr. Who's
time machine to go back to see how
chalk was formed ...
ZINDLER: Chalk is being formed in
the present...
MORRIS: ...that's right, but we have
to impose on that [sic] data certain
assumptions, a certain interpretive
framework. In geology we were
taught... you were taught, I was taught,
that the present is the key to'the past...
ZINDLER: Sure ...
MORRIS: ...and by studying the
present we may find analogies ... and
so we might know something about the
past. But as I said, at Mt. St. Helens,
there are episodes in the present which
give us a peek into a very catastrophic
possibility for the past... [25]
ZINDLER: It shows the 27 buried
fossils ...at Yellowstone Park ...it shows
quite clearly how 27 layers of fossil
forests were buried [26] ... But getting
back to the chalk, how could chalk have
been formed? These are microscopic
fossils of organisms ... There is a very
strict limitation as to how many of
these organisms can live in the sea at
anyone time. There are remains of
little granules formed by algae, the so-
called coccoliths. You can only grow so
many algae per square meter of surface
of the sea at one time ...
MORRIS: Let me tell you the error of
your thinking, Frank. You're making
the assumption that the present is the
key to the past...
ZINDLER: Oh, are you saying that
the sunlight didn't... in the past, the
sunlight didn't limit the growth of
algae? [ 27]
MORRIS: In the laboratory, there are
a number of different studies that have
been shown, that the different algal
organisms and different types of things
in that chalk deposit... they can grow,
they can duplicate, they can double
in their volume every day, or maybe
several times a day, if the nutrients
are right, if the temperature is right... I
am claiming that during Noah's flood,
there were locations, there were spots
in this global flood where the water
was incredibly nutrient-rich, were the
temperatures were large enough, to
have what we call an algal bloom ...
ZINDLER: In the darkness of all this
water coming down During this flood,
when we would expect that the skies
would be extremely overcast, in fact
it should have been completely dark.
How would you grow algae?
MORRIS: Well, you say it's dark, I
don't see that in scripture ...
ZINDLER: ...that's a hell of a lot of
water, there, still coming down ...
MORRIS: That was quite a storm, no
question about that
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
13/40
ZINDLER: ... it allegedly destroyed
the world
WOLFSIE: Let's go from the
microorganisms, which I can't see ...
ZINDLER: How about the coral
reefs? [28]
WOLFSIE: Let's talk about the big
animals. We've got to take a break
here ...1want to know what was on this
boat, how many animals were on the
boat, and let's get into the big picture
here, that's people understand ...We'll
be right back.
[commercial]
WOLFS IE: Back on AM Indiana,
talking about Noah's Ark. Frank, let
me ask you very specifically, let's get
from the very tiny things to the big
things. What about the story, the size
of the ark? And what Noah would have
had to put on the ark? What troubles
you? And then Professor Morris can
respond.
ZINDLER: Not only is there the
problem of how do you get all of the
species of land animals into the ark,
the primitive people who created the
flood myth in the first place, in the
fourth millennium
B.C.
or whenever,
they didn't realize that plants were
living things, and they didn't realize
the implications of Noah not taking
fishes and marine organisms into the
ark. If we limit ourselves to just the
water that is known on the planet, and
the volume of sedimentary strata that
we know of, and if as the creationists
claim, all these sedimentary strata
were deposited during that one year,
the ocean at that time would have been
actually two parts water to one part
mud [29] Now, if that were the case,
with a world-destroying flood, how
would the whales have stayed alive?
They could not have been swimming ...
through, straining out plankton and so
on, to feed. Delicate corals die if there
is just the tiniest bit of silt in the water,
or change in water temperature, and so
forth. So Noah would have to have had
enormous numbers of aquaria in the
ark to keep the whales going, to keep
the marine fishes from dying because
of the dilution of the salt water with
fresh water, to keep the fresh water
organisms alive because of the salt
coming in, and all these noxious
things that the volcanos are throwing
out... Incidentally, if all the volcanic
lava beds that we see interspersed
between these sedimentary rocks were
laid down during one year, the amount
of heat released from that lava would
have heated the water of the ocean to
several thousand degrees centigrade
And so Noah's ark would have had to
have been air-conditioned [30]
WOLFSIE: And how many animals
on the boat? How many species?
ZINDLER: There are at least a million
species of organisms known, and the
creationists say, well we wouldn't have
to have all the species. We would have
maybe just a general representative of
them. But even so.with the need for
the aquaria, a boat simply the size of
an ocean liner would be inadequate.
[31]
WOLFSIE: Okay ...
MORRIS: Frank, you are critiquing
the biblical account here. You're
saying that Noah ...[three-second flaw
in videotape of debate] Here's the
Bible. [holds up a Bible] Now ...
ZINDLER: A very ignorant book, by
the way...
MORRIS: Oh my
ZINDLER: Very unscientific ...
MORRIS: You are critiquing this
account...Will you tell me where it
says Noah had to take the fish on
board?
ZINDLER: I'm saying it was an error
because they didn't know he
had
to
take the fish on board ...
MORRIS: What you're saying is the
biblical account is wrong.
ZINDLER: Yes
MORRIS: Because there's not room
on board for all the fish and whales
and ...
ZINDLER: No-no-no It was wrong
because they didn't know ...
MORRIS: Nowhere is it claimed that
they had to be on board.
ZINDLER: That's why it's wrong ...
You see, for it to be a plausible
argument, they would have had to say,
and he had to take the fish on board,
and the corals on board ...
MORRIS: See what this is? Let me
show you what this is. This is Atheistic
logic here ...
WOLFSIE: Well he doesn't deny that
MORRIS: No, he doesn't.. ..He's
Madalyn Murray's right-hand man
ZINDLER: I was showing that the
Bible is pre-scientific, you see ...
MORRIS: An Atheist assumes a
very arrogant position, in my mind,
that there is no god. Now, every
philosopher knows that there is no
such thing as an absolute negative.
[32] He's saying there is no god ...
ZINDLER: You have to prove there is
one; I don't have to disprove it.
MORRIS: Okay, but you're making ...
ZINDLER: The onus of proof is on
you who allege ... [33]
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009 - AMERICAN ATHEIST
1
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
14/40
MORRIS: But to say that there is no
god ...that's illogical
ZINDLER: On the contrary It is
extraordinarily illogical to say there is
a god who couldn't tell the people who
wrote the Bible that they had to take
fishes and corals in the ark
MORRIS: Now your logic is going the
same direction ...You're saying that I
know, for a fact, that no whales could
have survived outside the ark ...
ZINDLER: I would hope you would
know that
MORRIS: Well, you're making
the statement that you know this
knowledge, that no whales could have
survived outside the ark ...Now, I think
that's an illogical statement. The flood
is not as you characterize it. Let me tell
you some things about water...
ZINDLER: It destroyed the world,
supposedly ...
MORRIS: You betcha By the billions
fish, clams, whales, died in the flood,
or maybe not billions of whales, by the
billions ...
ZINDLER: That's another thing. There
are too many fossils for one world If
you were to ...
WOLFSIE: Hey, Frank, now hold it
You know ...
ZINDLER: You can't have all the
known fossils living at one time
WOLFSIE: ...1 was just about to
understand something, and you're
changing on me Now wait a second ...
ZINDLER: You see, you can't have all
the known fossils living at one time ...
[34]
WOLFSIE: I was just on the verge of
AMERICAN ATHEIST - NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009
getting something here ... [To Morris]
You're claiming that the fish didn't
have to go on the ark because the fish
just would have survived, because they
live in water anyway ...
MORRIS: The Bible is very explicit
about what goes on the ark. It says
that...it says the land animals. It says
all those in whose nostrils is the breath
of life, of everything that lives on the
dry land. So many animals ... that's
excluding whales ...
ZINDLER: That's right [35]
MORRIS: ...although they breathe air,
but they don't live on land. It talks
about cattle and domesticated animals.
It talks about creeping things, the small
animals ...and the beasts of the field,
which are the large animals. And it says
very explicitly that those had to be on
board the ark ...and the birds. Now, he
says millions of species. If you add up
that number of species, you know, the
maximum number even that anyone
would even propose would be on board
the ark would be, I mean the outside
maximum, the worst-case scenario,
we're talking maybe fifty thousand
animals ... [36] And the ark is certainly
big enough to carry that number of
animals for the length of time that they
had to be ...
ZINDLER: Okay, you'd think that
there ...
MORRIS: Now what he's saying is...
he's adding to the story. He's saying
that the story makes no sense unless
you put the fish on board. I think that's
an illogical addition to it...
ZINDLER: You've apparently never
raised tropical fish, John ....you would
know how difficult it is to keep fish
alive
MORRIS: Let me tell you something
about water. There are many, many
studies where waters of different
temperature, of different salinities,
of different chemistries, segregate.
And during the flood there would
have been zones of fresh water, of salt
water... there is ... again, billions of sea
creatures died in Noah's flood. But all
the Bible, the biblical account, requires
is that two of each of these created
kinds would have survived somewhere
in a pocket...
ZINDLER: Somewhere close
enough together that they could get
back together after the flood And
that stratification would have been
impossible, John, because of all the
volcanic activity you talk about going
on. [37] This would be churning stuff
up all the time [hubub] ...
WOLFSIE: Were there dinosaurs on
the ark? Were there dinosaurs on this
ark?
MORRIS: The flood account does not
predict...
WOLFSIE: Oh I've got to take a
break ... What I'm trying to establish ...
ZINDLER: Of course there would have
been dinosaurs on the ark
WOLFSIE: I want to understand,
because I want to talk about how
Noah's flood occurred ... and then I
think a fair question is, if there were
dinosaurs on this ark, how is that in
keeping with how we know that man
and dinosaurs didn't exist at the same
time. And if there weren't dinosaurs,
where did they come from, since all the
species were wiped out? That seems
like a fair question. I'll try to remember
how I asked that in just a moment, stay
tuned ...
[commercial]
WOLFSIE: Okay, we're back. John
Morris, I was taught when I went to
school- might not have been the school
you would have sent your kids to - but
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
15/40
J
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009 - AMERICAN ATHEIST
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
16/40
I
1
T
~ ~ j ~ ~ ~
r
r
r
I ~ ~ ~
~
~-.
i. At
.Ilt.u.eT
the school I went to said dinosaurs
and man... dinosaurs predated man
by millions and millions of years. I
think a fair, straight-forward question
is whether dinosaurs were on the ark.
What do you think?
MORRIS: I think there's a great deal
of evidence that dinosaurs lived during
the same time that man has lived. This
is what the Bible seems to indicate and
there is a great deal of evidence that we
can marshal in support of that idea. [38]
WOLFSIE: There's no word 'dinosaur'
in the Bible, though, I assume?
MORRIS: There is the word, the
Hebrew word tannin [ 39] which is
translated in many places' dragons.' I'd
think, I'd think. .. in fact I'd speculate -
we don't know - that people who study
about myths, like myths of dragons ...
and it is true that almost every culture
around the world has legends of
dragons ... and they all describe these
AMERICAN ATHEIST - NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009
dragons in much the same way as
we draw our dinosaur fossils. And I
suspect that the legends of dragons
come from encounters of people with
dinosaurs, [40] and that they not only
lived at the same time but have died out
in fairly recent times. Even in fact in the
middle ages, sober scientists who were
listing the animals that were alive at
the time listed dragons. Alexander the
Great [41] has a very sober history of
an encounter with a dragon, and most
of the historians of the day list dragons
as if they were real.
WOLFSIE: Frank, in your opinion, is
there incontrovertible evidence that
dinosaurs and man could not have
existed at the same time?
ZINDLER: Yes, that is not true. Of
course, dinosaurs do exist today in
the form of birds. Birds descended
from small, bipedal dinosaurs. But
with that exception, there are no
dinosaurs surviving after the end of the
Cretaceous period. The whole thing,
though, is why aren't there any ... all
over the place? [42] Now ...one thing,
getting back to Noah's flood ... if that
had occurred, you see, we should have
a mixture of fossils, from the bottom
to the top, of all the different types
of living creatures, as well as all the
known extinct forms. The Cambrian
deposits, six hundred million years
ago, supposedly according to him,
supposedly - we should find in the
Cambrian rocks at least a few traces
of human habitation, [43] along with
trilobites, along with other types of
forms, oak trees ... we should at least
find pollen. [44] We should find all of
these things all jumbled together if they
were all contemporary.
WOLFSIE: All right, that's a fair
question. Do we find human beings as
we know human beings, and dinosaurs
in the same ... what do you call them?
Sedimentary deposits? Do we ever find
that?
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
17/40
MORRIS: Let me tell you some facts
about the fossil record. [45] Ninety five
percent of all the fossils that have ever
been found are marine invertebrates.
They're like shellfish ...and a lot of
fish, but mostly bottom, ocean-bottom
dwellers. The flood as an event was an
oceanic sort of event, [46] and the kinds
of forces that we envision as having
been involved at the time would have
been just right for the preservation of
oceanic creatures. Those same forces
which I envision mostly as huge tidal
waves and massive, catastrophic forces
[47] ... when those tidal waves come
in, what they're doing, is basically
scouring at the bottom and as they curl
back down, the forces involved would
be right for the deposition of oceanic
creatures, and would be right for the
destruction of land sorts of animals.
Less, much, much less than one percent
of all fossils have anything to do with
the land. Dinosaurs, there've been a
few of those you know, there have
been several thousand dinosaur fossils
found ... there have been a few men ...
but mammals, mammals are just real
rare; [48] and in fact the mammals
that are found I feel date from after the
flood, during events like the Ice Age,
which were land-associated events
which would have been just right for
fossilizing land creatures and not for
oceanic creatures. But basically, the
fossil record shows clams at the bottom,
and clams with very little change all the
way up to the top. And that's the kind
of thing we find ...
ZINDLER: Well, I think people who
study clams would be upset by that
generalization But anyway, we do
have fossil deposits like the Karroo
deposit in South Africa, where there
are over 800 billion vertebrate remains.
Most of these are mammal-like reptiles,
connecting reptiles to mammals ...
MORRIS: That number is an
apocryphal number. I traced it out one
time ...
ZINDLER: Oh, really?
MORRIS: The number is ...
ZINDLER: Your father cites it... [49]
MORRIS: It is included in a lot of
creationist publications ... Checking it
out, it wasn't true ...
ZINDLER: Okay, well I'm glad to
hear that...but there are many billions,
anyway, in that deposit. It's a large
deposit; these are mostly mammal-
like reptiles, connecting links between
reptiles and mammals. But in that... you
won't find any humans, you won't find
any elephant remains, you won't find
any really clearly mammalian things.
But you should I mean, there are
plenty of vertebrate remains preserved
there. We're not talking about deep-
sea clams. We're talking about... about
continental-type deposits. And they're
not there. You should find at least one
some place, one human fossil in a
Cambrian rock. That would certainly
be enough to wipe out the evolutionary
idea; but that has never been found.
MORRIS: Tell you what, Frank, I'll
concede you a point. That's a point for
your side. Okay? It would be nice, for
my way of thinking, to find the fossils a
little more mixed up than they are. But I
think there's a lot of circular reasoning
involved in the fossil record. Whenever
you find a human fossil, you date it as a
recent layer and ... [50]
ZINDLER: No, no ...
MORRIS: ...there's a lot of circular
reasoning ...what we should find if the
evolutionary scenario is right... we
should find in that fossil record the
record of types of animals changing
into other types of animals. And as
is now recognized by every leading
evolutionary paleontologist and
everybody else, what we find in the
fossil record is clams, we find oysters,
we find trilobites, and nothing in
between ... [51]
ZINDLER: No ...John ...no ...
MORRIS: ...and this I think is
the biggest argument against the
evolutionary scenario ...
ZINDLER: It is absolutely wrong We
have ...
WOLFSIE: What's wrong? Wait a
minute. What's wrong? His assessment
that there ...
ZINDLER: that there is no sequence
in the rocks .
MORRIS: About what I said was, there
are no transitional forms in the rocks ...
ZINDLER: ...transitional forms ...In the
evolution of the horse, [52] John ...
MORRIS: ...and to say that's wrong
is to disagree with guys like Stephen
Gould ... [53]
ZINDLER: No, Steve agrees with me,
we've discussed this ...
WOLFSIE: Drop a few names, Frank ,
ZINDLER: No, Steve Gould is not that
dumb ...
MORRIS: He doesn't write that way.
He says that there are no transitional
forms between the basic body types of
animals ...
ZINDLER: He's talking ...well, all
right, he's going back to the really
basic types, the phyla. [54] Okay? But
certainly, the classes ...
MORRIS: And the orders and classes ...
ZINDLER: We do have connections
between classes ... [55]
MORRIS: ...and connections between
species.
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009 - AMERICAN ATHEIST
1
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
18/40
ZINDLER: Well, now you're at two
different levels.
MORRIS: I know ...
ZINDLER: On the one level we're
talking about microevolution and the
punctuated equilibrium model...
MORRIS: Which I agree with ... [56]
ZINDLER: ...which involves one
species changing into the next species.
On the other hand, we're talking about
large-scale transitions, and Steve
Gould happens to be an expert on the
mammal-like reptiles. I've discussed
this with him. These beautifully span
the structural continuity from a very
primitive type of reptile to a primitive
type of mammal. The entire structure
of the jaw, the middle ear structure -
which is how we define mammals - is
there to be seen. [57] The evolution of
the horse, John, these are in Tertiary
rocks ...
MORRIS: The horse, I'm very
confident, is after the flood. [58] Those
fossils are from after the flood.
ZINDLER: The Tertiary deposits were
laid down after the flood?
MORRIS: Not as a general...I wouldn't
say all Tertiary deposits are from after
the flood, but as a general rule, those
Tertiary deposits that contain mammal
fossils, those few mammal fossils that
there are, are probably from after the
flood. [59]
WOLFS IE: Don't we have ...I thought
we had a pretty good scientific way of
dating something.
MORRIS: Let me tell you how to
date a sedimentary rock, the kind with
fossils in them. If you find a fossil out
in the field somewhere and you take it
into the geology lab, and say tell me
how old this fossil is, you know what
they'll do? They'll turn to this textbook,
AMERICAN ATHEIST· NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009
and they'll look ... open to the geologic
column, and they'll look until they find
a picture of that fossil in this book, and
say Oh, that fossil lived three hundred
million years ago, so this fossil is
three hundred million years old. You
cannot date a sedimentary rock [ 60]
or fossil [61] with the radiometric
dating schemes. These only work with
lava and granite, things like that. But
not for sedimentary rock. You date the
rock by the fossils that are in there,
and those dates are established by the
evolutionary assumption ... [62]
ZINDLER: Not so ...
MORRIS: You betcha It's circular
reasoning
ZINDLER: Okay, now ...
WOLFSIE: Thirty seconds, Frank,
we've got to take a break ...
ZINDLER: This is the way you do
it quickly. However, the original
sequence, we know that that fossil lived
at a certain period, and not another...
MORRIS: How do you know that?
ZINDLER: From the position of
the rock ...It's just below the other. ..
[complete chaos for five seconds] ...this
is elementary geology ...
MORRIS: I know that. You don't get a
number that way, you get a sequence ...
ZINDLER: ...you get the sequence,
that's right. Now, from the sequence
then you proceed to use other methods of
dating. Many of the sedimentary strata
are interspersed between lava flows
which can be dated radiometrically,
and, despite the various problems with
specific radiometric dating methods,
you can use one method to check
another, [63] and you can ...
MORRIS: You want me to tell you
what's wrong with radiometric dating?
WOLFSIE: Yes ...well, probably
not Let's take a break. That will be
complicated. We'll be right back after
a quick break.
[commercial]
WOLFSIE: All right, we're going to
talk about this idea, how old the earth
is, and this whole idea of dating. I'm
going to have to put you on the spot
here, Professor Morris. Your contention
would be, conservatively, how old, in
fact, is the earth? [64]
MORRIS: You know, I've dug up a
lot of rocks in my day, and I've never
dug up one with a label on it to tell me
how old it is. We've got to interpret
those rocks, based on what we see in
the present. And one of the ways that...
potentially a way to date a rock is by
measuring the isotopes in there and we
end up with radiometric dating. The
assumptions that are involved in those
methods, like the assumption that the
present is the key to the past, are really
in every case questionable at best, and
wrong in many cases. In fact the idea
of radiometric dating denies at its very
core the idea that the earth might be
young. It's not a possibility that those
methods would show that the earth was
young. [65]
WOLFSIE: Here's what I don't
understand. We're not arguing four
billion years versus five billion years.
We're arguing several thousand years
versus four billion years ...that's a
disparity that I can't comprehend.
ZINDLER: Yes, that's important...
MORRIS: That's right...the scientific
answer to that question, not the
emotional answer, but a scientific
answer, is that the rock data, the
isotope data, is [sic] compatible with
the idea of an old earth; and the rock
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
19/40
data is [sic] compatible with the idea of
a young earth.
WOLFSIE: I don't understand ... [66]
MORRIS: It can go either way. The
rocks don't talk. Let me talk about a ...
let me tell you about a research project
that we're working on right now ...
WOLFSIE: Quickly, I want to make
sure Frank gets to respond ...
MORRIS: In the Grand Canyon
there are two different lava flows,
that can be dated by the radiometric
dating methods. The one is at the very
bottom, one of the oldest rocks, and is
probably ...you know, one of the very
earliest rocks down at the way bottom
of the canyon. And the other lava flow
is on the very plateau, and it was ...
there was a volcano after the canyon
was formed; and the stuff spilled down
in the canyon ... and it is thought by
normal dating methods that that should
be just a couple million years old. But
with the dating methods, down at the
bottom, we've got a whole slough
of dates, but basically they ... now, by
using the best methods of geology
today, the rubidium-strontium isochron
method, they dated that at 1.1 billion
years. Using that same method, the
very same method, the same technique,
the same accuracy, they dated the one
at the top at 2.6 billion years [67]
WOLFSIE: But that still puts you out
of business, because you're saying the
earth's five thousand years old ...
MORRIS: No-no-no-no I'm just
saying that radiometric dating is so
full of unfounded, probably wrong
assumptions ...[hubub] you can only get
out depending upon what you put in...
ZINDLER: Dick, we don't have time
enough to go in to all of the figures,
into all the techniques of radiometric
dating. The creationists have screwed
it up so badly, it takes hours to explain.
[68] But we don't need radiometric
dating. For example, we have many
rocks that do talk to us - very
eloquently- and they tell us how long it
took for them to be formed. The Green
River Shale, which was laid down in
the Eocene Epoch, has layers in it...
very tiny, thin layers ... a varve-like
deposit. They're not true varves, [69]
but they are annual deposits, and there
are six million pairs of these at least
So that would mean that that part of
the Eocene Epoch had to have been six
million years in length. Now we know
that these are annual deposits, despite
your father's muddlement [IQ] of this,
because they follow the eleven-and-a-
half-year thickness variation in ... like
the sun-spot cycle. They follow higher
astronomical cycles, the 20,000-year
precession of the equinox cycle, [71]
and so forth. In each layer we have a
very thin amount of clay-like sediment,
and then an algal mat, with spores and
sometimes dead leaves and things like
that; and these are annual deposits, they
follow the annual cycle ....
WOLFSIE: That means what?
ZINDLER: That means that that hunk
of time was at least six million years in
duration. And that wipes out not only
Noah's flood, but the whole mythology
of the Bible and creation. The earth
was created 4004 B.C. if you add up all
the begats in the Bible.
WOLFSIE: Are you comfortable with
that date? 4004 B.C.? [72]
MORRIS: I would say, between SIX
and ten thousand years ... [73]
WOLFSIE: Okay, don't we have
recorded history that far back?
ZINDLER: Well, recorded history only
goes back to about 3000 B.C...
MORRIS: Which is what the Bible
would make you expect... [74]
ZINDLER: But you know, certainly
we have overlapping tree rings ...
dendrochronology goes back beyond
that. If we add up the begats we have
Noah's flood in the year 2348 B.C.
That's in the Fifth Egyptian Dynasty,
[75] the Yao Dynasty of China, the ...
MORRIS: May I comment on the
Green River oil shale that he's talking
about? Before he changes the subject to
the Ming Dynasty?
WOLFSIE: Yaahh, I wondered about
that...
MORRIS: Actually, what he's talking
about was thought by some geologists
about forty years ago. But that's an
old wive's tale. [76] It's really been
disproved. It's been shown by a number
of observational experiments as well
as laboratory experiments that these
couplets of layers, exactly as with the
Green River oil shales, can be formed
as events. And in fact, let me tell you
about Mt. St. Helens, our research
project there. One of those eruptions
on the side of Mt. St. Helens sent a
fluidized mud flow down the side of the
mountain at about forty miles an hour...
just a wave of mud. It was dry mud
filled with gaseous material from the
volcano, and it went down, whoosh
And laid down a deposit about thirty
feet thick ... full of many thousands of
varved layers, just what he's talking
about at the Green River. But there's
more than one way to interpret a rock.
He says those rocks talk, but they talk
in different languages.
ZINDLER: You don't have varves,
John, at Mt. St. Helens [77] and you
cannot produce these six million very
fine layers over hundreds of square
miles ...in the one year of Noah's flood
MORRIS: Let me tell you something.
Also in these varved layers where
there might be a hundred of them in
a few inches, sometimes there's a fish
fossil going right up through several of
them ...
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009 - AMERICAN ATHEIST
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
20/40
ZINDLER: Yes Absolutely. And why
should that surprise you?
MORRIS: Thousands of years [78]
while that one fish is just sticking out
of the ground [79] It would decay ...
ZINDLER: Oh, no, no ...these become
covered ...
MORRIS: They won't decay
III
ten
thousand years?
ZINDLER: If it was an anoxic
environment, they won't. This is why
fish fossils are building up right now
at the bottom of the Black Sea, for
example. You have hydrogen sulfide
and things like that that would prevent
decay. As a matter of fact, when you
look at those fish fossils ...
MORRIS: Wait a minute The fish
fossils are truncating a number of
different varves ... [80]
ZINDLER: They are laid down so
slowly that they cannot completely
cover the skeleton all at once ...
MORRIS: so slowly that that fish does
not...
WOLFSIE: We'll be right back ...Keep
going
[commercial]
WOLFSIE: Okay, we're back. Let me
try to ask a more general question ...
Because I have a lot of questions. But
John, why do you think, that for the
most part, correct me if I'm wrong,
that the churches in this country have
somewhat retreated from a strict
interpretation of the Bible. Is that
fair to say that? If you go to a typical
Protestant church and talk to them,
they'll say well, evolution is a very
nice ...Imean, creationism is a very nice
story, but we accept evolution. Is that
fair?
AMERICAN ATHEIST - NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009
MORRIS: You know, I think there's
a whole shift in thinking right now.
Back about 1960 or so there was hardly
anybody, anybody, any scientist in
particular, that believed in creation,
young-earth creation. But since 1960
there are... many tens of thousands
of scientists have said they rejected
the evolutionary scenario and have
come over to creationist thinking.
L 8 . 1 ]
There are now hundreds of creationist
societies around the country. And
the polls that are taken of opinion in
America show that something like 80,
85 percent of all Americans believe in
creation; they have rejected ... In fact,
there are polls taken on university
campuses today that show that over 50
percent of the college students believe
in evolution
[sic]
and the professors are
tearing their hair out saying what are
we doing wrong? We can't get them
to believe they came from apes? Well,
I'm of the opinion, you've got to go to
school a long time before you believe
you come from apes. That's ...that's just
illogical...We don't...I'm here to tell
you you don't come from apes ...
ZINDLER: You know, it's funny. Here
I am sitting in front of a man who's
99 percent identical to a chimpanzee,
98.5 percent identical to a gorilla in his
genes ...
WOLFSIE: And so are you, too ...
ZINDLER: ...and I am too, sure ...and
he cannot see the obvious. Certainly,
if the gorilla and the chimpanzee had
been divinely created independent of
humans, we would not see this. Not
only is our DNA nearly identical...
it's packaged the same way ...the
chromosomes ... [82]
MORRIS: Frank, you say, you say
you've got the mind of god ...you're
claiming ...
ZINDLER: Well, I'm better than god.
If I couldn't do better than god, John,
I wouldn't be on this show ...god can't
do anything.
MORRIS: Keep talking .. .I don't have
to refute that.. .Open your mouth and
remove all doubt
ZINDLER: So you are 99 percent
chimpanzee ...
WOLFSIE: Biochemically ...
ZINDLER: Biochemically, III your
genes ...
MORRIS: What you're saying is that if
you were god, you'd have done a better
job
ZINDLER: Well, I certainly would
MORRIS: Oh my goodness
ZINDLER: How can you be 99 percent
chimpanzee and not be related to the
chimpanzee? [83]
MORRIS: Frank, you know as well as
I do, that we've only identified a very
small portion of the human genome ...
ZINDLER: But you know how we do
this, with DNA hybridization?
MORRIS: Yes...
ZINDLER: Okay, now, not only ...
MORRIS: The biochemical, molecular
biology that is now ...really the fossil
record used to be the evidence for
evolution ...
ZINDLER: It's now molecular...
MORRIS: Now molecular biology,
the similarities between organisms ...
but you know? I'll make a prediction.
Scientists like to make predictions. For
the last five years or so, the field of
molecular biology has been thought to
be a good ...
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
21/40
ZINDLER: a very good test of the
fossil record [ 84]
MORRIS: ...a right jab, right cross, for
the evolutionists. But now that the data
is [sic] being published, my goodness
hat we're seeing is that every
animal type ...well, sure, monkeys are
loser genetically to humans than are
angaroos. [85] But when you look at
hem, when you set them all out, every
nimal type is completely distinct,
eparate from each other. The isolation
f every animal kind is what's coming
ut of molecular biology. I would
...
OLFSIE: Which is within the
eationist theme?
ORRIS: I predict that these studies
om genetic engineering and molecular
iology will be the falsification [86] of
volution theory in the next five years.
INDLER: Well, that's whistling
ast the graveyard John. Molecular
iology has been the most wonderful
roof of what we've been saying all
long. Chimpanzee hemoglobin is
dentical to yours, okay? Not only do
e share many of these genes, we even
hare pseudogenes. [87] That is, god
... if he did all the making
f genes, copied erroneous genes that
appen to contain the same error in
es and humans
OLFSIE: We'll be right back ...
Actually, this was the end of
e debate.]
Notes
The ellipsis (. ..) is used in the debate transcript (but not in the
footnotes) to indicate an uncompleted thought, not words left out.
When words infact have been left out, some explanation in square
brackets will be given.
Unfortunately, space limitations did not allow us to print
the explanatory notes accompanying the transcript of this
debate. However, the notes provide fascinating and re-
vealing insights into creationist errors, strategies, and de-
ceptions. Readers who are 'wired' will want to access
these notes on-line. For a complete list of foot notes, visit
www.dogmadebate.comand click on: Noah's Flood Debate
And God remembered Noah.i. and God made a
wind to pass over the earth. and the waters
assuaged ... And the waters returned from off' the
earth continually ... [Genesis 8:1-3]
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009 AMERICAN ATHEIST 2
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
22/40
on Amiel's hauntingly
beautiful film Creation
is about Charles Darwin.
Not the bearded old man
in the Inverness cloak, or
even the young naturalist
who sailed with Fitzroy
on the H.M.S. Beagle, but a very
.human Charles Darwin. This is the
Darwin that often gets lost because we
tend to define our heroes in the terms
of the things they did or what they
stood for, forgetting they were of flesh
and blood like the rest of us and subject
to the same pleasures and pains the rest
of us feel.
We first meet Darwin as
a
happy
AMERICANATHEIST· NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009
young father accompanying his
beloved daughter Annie as she sits for
a photograph. In the next scene we see
an older, sadder Darwin. Annie has
died from an unknown disease; Darwin
has become distanced from his wife
Emma and other children, even though
he loves them very much. Emma, a
religious woman, retreats even further
into religion to fill the void between
Charles and her. Meanwhile, Darwin's
researches increasingly convince him
of the needlessness of a god. He knows
this will break Emma's heart and he is
tom whether he should tell Emma of
his growing conviction. This conflict
along with his grief over Annie's death
has made Darwin quite ill.
Darwin often sees and speaks
with his dead daughter. There is
nothing supernatural here; Annie's
ghost is presented as a manifestation
of Darwin's own mind, as well as a
device which allows him to speak his
true feelings about his life and his work.
The work that frightens him especially
when friend Thomas Huxley exclaims:
You have killed God, and I say good
riddance to the insufferable bugger It
helps us to understand why it took so
long for Darwin to publish his findings.
In the end, it is apparent that
Darwin must confront his own fears
and grief and then help Emma with hers
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
23/40
f i lm
b y
o n m ie l
if he is to reconnect with the family he
loves and finish the great book that will
change the world.
The cast is superb. Paul Bettany
is wonderful as Charles Darwin. He
makes Darwin fully human while
still investing him with that quality of
respect for the truth no matter where
it leads that we would expect from
the great man. Bettany's real life wife
Jennifer Connelly is perfect as Emma,
a woman who loves her husband while
fearing his work that she feels will tear
them apart for eternity. Interestingly,
Bettany is an Atheist and Connelly is
mildly religious. Toby Jones is very
memorable in his small role as Thomas
Huxley, eventually to be known as
Darwin's bulldog.
The photography is beautiful
and the film is so well written by John
Collee and Jon Amiel and directed by
Amiel it goes by too quickly. Now
that we've gotten to know Darwin we
want to spend more time with him and
his lovely family. We can, by reading
Annie
s
Box by Randal Keynes. This is
the book the film is based on. Randal
Keynes is Darwin's great, great,
grandson.
I wanted to see this film ever
since I first heard of it. Then came
.
.
movte reVlew
by Jim MacIver
the word the producers could not find
an American distributor, presumably
for fear of complaints from religious
people. I, like I'm sure many of you,
began to organize a letter writing
campaign. I didn't get very far with
it because only two days later a
distributor was found. Ironically, the
distributor is Newmarket Films, the
same distributor of Mel Gibson's
Passion of the Christ. Make a point to
see this film when it comes out, as of
this writing, January 22, 2010. Take
all your friends and relatives with you,
kicking and screaming if necessary.
They'll thank you for it.
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009· AMERICAN ATHEIST
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
24/40
Enjoy the introductory information provided in these books, which are
of topics of interests to Atheists. These titles represent only
a
fraction
of the books available from American Atheist Press, yet collectively
they provide
a
broad overview of Atheist thought.
m e r ican A theis t s Essen t ial R eading L is t
52
fn eism -Advanc eC l:FU rt n er Tfl o ugt l ts o faFree
Tflinker~5j7Dav;O'EII~ej; '----~S1~~TOit
--~~~1~lL~p*Y81cl
n anthropologist advances Atheists and
theism beyond belief
hr istian doctr ines are traced to their
rigins in older religions.
merican Atheist Radio Series episodes about the myth
hat our founding fathers created a Christ ian nat ion.
70
psychotherapist's view of the harmful
spects of religious belief.
ubt it led Freeing Your Chi ld from the Dark Ages
his book serves as a manual for Atheist parents.
288
merican Atheist Radio Series episodes on various topics
f Atheist philosophy and history.
he personal story of the battle to end mandatory prayer
nd bible reci tat ion in schools in the United States.
search of ancient Jewish li terature yields no evidence
or the existence of any historical Jesus.
~~ •• ===~~~~: : ~
..I
aperback
Ingersoll's 19th-century newspaper interviews
s a Freethinker and opponent of superst ition.
~~;;r~==~:::=;Th~
42 -Paperback
hy attempts to reconcile religion with civ il
ights for women are self-defeating.
8
ow nonbelievers and Atheists have contributed
o civil ization and enriched our lives.
t l 'e 'M 'y ft lo r l\J az a re fn :ln e lnven t edWTow n o f J esu s o y R e n f r S m m
esus couldn't have come from Nazareth
ecause no one was living there at the time.
ou can bet this book won't ever be used
n Sunday Schools
f 6U 5
~18.00
Paperback
s u s i s t r e a a O Y F l o o e n 7 C r P n c e
ot only is there no reason to believe Jesus rose from the
, there is no reason to think he ever lived or died at all
lease see the order form enclosed with this magazine for member discounts and shipping details, or consult www.atheists.org.
CAN ATHEIST - NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
25/40
TEXAS
~ State Directors
MILITARY DIRECTOR
Kathleen Johnson
411 E. Hwy 190 Ste. 105
PMB66
Copperas Cove, TX 76522
(318) 542-1019
http://www. atheists
.org/m
iI
ALABAMA STATE
DIRECTOR
Blair Scott
P.O. Box 41
Ryland, AL 35767-2000
(256) 701-6265
http://www.atheists.org/al/
ALASKA STATE DIRECTOR
Clyde Baxley
3713 Deborah Ln.
Anchorage, AK 99504
(907) 333-6499
http://www.atheists.org/ak/
ARIZONA STATE DIRECTOR
[NEW]
Don Lacey
P.O. Box 1161
Tucson, AZ 85641-1161
(520) 370-8420
http://www.atheists.org/az/
CALIFORNIA
STATE DIRECTOR
Michael Doss
P.O. Box 10541
Santa Ana, CA 92711
(714) 478-8457
Mark W. Thomas (Asst. Dir.)
472 Lotus Lane
Mountain View,
CA 94043-4533
(650) 969-5314
http://www.atheists.org/cal
CONNECTICUT STATE
DIRECTOR
Dennis Paul Himes
P.O. Box 9203
Bolton, CT 06043
(860) 643-2919
http://www.atheists.org/ct/
FLORIDA STATE DIRECTOR
Greg McDowell
P.O. Box 680741
Orlando, FL 32868-0741
(352) 217-3470
Ken Loukinen
(So. FL Reg. Dir.)
7972 Pines Blvd., #246743
Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
(954) 381-5240
http://www.atheists.org/fl/
IDAHO STATE DIRECTOR
Susan Harrington
P.O. Box 204
Boise, ID 83701-0204
(208) 392-9981
http://www.atheists.org/id/
KENTUCKY STATE
DIRECTOR
Edwin Kagin
P.O. Box 48
Union, KY 41091
(859) 384-7000
http://www.atheists.org/ky/
MICHIGAN STATE
DIRECTOR
Arlene-Marie
George Shiffer (Asst. Dir.)
Both can be reached at:
P.O. Box 0025
Allen Park, M148101-9998
(313) 938-5960
http://www.atheists.org/mil
MISSOURI STATE
DIRECTOR
Greg Lammers
P.O. Box 1352
Columbia, MO 65205
(573) 289-7633
http://www.atheists.org/mol
NEW JERSEY
STATE DIRECTOR
David Silverman
1308 Centennial Ave.,
Box 101
Piscataway, NJ 08854
(732) 648-9333
http://www.atheists.org/nj/
NORTH CAROLINA STATE
DIRECTOR
Wayne Aiken
P.O. Box 30904
Raleigh, NC 27622
(919) 602-8529
http://www.atheists.org/nc/
OHIO STATE DIRECTOR
Michael Allen
PMB289
1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd
Columbus, OH 43229
(614) 678-6470
http://www.atheists.org/oh
OKLAHOMA STATE
DIRECTOR
Ron Pittser
P.O. Box 2174
Oklahoma City,
OK 73101-2174
(405) 205-8447
http://www.atheists.org/ok/
STATE DIRECTOR
Joe Zamecki
(512) 462-0572
http://www.atheists.org/tx/
Dick Hogan (TX Reg. Dir.,
Dallas/Ft. Worth)
http://www.atheists.org/dfw/
UTAH STATE DIRECTOR
Rich Andrews
P.O. Box 165103
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-5103
(801) 718-7930
http://www.atheists.org/utl
VIRGINIA STATE DIRECTOR
Rick Wingrove
P.O. Box 774
Leesburg, VA 20178
(703) 433-2464
http://www.atheists.org/val
WASHINGTON STATE
DIRECTOR
Wendy Britton
12819 SE 38th St., Suite 485
Bellevue, WA 98006
(425) 269-9108
http://www.atheists.org/wal
WEST VIRGINIA STATE
DIRECTOR
Charles Pique
P.O. Box 7444
Charleston, WV 25356-0444
(304) 776-5377
http://www.atheists.org/wv/
Contacting State Directors
Our directors are not provided with contact information for members in their area. If you're
interested in working with your Director on activism, please use the listing on this page to
contact them. They would love to hear from you
If you live in a state or area where there is no director, you have been a member for one year
or more, and you're interested in a Director position, please contact:
David Kong, Director of State and Regional Operations
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009 - AMERICAN ATHEIST
2
-
8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009
26/40
E
rlier in 2009 I compiled,
some data for a reporter at
Religious News Service
regarding how fast Atheist
groups were growing in the United
States. After compiling the data, Imust
admit Iwas pretty amazed myself. I
knew secularism was growing, but
I
did not expect the numbers
I
came
across and the rapid increase in groups
everywhere.
To get the data, Iused Meetup.
Com. It is a great indicator of the
movement and how things are going.
While Iwould love to count every
single group out there, it is an almost
impossible task to undertake. Ihave a
hard enough time keeping up with the
Southeast groups that
I
have listed on
my personal Web Page.
Groups on Meetup.Com
(as of 11120/2009
Humanism: 467 groups
Atheism: 439 groups
Agnostics: 232 groups
Skeptics: 218 groups
Freethinker: 99 groups
Brights: 79 groups
TOTAL: 1534 groups
So how much have the groups
grown over the years? The data on
Meetup.Com starts in late 2002, so I
will only count from January, 2003 to
November 20th, 2009.
Humanism and Secular Humanism
are listed separately and I have
combined them into one grouping:
2003:-41 groups
2004: 46 groups (up by 5, 12%)
2005: 48 groups (up by 2, 4%)
2006: 90 groups (up by 42,87%)
2007: 162 groups (up by 72,80%)
2008: 289 groups (up by 127,78%)
2009: 467 groups (up by 178,61 %)
AMERICAN ATHEIST· NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009
Atheism and Atheists are listed
separately and Ihave combined them
into one grouping:
2003: 55 groups
2004: 58 groups (up by 3, 5%)
2005: 61 groups (up by 3,5%)
2006: 95 groups (up by 34,55%)
2007: 166 groups (up by 71, 74%)
2008: 276 groups (up by 110