From: Eric Frank

Dr. Wallace,
I would like to take the time to thank you personally for putting together the website that you did. I have looked at the “TalkOrigins” site and I found it to be, as you stated, dogmatic and undeniably biased.

I have also read extensively on the creation/evolution controversy and I have found, with the help of your page, creation to be a much more credible explanation for how the world came to be. On the subject of Thermodynamics and evolution,I have watched numerous debates between ICR’s Dr. Duane T. Gish and Dr. Doolitle of University of California and I have found that the evolutionists just don’t like to talk about that natural law. It sure sounds as though the evolutionists have made up their own definition of science! They continually assert that there is not one shred of evidence that supports the creationist position! Unbelievable! It seems that non-believers just don’t want to be accountable to a creator. I believe that is the underlying issue here!

Anyways, thanks for your time and may God continue to bless you in your studies.

Sincerely,
Eric Frank

---

Response from Timothy Wallace:

Thanks very much for the kind and encouraging words. Please note, however, that I have not earned the title “Dr.” (though I was flattered by your apparent assumption that I had).

Kind Regards,
TW
 

From Robert Allen Fairbairn IV:

Your specious “scientific ”arguments aside, why is the Hebrew creation story the *only* valid one? The aboriginal Austrailian creation story is much more in line with current geological data than this tale and is much more gratifying.

---

Response from Timothy Wallace:

Since you fail to name a specific argument as “specious,” and so failed to explain exactly why you perceive it to be “specious,” you have offered no argument to which I may respond.

The authenticity of the Genesis creation account is affirmed through a number of factors, not the least of which is its agreement and continuity with the balance of early history as recorded in the Scriptures. It is my understanding that the aboriginal Australian creation story contains a number of details that correspond to the Genesis account.

You fail to state what it is about the aboriginal Australian creation story that you find to be “much more in line” with what you call “current geological data,” so I am again unable to comment on your remarks. Likewise, your failure to explain the importance or means of measuring how “gratifying” one historical account may be over another leaves that matter equally short on relevance.

Kind Regards,
TW
 

From Steve Willows:

We are Christians, right? Why are we bothering to argue with the Evolutionists? We should show them love instead of making them look like idiots all the time...

Just my thoughts,
Steve

---

Response from Timothy Wallace:

It is not my aim to merely “argue with evolutionists”, nor is “making them look like idiots” high on my agenda. As a Christian, I recognize that there is absolute truth, and that God’s Word manifests for men the most supreme absolute truth of all.

Throughout history, many deceptions have been (and will continue to be) raised up for the purpose of discrediting the trustworthiness of God’s Word. Evolutionism is just such a deception, which employs supposed human “knowledge” to compete with the historical truth which is the foundation of the Christian faith. It is certainly possible to simultaneously expose this lie for what it is, while loving one’s opponents in such a dialogue.

A careful study of the New Testament record and the doctrines it contains will show that both Jesus and His apostles were examples in exactly such a response to those who believed and/or promoted falsehoods that were contrary to the Word of God. I have no reason to believe that we are not do the same today.

Kind Regards,
TW
 

From: Dwayne DeSylvia

I just discovered your True.Origin site and what a great discovery it is! Thank you very much for making this site. My friends and I often discuss creation topics and I have recently read Dr. Humphrey’s material. The content is very helpful.

I just want to give you a note of encouragement and thanks.

Be Blessed!
Dwayne DeSylvia
 

From Dr. Royal Truman:

I think the trueorigin.org site is a great idea. I especially enjoyed the full articles, they are something which can be printed out and distributed to fellow scientists.

I hope you can attract some more contributions!

-Royal
 

From Rick Toews:

I discovered your site quite by accident a few weeks ago, and it’s gratifying to see an intelligent effort of this type. I recently purchased Richard Milton’s “Shattering the Myth of Darwinism,” and from this and other sources, I’m getting a better idea of some of the problems with what is generally assumed to be the scienctific explanation of who we are and where we came from. ...I think you are doing a great thing, and I also know that projects of this sort are quite demanding, even as they can be very rewarding.

All the best in your efforts,
Rick Toews
 

From Ron Tolle:

Your site truly can be called an island of faith in a sea of fact. Still interesting, though. You’ve recently posted an article by one Jonathan Sarfati, defender of the one true faith, in which he assembled a string of ad hominem attacks upon John Stear’s “No Answers in Genesis” site. How about posting links to those of us wishing to make a response (such as the “No Answers” website, for example)?

Also--why is it you haven’t updated your feedback section?

Ron Tolle

---

Response from Timothy Wallace:

>>Your site truly can be called an island of faith in a sea of fact.<<

Since you failed to name a single specific “fact”, I guess you just expect me to take your word for it (on “faith”?)...

>>Still interesting, though.<<

Thank you.

>>You’ve recently posted an article by one Jonathan Sarfati ... in which he assembled a string of ad hominem attacks upon John Stear’s “No Answers in Genesis” site.<<

Dr. Sarfati’s essay was a criticism of the (lack of) qualifications held by the contributors to the NAIG site. Unless you have information that their “qualifications” were not accurately represented, your “ad hominem” accusation amounts to little more than diversionary whining.

>>How about posting links to those of us wishing to make a response (such as the “No Answers” website, for example)?<<

No thanks — at least not at this time (is it really that hard for you to find?).

>>Also--why is it you haven’t updated your feedback section?<<

Not enough time. I’m seriously back-logged, but aim to catch up by year’s end. See you there...

Kind Regards,
TW
 

From John Stear:

I refer to Jonathan Sarfati’s intemperate and largely inaccurate attack on me personally and on my site “No Answers in Genesis” which is posted on your site.

My response to Mr Sarfati is available on my site but I notice that you (or Mr Sarfati) have neglected to provide a link to that site.

I would have thought that in the interest of fair and honest debate, providing a link to the site which is the subject of criticism would be a reasonable thing to do. When I refute, on my site, the many creationist assertions, I supply links to the articles or the sites containing those assertions wherever possible. I trust you will do the same in this case.

Sincerely,
John Stear

---

Response from Timothy Wallace:

>>I refer to Jonathan Sarfati’s intemperate and largely inaccurate attack on me personally and on my site “No Answers in Genesis!”...<<

It seems to be merely a matter of your own self-serving opinion that Dr. Sarfati’s article were “intemperate” or “largely inaccurate”. Would you care to site such “intemperance” or significant “inaccuracies” — particularly as are not likewise commonplace in the pages of your own site? That you take such criticism personally (i.e, as a “personal attack”) may well be more indicative of your own level of maturity than any malicious motive on the part of the writer, which you seem eager and self-qualified to judge.

>>My response to Mr Sarfati is available on my site but I notice that you (or Mr Sarfati) have neglected to provide a link to that site.<<

I have visited your site. It seems to be dominated by philosophical content, propaganda, highly biased, intellectual bigotry... frankly, anything but an attempted objective treatment of empirical science itself. Were it to host actual discussions or analyses of empirical data from the evolutionary viewpoint, or even bonafide criticisms of such discussions or analyses from the creationary viewpoint, it would perhaps merit a link from TrueOrigin.

However, as it presently stands, your site is regrettably dominated by propagandistic, inflammatory, and bigoted content, doing very little to support even the evolutionary paradigm in a positive way. This being the case, I am hard-pressed to provide a link to your site for any reason.

>>I would have thought that in the interest of fair and honest debate, providing a link to the site which is the subject of criticism would be a reasonable thing to do.<<

Ordinarily I would agree with you on this point. But please don’t think that your mention of “fair and honest debate” in the present context somehow persuades me that your website has been built on a moral foundation of fairness and honesty, when it is manifestly rife with unsubstantiated assumptions, accusations, and highly dogmatic assertions. I am frankly surprised that Dr. Sarfati bothered to post his comments to your guestbook. On the other hand, the “qualifications” of your contributors (as Dr. Sarfati has so graciously documented) deserve to be published, since this information seems to have been omitted from your site.

>>When I refute, on my site, the many creationist assertions, I supply links to the articles or the sites containing those assertions wherever possible...<<

I intend to take a closer look when I have more time, but in my initial visits to your site, there was frankly no evidence of any “creationist assertions” having been “refuted”. Perhaps there were some rebuttals, but nothing that I saw qualified as a genuine refutation. In any case, I agree that it’s only reasonable that you should include a link to the article being rebutted, were you in fact capable of doing so.

Please note, however, that Dr. Sarfati’s article is not a comprehensive rebuttal of any specific essay or document posted on your site. (In fact, it seems to present relevant information that is not found on your site.) As such, there is no URL to link to, no article to cite, and as I have indicated above, I have no good basis for furnishing readers with a general link to your site.

Thank you again for taking the time to write with your concerns.

Kind Regards,
TW
 

From M. P. Mossey:

You state that a “program” and “energy conversion mechanism” are required to decrease entropy or increase order in an open system. What’s your scientific and/or mathematic foundation for claiming this is a universal law?

M. P. Mossey

---

Response from Timothy Wallace:

>>You state that a “program” and “energy conversion mechanism” are required to decrease entropy or increase order in an open system...<<

I don’t recall having stated the above, and would actually be surprised to learn that I had penned such a statement. It would clarify the matter (and enable me to provide an accurate answer) if you would please cite the essay and quote the specific text in which I state that a program and energy conversion mechanism “are required to decrease entropy or increase order in an open system”.

I look forward to your reply.

Kind Regards,
TW

---

M. P. Mossey:

The statement I was attempting to paraphrase is this:

any increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

1.a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity

2.a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

(it comes from your essay “Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution”)

In any case, what I’m really interested in is how you support the statement you make in the direct quote above (ignore my paraphrase if it is distorted), in particular how you prove that it is a universal principle.

---M. P. Mossey

---

Timothy Wallace:

>>The statement I was attempting to paraphrase is this...<<

I suggest it is best not to resort to a “paraphrase” in matters of this nature. It is unnecessary and can easily result in misunderstandings.

>>In any case, what I’m really interested in is how you support the statement you make in the direct quote above (ignore my paraphrase if it is distorted), in particular how you prove that it is a universal principle.<<

Indeed, I will ignore your paraphrase, for it was without question a distortion of the original.

Now, as for how to support the statement:

1) I recollect making no reference to any “universal law” or “universal principle” in connection with the statement in question. It is thus not entirely clear to me why you demand that some “universal law” or “universal principle” be cited.

2) In the form of positive support is the observation that living organisms (even the very “simplest” of which is very highly organized and complex) reflect precisely the pattern described in the statement.

3) In the form of negative support is the fact that organization and complexity are not observed to occur — particularly in sustained and/or increased, measurable amounts — in any system which does not have the four elements mentioned in the statement (i.e., the property of openness; an energy source; a means of energy storage/conversion; and a program/plan to direct the maintenance and/or increase in organization and or complexity).

Your use of the word “prove” is noted, and while I will not go so far as to claim to have personally proved anything, there is no question in my mind that empirical observation supports the statement to which you refer, and thus far only highly contrived and equivocal “exceptions” have been cited as “evidence” to the contrary by those wishing to contest the statement in question.

Kind Regards,
TW

---

M. P. Mossey:

Here’s my paraphrase:

You state that a “program” and “energy conversion mechanism” are required to decrease entropy or increase order in an open system...

Here’s the original:

any increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply.

These are:

1.a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity

2.a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

I’m interested to know in what aspect my paraphrase is inaccurate. I did substitute “increase order” for “increase in organzied complexity”...is that it?

>>1) I recollect making no reference to any “universal law” or “universal principle” in connection with the statement in question. It is thus not entirely clear to me why you demand that some “universal law” or “universal principle” be cited.<<

As I understand your argument, evolution is impossible because it contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You do acknowledge that some decreases of entropy are possible in open systems, for example in this quote:

>>The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.<<

This seems to open the door to evolution as a possibility. I understand that you try to close the door by describing these decreases in entropy as occurring only in the scenario described in the first quote above. However, if this scenario is not shown to be a universal principle, the door is still open.

To put it in general logic terms: if you can prove “all frogs are green,” then you have proved no red frog exists. If you can only say “all frogs we know about are green,” you haven’t proven anything about the existence or non-existence of a red frog.

---M. P. Mossey

---

Timothy Wallace:

>>I’m interested to know in what aspect my paraphrase is inaccurate. I did substitute “increase order” for “increase in organzied complexity”...is that it?<<

Yes. The two are very different, particularly when one objectively compares the innate potential for simple, inanimate order throughout the natural world vis-a-vis the incredibly complex and organized, functional machinery that makes up the simplest of living organisms.

>>This seems to open the door to evolution as a possibility. I understand that you try to close the door by describing these decreases in entropy as occurring only in the scenario described in the first quote above. However, if this scenario is not shown to be a universal principle, the door is still open.<<

Please note that my exact words (above) are “an apparent limited reversal”. As far as I am aware, no knowledgeable scientist would suggest that an actual reversal of 2LOT (2nd Law Of Thermodynamics) is possible or has ever been observed. My meaning in the above quoted text is to describe what appears to be (but is not in fact) a reversal of 2LOT. Any example shown as support for the phenomenon described above would involve a specific increase in entropy elsewhere in the system precisely compensating for the specific decrease in entropy found at the particular location in question, and would not show a sustained or steadily greater decrease approaching even a small fraction of the magnitude required for even a single typical component of a living organism.

This is hardly an “open door” — for the door would only be open if a mechanism were found that could: 1) spontaneously generate previously non-existent order and complexity from raw energy, without the benefit of a means of storing or converting that energy and without the benefit of any information (i.e., a plan or program directing the build-up of order and complexity), and 2) could sustain and increase that order and complexity by vast amounts over vast periods of time.

>>To put it in general logic terms: if you can prove “all frogs are green,” then you have proved no red frog exists. If you can only say “all frogs we know about are green,” you haven’t proven anything about the existence or non-existence of a red frog.<<

To continue with your analogy, the problem faced by the evolutionist is that he insists that there are red frogs. In fact, he claims red frogs are plentiful and observable. But the fact of the matter (when we rely on empirical science) is not only that “all frogs we know about are green”, but also that 2LOT says “red frogs don’t happen”. It remains for the evolutionist to show genuine observable, repeatable, measurable (i.e., scientific) empirical evidence (this excludes his inital assumptions and any conclusions contrived from them) that red frogs could happen.

Kind Regards,
TW

---

M. P. Mossey:

Timothy,

Thanks for the clear reply. I know I’m just a total stranger on the Internet so I appreciate your time. I will consider what you have written and if I have further questions, I’ll get back to you.

M. P. Mossey
 

From “Escher”:

Dear Mr. Wallace,

It seems to me that every evolutionist argument that comes along (whether supported by evidence or not), you pass off as “dogmatic rhetoric”. But, by the same token, aren’t many of your arguments (few of which, by the way, are supported by any evidence other than your own beliefs) just the same “dogmatic rhetoric” you criticize the evolutionist for “using”.

---

Response from Timothy Wallace:

>>It seems to me that every evolutionist argument that comes along (whether supported by evidence or not), you pass off as “dogmatic rhetoric”...<<

If it seems that way to you, then you haven’t been reading much of what I’ve written (or at least not paying attention to what I’ve said). Where an evolutionist argument deals with the empirical data of science, I usually make it a point to discuss that aspect of the argument.

>>...by the same token, aren’t many of your arguments (few of which, by the way, are supported by any evidence other than your own beliefs)...<<

Oh? Which specific ones are you refering to??

>>...just the same “dogmatic rhetoric” you criticize the evolutionist for “using”.<<

They might actually be, but that doesn’t mean they have been advanced without reference to empirical science (your heretofore unsubstantiated claim [above] notwithstanding) — which is often more than can be said about what many advocates of evolutionism repeatedly dish up.

(By the way, as an example, I notice that you yourself have chosen to focus on matters of semantics and opinion, rather than address a specific topic of empirical science. This is yet another fine example of the typical “science-free” approach I find used by the majority of evolutionism proponents.)

Kind Regards,
TW
 

From Joe Meert:

Dear Tim,

I read with interest the article by Sarfati that supposedly ‘refutes’ Mark Isaak’s discussion of the global flood. I think a little honesty and fairness is called for. It is the following passage that causes the most grief and ultimately will come back to haunt creationists.

“It’s quite a sight to see people, known personally to us as rabidly hostile to Christianity, yet who are eager to assure inquirers that many Christians accept evolution.”

Sarfati, then proceeds to use quotes and excerpts from John Woodmorappe (a pseudonym) to defend his case. Yet, this is the same John Woodmorappe who writes in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology under his real name ... This is at least a tacit admission that he agrees with the ordering of the fossil record by conventional geologists ... [Woodmorappe] cites his own unpublished data in support of an evolutionary hypothesis ... Now, I suppose one can always find a way to weasel out of these implications, but to me, the writing certainly would not be typical of an anti-evolutionist.

Now, doesn’t this at least seem a little hypocritical? ...I encourage you to do a little legwork, figure it out for yourself and at least be honest enough to confront this man and stop calling only the evolutionary side hypocrites.

Cheers
Joe Meert

---

Response from Timothy Wallace:

Dear Joe,

1. It is puzzling that you should use the subject “comments on the global flood” for your message, when in fact that wasn’t at all the subject of your message. (Perhaps you lost your train of thought...?)

2. It is puzzling that you should demand that I “be honest enough to confront” an individual with whom you seem to have a problem, when personal honesty by definition has nothing to do with confronting others (whether at a third party’s prodding or not).

3. It is puzzling that you should demand that I “stop calling only the evolutionary side hypocrites,” when I don’t recollect having made it a practice of “calling only the evolutionary side hypocrites.” Unless you would care to produce some documentary evidence that such has been my practice, I would suggest that you may be guilty of false accusation — which would suggest that perhaps you ought to “do a little legwork” yourself, before selecting me as your latest target for your personal “ethics” crusade.

4. It is puzzling that an “Associate Professor of Geology” at a state university apparently can’t find something more constructive to do with his free time than whining and leveling false accusations at strangers.

Kind Regards,
TW