From: ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Coffin Seminar Creation Seminar
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:28:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpmcaa.1992Apr06.162833.28517
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR

Hi everyone,

  Below I am posting a summary of the notes I took at a "Seminar on Science
and Creation" held this weekend, here in McMinnville, Oregon USA.  The 
seminar was conducted by Harold Coffin (the guy Mr. Allen Roy seems to get 
most of his ideas from).  I have two reasons for posting this material here 
(even though it is somewhat lengthy).
  1.  Dr. Coffin does extensive travelling around the USA conducting 
similar seminars.  I appears that most of his seminars are identical 
in content and material as this one.  If he comes to your area, you can 
be well prepared, having in advance a good outline of what he is going to 
present.  This is the primary reason for posting it.
  2.  While the vast majority of the points raised are standard creationist
misconceptions, etc.  There are one or two issues that I could use a little
clearification from some of you biologists and geologists on the net.  So 
if you see an issue that you believe you can contribute to clearing up, 
please either post a response or email directly to me.  I am currently 
preparing a careful point by point response, which when I'm done I will 
post to the net.  If you have anything to contribute please send it to me 
so that I can include it.

  Notice that in this post I have simply tried to express the arguments
and [mis]information as given by Harold Coffin.  There are several points 
that he makes that I believe are deliberate attempts to manipulate an 
unskeptical and ignorant audience.  I do not editorialize in this post 
(even though I had to exert extreme self control to avoid doing so) :-), 
so if you are looking for a good creationist bashing post, you can stop 
reading now.  Also, if you disagree violently with something don't bother 
flaming me, this post is meant to be constructive.  Let's not let it 
degenerate into a flame war.
  One last thing.  In order to avoid any confusion about motives, axes to
grind, etc., I will state my personal position on this issue.  I used to 
be a staunch creationist, but over the last 8 years or so, through much 
investigation I have changed my views.  I now hold that Evolution is an 
observed fact that explains the relationships between all living things, 
and that the mechanisms for evolution (such as Natural Selection, Genetic 
Drift, etc) are the best theories we have that explain this fact.

Cheers,                     |
                            |
Dan Ford                    | My opinions are my own.  I do not represent
McMinnville, OR             | my employer in this post.
                            |
email: ford@mcm.hp.com      |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Harold Coffin's Seminar on Science and Creation
by Dan Ford

Time:		Friday, April 4, 1992, 7:00pm
Location:	McMinnville SDA Church

1. He claimed that the purpose for the seminar was to present the case for
creation from the standpoint of science.  Claimed that scripture would 
agree with science. He claimed that we would see that there was ample 
evidence from science to support a creationist interpretation.

2. Claimed that there are two viable views on origins:
   a) God created the earth, plants and animals.  Stated that there has 
      been some change but that the changes are limited to within 
      "basic kinds".
   b) "Spontaneous Generation", where a basic "spark of life" arose by 
      random chance, replicating itself to produce all forms of life 
      currently known.

3. Evolution and Creation are based on faith--but faith is based on 
evidence.  There is evidence for both.  The purpose of this seminar is 
to look at the evidence for creation.  Since we can't bring the past back 
and since we can't experiment on the past, this is a historical science--
therefore it cannot be proved.

4. Claimed there are 4 types of evidence supporting creation, they are:
   a) The uniqueness of life.  He did not elaborate, saying that there 
      would not be enough time in the seminar to cover this topic.  So I 
      don't know what this means.
   b) The inability of man to force any major change either by breeding or 
      experimentation.  Dogs are still dogs despite centuries of careful 
      and selective breeding.
   c) The fossil record.  Claimed that it is the ONLY record of living 
      things.  If evolution occured, we should be able to see it.
   d) He never got to this one (he got sidetracked talking about the fossil 
      record and launched directly into his material).  I have no idea what 
      the 4th type is.

5. At this point he began showing slides.  Excellent slides of many 
fossils and mineral deposits and other interesting geological formations.  
He also gave some basic background information, including a definition for 
fossil as: "any evidence of prehistoric life".  He described the various 
geological periods (Precambrian, Cambrian, etc...).   However, he stressed 
that he was not legitimizing the actual dates and time spans assigned to 
these sections of the geological column by geologists, rather that they 
are just names for the different sections without regard for duration.
He claimed the rocks below the Cambrian contain NO fossils of multicellular
life--only single celled organisms (and rare at that).  He stated that if 
evolution occured, by examining the Cambrian and Precambrian layers we 
should be going back to the beginning of the evolving processes.

6. Began showing slides of fossils removed from the Burgess Shale in Canada,
although he didn't identify it as such until much later, and then just in 
passing. (As a side note, he gives extremely few references throughout 
his presentation. Even at the end when I asked him a direct question, about 
whether and where he had published his research, he answered by saying he 
had published 3 papers on this topic recently in professional journals, 
but he did not say which journals or what the titles of the papers were, 
and I did not have any additional opportunities for questions.)
He showed many slides of drawing of fossils from the Burgess shale, 
primarily of very strange and bizarre creatures (if you have read 
Wonderful Life by Stephen J. Gould you would have recognized most of them).
He repeatedly pointed out that many of these creatures represent totally 
different body plans than anything alive today.  After several minutes of 
discussion and slides about Marrella, Wiwaxia, Anomalocaris (spelling?), 
and other including Hallucinogenia, he came to his main point, which is: 

When you look in early Cambrian rock for evidence of the transitions from 
simple unicellular life to complex multicellular life, you don't find it.
Rather, you find suddenly a dizzying array of wildly diverse and complex 
life forms.  In fact he goes on to claim that there was more diversity in 
the Cambrian than today.  The world today is meager in different body 
forms, and there is no evidence of increasing complexity.  He claims that
the Cambrian life forms were just as complex, and in some cases even more 
so, than today's life forms.

7. He continued by talking for quite some time about the Trilobite (which 
he said is closely related to the common Salbug).  He did say that there 
are no Trilobites alive today, to his knowledge they are all extinct.  
His point about the Trilobite is that they exhibit great complexity; he 
specifically listed: they grow by molting; their musculature, blood 
circulation, and nervous systems are quite complex; complex mouth parts 
able to recognize certain types of food and reject others;  he claimed 
that its physiology is very similar and just as complex to many creatures 
alive today.  In particular he talked about the Trilobite eye (which is a 
calcite crystal lens).  He claimed that most creatures alive today that 
have calcite crystal eyes have less efficient eyes than the Trilobite 
(that is, the Trilobite had better and sharper focus than similar 
creatures today that have calcite eyes).  He then reiterated his main 
argument:

First:  There is no evidence for increasing complexity in the geological 
        record.
Second: There is no evidence of the transitions leading up to the multitude 
        of diverse life forms found in the Cambrian layer.

He then produced a quote from Darwin referring to the "enigma" of the 
Cambrian explosion.  The quote is something like (my paraphrasing): 
"I can give no satisfactory answer to the problem of missing fossils in 
the early Cambrian, and this can be advanced as a valid argument against 
my theory" (Origin of Species, no page reference given).  He also quoted 
George Gaylord Simpson (again paraphrased since the quote was on a slide 
that was flashed on the screen for only a few seconds, and I couldn't 
write it down verbatim): "The sudden appearance of life forms in the 
Cambrian is not only the most puzzling feature of the geological record... 
but also the greatest apparent inadequacy of evolutionary theory." (No 
reference was given).  Coffin concluded this section by saying that 
evolutionists must take it on faith that these evidences will someday 
be found.

   The next section was entitled the "Problem of the Missing Links"

1. He claimed that the problem of the missing link is not only the fact 
that no "missing link" in human evolution has been found, but that 
there are entire sections of the chain missing.

2. Showed a slide of an ant preserved in pitch.  Called it the "oldest 
known ant".  Stressed that it is very similar to modern ants.  Virtually 
no evolution has occured over a very long time.  He brought up many 
examples of this idea, that is, creatures that are alive today (mostly in 
our oceans) which are identical or virtually identical to creatures from 
very far back in the fossil record.  It wasn't perfectly clear what he was 
trying to demonstrate with this idea that there are creatures that exhibit 
very little or no evolutionary change.  I presume that this is supposed 
to cast doubt on larger evolutionary changes, but he did not make that 
explicit.

3. Showed slides of fossils that supposedly are found in the fossil record 
with no obvious ancestors species in lower strata, and no descendant 
species above it.  "They just appear abruptly and go extinct abruptly".

4. Showed slides of drawings of the cross section of turtles.  Showing how 
the shoulders attach inside the shell (which he claims is the analog of 
the rib cage in mammals).  He claimed we should be able to find fossils 
leading up to this unusual and unique design, but of course (according to 
him) none are found.

5. Showed a slide of a bat that appears to demonstrate that bats have 
changed very little in the last 10 million years or so.  He then quotes 
George Gaylord Simpson as saying that evolution of the human lineage would 
take 10 billion years at that rate of change (no reference was given).  
Coffin's conclusion was that there is clearly insufficient time for 
evolution to occur, since 10 billion years is more than twice the 
estimated age of the earth (you should have heard the gasps around the 
audience; unfortunately, the gasps were not out of incredulity, rather of 
wonder at the stubborn "evolutionists" who insist on believing in 
evolution in the face of such "contradictory" evidence).  [Ok, so I did
editorialize maybe a little  :-) ]

6. Discussed Archeopteryx.  Showed a slide of an Archeopteryx fossil.  
Said this topic was too complex to discuss in this context, but that he 
should mention that:
   a) More "modern" birds have been found in the fossil record below 
      Archeopteryx, and that you "can't find ancestors of a fossil after 
      it (or in higher strata)".
   b) His conclusion is that it is simply a type of bird that doesn't 
      exist today.
   c) He spent a minute or two discussion the fact that there have been 
      claims that it was a forgery, and that it could possibly be a hoax.
      Then after saying that he concluded with "but much detailed study 
      has gone into the Archeopteryx, and my feeling now is that it is 
      most likely a genuine fossil" (my paraphrasing).
   d) A great deal of evolution is required between scales and feathers, 
      and no intermediate forms have been found in the fossil record to 
      show even an example of how this transition could occur.

7. Discussed the Horse (of course).  His statements were plain and simple 
assertions that eohippus was not a horse.  The first discoverer called it 
a hyrachotherum.  All the other fossils in the horse "lineage" are really 
horses, he said that some have 3 toes while modern horses usually do not, 
but they are all distinctly horses.  As he said it: "a horse is a horse is 
a horse."  Here he quoted some Garret Hardin from a article entitled 
"Nature and Man's Fate", Mentor, 1961 p. 225-226.  The quote was not up 
long enough for me to even get a gist of it (he didn't even read the entire 
quote on the slide to the audience, simply flashed it up, made a reference 
to it and removed it; all I could get was the reference).  It was something 
about the horse lineage being bogus.  Coffin's conclusion is that all the 
horse fossils represent changes in a "basic created horse kind".

8. Here he quoted Darwin again.  Again the slide was up for such a short 
time I could not get much down (again, he did not read the entire quote, 
but selected a few sentences to read).  The reference was simply the 
Origin of Species (no page number).  It referred to an admission by 
Darwin that there were no finely graduated organic chain leading to all 
current life forms.  Darwin's explanation (according to Coffin, that is, 
this part was not in the quote), was that we haven't looked long enough, 
but that the evidence would be found.  Coffin says we have been looking 
for over a hundred years with no success.  It's time to admit it's not 
there.

Question and Answer Session

	I wasn't able to write down most of the questions.  But below 
are some of the statements he made in response to various questions.

1. The flood caused the deposition of virtually the entire geological 
record.  He discussed the basic "hydrological sorting" argument.  
The order he claimed is reasonable by hydrological sorting is:
	1) Sea bottom creatures
	2) Swimming fish
	3) Sea shore creatures and plants
	4) Amphibians
	5) Reptiles
	6) Mammals
	7) Birds
He claimed that the order above matches the order in the geological column.

2. He did not think that Noah took the sea creatures in the ark.  They 
could fend for themselves.  He didn't think Noah took the dinosaurs 
either (however he admitted that there might have been a few "dinosaur 
like" animals aboard.  He said that the answer to the space problem was 
that Noah would not have to take a pair of every species, rather he 
would just take a pair of each "basic kind".

3. He said that because it is clear that the dinosaurs disappear 
suddenly in the fossil record, that it seems likely that they all died 
in the flood.

4. The question I asked was: "Could you give us your estimate of the total 
number of species of animals  that have ever existed, both extinct and 
extant; and secondly what percentage of those species are extinct and 
what percent are alive today, and how do you arrive at your estimates". 
   He answered that that was a difficult issue, but that he believed 
that there were more species in existence today than in the fossil record!
He did not give an estimate (as I had asked), and gave no details 
whatsoever as to how he arrived at his conclusion.

5. A friend of mine asked: "Do you believe that the mammals coexisted in 
time with the dinosaurs?  And  if so, why are they not found together in 
the fossil record?"  Answer: Yes, and although mammals are rarely found 
in dinosaur strata, occasionally some of the small mammals are found in 
with the dinosaurs.  He reiterated his hydrological model, claiming that 
this would be expected by the flood model.

6. He was asked how old he thought the earth was: He talked a little about 
Usher's chronology, citing some difficulties with it.  He then claimed that
the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) was probably 
more reliable, and that it gave an age of about 7500 years for the earth.
He believes that is the correct age for the earth, but not for the rest 
of the universe (which he believes is much older).

7. When asked about Carbon-14 dating: He said that it depended on the 
principle of Uniformitarianism--that is, the present is the key to the 
past.  He believe that the past was different from the present in many 
ways--therefore invalidating uniformitarian assumptions.  For example, 
he believes that prior to the flood there was no Carbon-14 produced.  
This would give incorrect results on items from before the flood.  He 
made no mention of other radiometric dating methods (such as isochron 
methods).


A Few General Comments About the Seminar

1. He never volunteered information critical of his position (for 
example no mention of isochron dating methods in his discussion of 
radiometric dating).  In this sense he seemed to capitalize on the 
ignorance of the audience.  People seem to think that Carbon-14 dating is 
the only type of radiometric dating, and he made no attempt to clear up 
that misconception.

2. He had an extremely uncritical audience.  With the exception of one 
or two, there were no skeptical questions.  He was preaching to the 
choir.  It was interesting to note the audiences reaction to various 
non-issues, such as the statement about the evolution of the bat being 
so slow that humans would take 10 billion years to evolve.  He never 
made any attempt to clear up simple misconceptions, rather, many of 
his statements encouraged misconceptions.

3. Despite the agreeable nature of his audience, at the end he glowingly 
complemented the audience, claiming this had been an extremely competent 
audience.  He claimed that it is very rare that he finds an audience 
that asks such technically advanced and challenging questions.  
   Good grief, if this is a demanding audience, I wonder what an average 
audience is like?


P.S.  The seminar actually consisted of two sessions.  These notes are
from the first session.  I will post my notes from the second session
as soon as I'm done compiling them.  The second session was much lower
in content however, and should be somewhat shorter.  Again, my apologies
for such a long post.
		-Dan
Newsgroups: talk.origins