American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009

8/9/2019 American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009

1/40


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


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.


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

[email protected]

AMERICAN ATHEIST

'A Journal of Atheist News and Thought'

Editor

David Smalley

[email protected]

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


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


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


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


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


8/40

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


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


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 ]


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


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


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


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]


1


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


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


15/40

J



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


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?


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.


1


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,


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


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 ...



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?


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 ...


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


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


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


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


25/40

TEXAS

~ State Directors

MILITARY DIRECTOR

Kathleen Johnson

411 E. Hwy 190 Ste. 105

PMB66

Copperas Cove, TX 76522

(318) 542-1019

[email protected]

http://www. atheists

.org/m

iI

ALABAMA STATE

DIRECTOR

Blair Scott

P.O. Box 41

Ryland, AL 35767-2000

(256) 701-6265

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/al/

ALASKA STATE DIRECTOR

Clyde Baxley

3713 Deborah Ln.

Anchorage, AK 99504

(907) 333-6499

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/ak/

ARIZONA STATE DIRECTOR

[NEW]

Don Lacey

P.O. Box 1161

Tucson, AZ 85641-1161

(520) 370-8420

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/az/

CALIFORNIA

STATE DIRECTOR

Michael Doss

P.O. Box 10541

Santa Ana, CA 92711

(714) 478-8457

[email protected]

Mark W. Thomas (Asst. Dir.)

472 Lotus Lane

Mountain View,

CA 94043-4533

(650) 969-5314

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/cal

CONNECTICUT STATE

DIRECTOR

Dennis Paul Himes

P.O. Box 9203

Bolton, CT 06043

(860) 643-2919

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/ct/

FLORIDA STATE DIRECTOR

Greg McDowell

P.O. Box 680741

Orlando, FL 32868-0741

(352) 217-3470

[email protected]

Ken Loukinen

(So. FL Reg. Dir.)

7972 Pines Blvd., #246743

Pembroke Pines, FL 33024

(954) 381-5240

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/fl/

IDAHO STATE DIRECTOR

Susan Harrington

P.O. Box 204

Boise, ID 83701-0204

(208) 392-9981

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/id/

KENTUCKY STATE

DIRECTOR

Edwin Kagin

P.O. Box 48

Union, KY 41091

(859) 384-7000

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/ky/

MICHIGAN STATE

DIRECTOR

Arlene-Marie

[email protected]

George Shiffer (Asst. Dir.)

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/mol

NEW JERSEY

STATE DIRECTOR

David Silverman

1308 Centennial Ave.,

Box 101

Piscataway, NJ 08854

(732) 648-9333

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/nj/

NORTH CAROLINA STATE

DIRECTOR

Wayne Aiken

P.O. Box 30904

Raleigh, NC 27622

(919) 602-8529

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/nc/

OHIO STATE DIRECTOR

Michael Allen

PMB289

1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd

Columbus, OH 43229

(614) 678-6470

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/oh

OKLAHOMA STATE

DIRECTOR

Ron Pittser

P.O. Box 2174

Oklahoma City,

OK 73101-2174

(405) 205-8447

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/ok/

STATE DIRECTOR

Joe Zamecki

(512) 462-0572

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/tx/

Dick Hogan (TX Reg. Dir.,

Dallas/Ft. Worth)

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/dfw/

UTAH STATE DIRECTOR

Rich Andrews

P.O. Box 165103

Salt Lake City, UT 84116-5103

(801) 718-7930

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/utl

VIRGINIA STATE DIRECTOR

Rick Wingrove

P.O. Box 774

Leesburg, VA 20178

(703) 433-2464

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/val

WASHINGTON STATE

DIRECTOR

Wendy Britton

12819 SE 38th St., Suite 485

Bellevue, WA 98006

(425) 269-9108

[email protected]

http://www.atheists.org/wal

WEST VIRGINIA STATE

DIRECTOR

Charles Pique

P.O. Box 7444

Charleston, WV 25356-0444

(304) 776-5377

[email protected]

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

[email protected]


2


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 %)


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

Documents

American Atheists Magazine Nov/Dec 2009