University of California, San Diego, biologist Steve Kay recently discussed evolution in an online chat forum hosted by The San Diego Union-Tribune in which ICR biochemistry professor Dr. Duane Gish and ICR science editor Frank Sherwin participated.
Dr. Kay's comments did not present new evidences or add support for macroevolution, consisting mostly of responses used by various proponents of macroevolution in previous interviews and debates.
"I think that many Americans may not believe in evolution because they find it confusing," Dr. Kay wrote when one participant mentioned a recent Gallup poll that showed about 40 percent of Americans don't accept Darwin's theory of macroevolution. "I think that scientists need to do a better job at explaining to the public difficult concepts such as genetics."
Like most who adhere to the belief that life came about by random evolutionary processes, Dr. Kay acknowledged the gaps in the fossil record, "particularly the lack of transitional forms," yet suggested mutations at the molecular level as evidence for evolution.
During the chat, Dr. Gish posed documented evidence on ICR's Dr. John Sandford's genome research: "While we are waiting for a rare beneficial mutation, bad mutations are piling up throughout the region. . .(we have reviewed compelling evidence that even when ignoring deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene--not within the human evolutionary time scale. . .When deleterious mutations are factored back in, we see that the mutation/selection cannot create a single gene EVER. . .In my opinion this constitutes what is essentially a formal proof that the Primary Axiom is false."
Dr. Kay responded, "I am not myself an expert on the exact mechanisms (emphasis added) of genome evolution. But bear in mind that the vast majority of polymorphism we see in genomes, that is to say variations, are mostly 'silent,' thought not to have an effect on the organism under a particular circumstance. But then what happens is that environmental changes may occur that mean a particular genetic change now confers [an] advantage on an organism that leads to increased reproductive success and is maintained."
Dr. Gish also posed a comment on transitional forms, noting "the fossils of complex invertebrates abruptly appear fully formed in the Cambrian with no trace of ancestors or transitional forms."
Dr. Kay responded, "I am not a paleontologist (I can barely spell it correctly). But my understanding from my colleagues is that the Cambrian explosion didn't occur overnight--it was tens of millions of years that resulted in the appearance of a plethora of more complex life forms. . .the fossil record will always be incomplete, but our view on life forms and their transitions is also supported by genetic evidence."
When asked on what he thought about scientists who questioned Darwin's theory and sought to explore alternative theories, which includes but is not limited to Intelligent Design, Dr. Kay dodged the question and responded, "To put the record straight. . .[ID] is not a theory or hypothesis, it makes no predictions, and it has no place in the science classroom because of this. It is therefore a false assertion that evolution "censors" ID. ID is not science, but a belief system." (Emphasis added)
Reports of scientists at major universities and learning institutions losing their jobs or being denied tenure have come up in recent years for refusing to accept macroevolution. These scientists, not all of whom are creationists, with legitimate degrees from high ranking universities have been discriminated against for wanting to scientifically question Darwin's theory.
Dr. Kay responded: "I would expect faculty not to contaminate their scientific views with their personal belief systems--our students need to learn the plethora of science out there by learning modern scientific methods and thoughts."
Yet National Center for Science Education director Eugenie Scott, a devout atheist, has allowed her "perosnal belief system contaminate" her "scientific views" by proclaiming herself as an evangelist for evolution, "evangelist" being a term primarily used to refer to the four gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) as well as historical preachers of the gospel.
Is secular science asking, or more accurately demanding, that scientists leave rational thought, the right to question, and wisdom from life experiences at the door so as to simply expound upon a dated and unscientific theory, limiting the scope of their work to what others want taught?
Dr. Kay wrote "the humanities rather than our science classes" is the right forum to discuss the Bible and various philosophies, suggesting that the First Amendment right to free speech can be enforced anywhere else except the science classroom.
Thus, scientists and science educators who wish to perform scientific inquiry and investigations beyond or in place of Darwinism risk persecution or termination. And their students, from grade to graduate school, are short-changed by being denied the perspectives and "scientific views" of these qualified scientists.
Without even knowing scientific alternatives to Darwinism exist, students are denied the knowledge and right to choose their methodologies, forced instead to accept an atheistic worldview, whether scientific or otherwise.
You can view the full transcript of the chat with Steve Kay at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/scien