From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:56:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <LEET.92Sep14084057@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes...
>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:08:27 GMT, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) said:
> 
>John> But does a creationist really mean simply one who believes in
>John> Creation?  I've never seen it that way.  In ordinary usage, I
>John> thought that a creationist is one who believes in Creation as
>John> described literally in Genesis.
> 
>I visited last night with Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov of Russia, and he said
>that Russian scientists have been converting to creationism on the basis
>of the scientific evidence, then some time *later* (2 years, in his
>particular case) converting to Christianity.  They are, therefore,
>creationists long before they are believers in Genesis.  His creation
>science association has several members who are not currently Christians.
>They believe that what they see was created <ex nihilo> by
>*something*, but science cannot answer *what* (or *who*) created it.

There appears to be some ground for doubting Kouznetsov's word on this.
The following was originally posted to talk.origins, and then just recently
reposted there by me since Kouznetsov's name came up in another context.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Creationist Kouznetsov is no scientist!
From: lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1992 17:35:43 GMT
Organization: UTCS Public Access

Jim Loucks (jloucks@uts.amdahl.com) defends Scientific Creationism by quoting
from an interview with a Soviet creationist lecturer named Dr. Kouznetsov,

     "That's interesting, because most people in the West believe that
      creationists are just trying to somehow make science fit the Bible
      because they're Christians.

           Well, I don't know about your country, but in Russia this
           is extremely common -- for people to become creationists on
           scientific grounds and then to become Christians afterwards,
           at least in the case of the so-called 'intellectual community'."

I asked several Russian and Eastern European colleagues about this. It is
NOT common for intellectuals to become creationists in Russia. They are
just as smart as intellectuals in the rest of the world. Kouznetsov claims
that it is "extremely common" for intellectuals to become creationists - this
seems to be a flat out lie.

Jim Loucks continues with his quotation,

     "Evolutionists believe that their imaginary one-celled first ancestor 
      has turned into fish and palm trees, and into frogs which then turn   
      into princes. They know that this means a lot of genetic information 
      has to be added to living things over time, and they teach that 
      inherited mistakes called mutations can add these new useful genes. 
      We don't see that, of course.

        That's right.

      But they have to believe that it is theoretically possible. I 
      understand that some of your research indicates that even if it were
      possible to get such an new gene, such a new packet of useful 
      information, it would have very little chance of being expressed.

        That's correct. I found that the translation of a modified
        gene into a modified protein involved a group of substances
        in the cytoplasm (outside of the nucleus, which is where the
        DNA resides) which are very powerful suppressors of the
        slightest changes to the DNA."

I'll ignore the ignorant characterization of evolution and concentrate on 
the bizarre idea that new genes are not possible and would not be expressed.

In my lab we routinely modify genes and make new proteins. Furthermore we
put mouse genes in bacteria and yeast, bacterial genes in yeast, and yeast
genes in bacteria in order to make foreign proteins. In other words these
new genes from different organisms are expressed. These are pretty drastic
changes to DNA - I wonder why Dr. Kouznetsov doesn't mention experiments like
these? Furthermore there are all kinds of examples of modified genes which
make modified proteins. The idea that such mutations are forbidden or 
inhibited at the level of translation is quite silly. Incidently the wording
of this paragraph indicates that Kouznetsov is on unfamiliar ground. In other
words he does not know what he is talking about. No expert would make the 
mistake of referring to "translation" of a "gene".

Every population contains considerable variation at the level of the gene.
For many genes there are multiple alleles and each one makes a slightly
different protein. This is why one sees morphological variation within 
populations (eg. Homo sapiens), and this is the raw material of evolution. 
If Kouznetsov knew anything about biochemistry, genetics or evolution he would
recognize that his statement is ridiculous because his postulated mechanism 
would also suppress such variation.

I have no idea what kind of powerful cytoplasmic suppressors Dr. Kouznetsov
could be referring to. It is probably safe to assume that these are figments
of an overactive creationist mind. If such substances existed I would know
about them.

Jim Loucks continues to quote from the interview with Dr. Kouznetsov,

     "Dr Kouznetsov, you once talked about the 'subjectivity' of evolutionary
      theory. Could you give an example?

        Yes, it's true that evolutionists are very subjective in which
        data they decide to use as evidence for their theory. Take my
        own field of brain cells, for instance. There is a protein --
        creatinine kinase, or CK -- found in the brain cells of a very
        large number of species. We are led to believe that when you
        compare the same sort of protein in many different species,
        there is this universal pattern -- as would be predicted by
        evolution -- that the most similar proteins are from the most
        closely related species. However, as reported at a conference 
        in your own country, in Perth in Western Australia about a 
        decade ago, when one puts in all the data related to CK and 
        asks the question 'Which are the two closest relatives according
        to CK data?', the answer is -- 'the African elephant and the
        ordinary domestic housefly.' Of course evolutionists don't
        regard these as most closely related, but if the molecular
        patterns were consistent with evolution, they would use it as
        evidence. This is what I mean by the subjectivity of their
        criteria.

Creatine kinase (not creatinine kinase) is an enzyme that can be found in many
organisms. In most vertebrates it is abundant in muscle cells where it serves
to replace energy molecules used up during muscle activity. A different
but related enzyme is found in nerve cells which have a high ATP turnover.
Vertebrates also have a mitochondrial creatine kinase. The three different
proteins are encoded by three different genes that are found at different
locations in the genomes of vertebrates. The data indicates that there were
two gene duplications in vertebrate ancestors and this gave rise to three
different genes which have evolved independently from that point on. This is
a common pattern in the evolution of complex organisms; namely that additional
features are formed by copying and modifying existing genes. Most of you are 
probably aware of the evolution of hemoglobin genes which is another
example of the same phenomenon.

I searched the nucleic acid sequence databases for all creatine kinase 
sequences and found 74 examples that have been published in the past thirty
years. There are no published sequences for either elephant or houseflies!
I also searched the protein databases and found 22 more sequences, again there
is no record of an elephant or housefly sequence ever being published. So I
went to the primary literature on creatine kinase sequences but there are no
references to elephants or houseflies in the papers that I examined. Most of
the readers of talk.origins will realize that it is very unusual to have 
molecular data on either elephants or houseflies. They are not popular lab
species and there is no particular reason why anyone would clone their
genes. Anyone familiar with evolution or biochemistry would recognize that 
these are highly unusual examples. On the other hand, someone who was quite
ignorant of the field ....

There was an International Congress of Biochemistry in Perth, Australia about
ten years ago. None of my colleagues who attended that meeting recall hearing
a talk such as the one that Kouznetsov describes. I conclude that this
particular creationist is making up a story in order to suggest that
evolutionary biologists are as subjective as the average creationist.

Jim Loucks closes his extensive quotation with,

     "There was more to the interview but that's about all I thought 
      you'd find interesting. Not only did I share this interview with 
      you because I thought it was interesting, but some of you think 
      that creationists can't possibly be decent scientists and this
      interview offers an opposing viewpoint to such a belief. Also, 
      the FAQ on creationists credentials comes across in a negative
      tone and I'm tempted to put together a positive FAQ on creationist
      scientists with degrees and backgrounds that simply can't be 
      overlooked. 

      I think you can sum it all up and say that we're all going to 
      believe what we want to believe. Ken Ham appears to add to that
      with: It's not whether you're biased or not, everyone is biased.
      But which bias is the best bias to be biased with?"

Well Jim, I thank you for posting this interesting interview. However, I
regret to inform you that it only confirms what I already knew, namely that
creationists can't be decent (or honest) scientists. You are more than 
welcome to put together a FAQ on creationist scientists whose degrees and
backgrounds simply can't be overlooked - are there any such scientists?

You have certainly convinced ME that you are going to believe what you want
to believe irrespective of the actual facts. Kouznetsov obviously falls into
the same catagory which means that he is definitely NOT a scientist. I also 
accept your point that everyone is biased to some extent but there is no doubt
in my mind that some biases are more ridiculous than others.

Laurence A. Moran (Larry)                 lamoran@utcs.utoronto.ca
Dept. of Biochemistry                     (416) 978-2704 (voice)
University of Toronto                     (416) 978-6673 (computer)   




Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic