Coyne hoodwinked and duped

Jerry Coyne represents himself as the epitome of science, reason and critical thinking. But “Dr. Reason” or shall we say “Dr. EvolutionIsTrue” often ends up as the butt of jokes and sarcasm in the ID community.

He got hoodwinked recently. He was pranked into believing a particular internet account was real and then started quoting from it to support his arguments. Turned out his evidence was from a faked source. Finally someone intervened to stop Coyne from making anymore a joke of himself. Coyne was forced to make a retraction:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/09/06/more-twier-hilarity/

But more seriously, Coyne might not make retractions when fellow scientists discover serious flaws in his own work. First I point out physicists have overturned his claims that the “backward” wiring of the human retina is a design flaw. In fact because the wiring acts as light channel, the wiring acts serves an important photon segregating function. He totally embarrassed himself:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/physics/jerry-coyne-proven-wrong-by-physicists-about-the-eye/

(Phys.org) —Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly.

Hear that? Coyne’s ideas are called folly.

But that’s not all, he got called on the carpet by nuclear chemist Jay Wile who pointed out Coyne didn’t even bother consulting basic embryology textbooks. Coyne claims lanugo hair has no function and uses his false claim as evidence evolution is true. Wile point out Coyne’s error:

From about the third month lanugo hair (Latin, lana = wool) hair is initially formed and it has a role in binding vernix to skin.

Indeed, this is such a well-known fact that review materials for the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam discuss it. For example, Philip R. Brauer in his review book, Human embryology: the ultimate USMLE step 1 review says:

Vernix caseosa is a culmination of sebaceous gland secretions and dead epidermal cells, and the lanugo hair helps retain it on the outer skin surface.

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=1309

I do credit Coyne with getting one thing right

In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to [the pseudoscience of] phrenology than to physics.

123 thoughts on “Coyne hoodwinked and duped”

  1. Alan FoxAlan Fox

    Dave Carlson:
    I suppose we could quibble about the definition of anti-theist, but I honestly don’t think it’s a particularly inaccurate description of Coyne’s views.

    Well, I’d suggest an antitheist as someone wishes to suppress theism by force of law. Is that one of Jerry Coyne’s stated ambitions? I suppose someone could ask him.

  2. stcordova Post author

    Will Provine and David Raup, though evolutionists, have been venerated by IDists. Even myself, I’ve often spoken of themin glowing terms. Why? They are viewed as honorable.

    In contrast, Coyne is despised. This should illustrate the reason why:

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/francis-collins-vs-new-atheists/

    Coyne’s bigoted campaign against people like Francis Collins and Ben Carson or scholars and citizens clearly more accomplished than himself shows a level of putting bigotry ahead of reasonable tolerance. What do I mean by reasonable tolerance? Look at Collins, a Yale PhD in Physical Chemistry/Quantum Mechanics and a MD and head of the genome project, etc. Coyne might otherwise be grateful there is someone qualified like that to be head of the NIH, but Coyne finds it threatening that not only someone who believes in Jesus can actually be a good scientist, but also someone a lot more accomplished than “Dr. Reason”.

    Now, as to the issue of Lanugo hair and Retinal wiring, it is not the issue of common descent, it is Coyne’s inclination to use the bad design argument. But if he’s going to use it, to the extent he fumbles in stating it in his propaganda pieces, he can expect to get called on it.

    Darwin wanted to vomit when he saw the Peacock’s tail because he knew what it suggested, an Ingenious Designer. Now, in the sense of survivability it could be considered “bad design” on so many levels. The sexual selection theory actually doesn’t solve the problem because one could then say, “why should species that implement a sexual selection strategy that is metabolically and reproductively costly be naturally selected?”

    The problem of the Peacock’s tail is the problem of Rube Goldberg extravagance. Unlike Coyne, Darwin appreciated its significance. Jerry Coyne and other “bad design” proponents sound like philosophers debating the ingenuity of inventors making systems like this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMEWSS5ziG0

    Those with an engineering mindset things tend to view things differently. And it is irritating to hear Coyne just keep going on and on about how an engineer would or would not do things. It depends on the engineers goals, what we call the requirements from which requirements specifications and final design are constructed.

    If Rube Goldberg extravagance or biological warfare or self-destruct mechanisms were the goal of the designer, then the picture of what constitutes good or bad design in biology changes. Self-destructing biological designs? What for? See:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/the-reason-for-imperfect-self-destructing-designs-passover-and-easter-thoughts/

    I’ll give an example one thing I found particularly irritating about evolutionary philosophy. On a debate forum evolutionists complained, “why should there be error correction in DNA replication, the designer should get it right the first time”. Any engineer who understands Shannon’s theorem and its applications would understand the folly such “bad design” arguments. To achieve high physical compactness of data storage, it is better to allow lots of errors in the read and write process that are remediated during the read and write process. We see this strategy, for example in Compact Discs or other media the use Reed-Solomon encoding.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction

    If the design goal was a Rube Goldberg machine with high data compactness, a machine with error correction, makes incredible sense.

    But aside from John Maynard Smith, most evolutionary biologists aren’t engineers. [And here is curious picture of him, notice the pro-ID book that is on his shelf right beside one of Darwin’s. 🙂

    http://evolution-textbook.org/content/free/figures/24_EVOW_Art/24_EVOW_CH24.jpg
    ]

    So Coyne uses flimsy “bad design” arguments to promote “Why Evolution Is True” and there is no designer. Sure he can promote common descent if he wants. He can promote common descent plus bad design if he wants.

    But when he goes on a bigoted campaign against believers in Jesus and wanting to oust them from participating in the scientific enterprise or who knows what else, that’s just plain low. Just couldn’t help rub it in when he again puts his fallibility on display. But it gave a nice opportunity to point out his evolutionary reasoning and justification is flawed.

    The issue is not so much the common descent part of evolutionary theory, it is the bad design argument part of evolutionary theory.

  3. RichardthughesRichardthughes

    Sal, have you read WEIT? How much of it is a negative case against design? Compare that to ID and how much is a negative case against evolution.

    You clearly have a culture-war bug up your ass regarding JC. That’s your prerogative, but I’m fairly sure your not on his radar, and aren’t likely to be.

  4. RichardthughesRichardthughes

    stcordova: Why? They are viewed as honorable.

    And there I was thinking that it was because they gave (oft quoted) soundbites that IDists find sympathetic to their cause.

  5. stcordova Post author

    Will Provine and David Raup actually went out of their way to help IDists in their careers. Raup wrote a letter of recommendation for Kurt Wise to Stephen J. Gould all the while knowing Wise was a creationist. That’s how Wise got to Harvard.

    Provine gave Johnson a fair hearing, promoted his books in Provine’s classes, gave housing in his own home to Johnson when Johnson was in town.

  6. OMagain

    stcordova: If the design goal was a Rube Goldberg machine with high data compactness, a machine with error correction, makes incredible sense.

    Cancer.

  7. Alan FoxAlan Fox

    @ Sal

    Thanks for reminding me of Mike Gene. Seems he’s given up on his “design matrix” and has reverted to religious apologetics. He doesn’t like Jerry Coyne much, I see. Plenty of snark there but little substance in his over-the-top attacks on Coyne.

  8. stcordova Post author

    Regarding the question of Jerry’s “own work”, I was referring to his work as a propagandist, not his work as a fruit fly scientist.

    The human eye, though eminently functional, is imperfect—certainly not the sort of eye an
    engineer would create from scratch

    the nerves and blood vessels that attach to our photoreceptor cells are on the inside
    rather than the outside of the eye, running over the surface of the retina.

    The whole system is like a car in which all the wires to the dashboard hang inside the driver’s compartment.

    Jerry Coyne,
    http://www.wesjones.com/coyne1.htm

  9. Alan FoxAlan Fox

    stcordova: The sexual selection theory actually doesn’t solve the problem because one could then say, “why should species that implement a sexual selection strategy that is metabolically and reproductively costly be naturally selected?”

    You can still ask such daft questions when you put your mind to it. 🙂

    Individuals have to survive to breed. Genes in individuals have to be passed on and proliferate to survive. It’s not a strategy that’s planned. It’s a strategy that works. There’s a trade-off between the economic cost of strategies to improve your attractiveness to potential mates and the chance to be around to take those mating opportunities.

  10. stcordova Post author

    My theory is natural selection selects against what is Rube Goldberg extravagant (like multicellular, sexually reproducing animals). Exotic birds are getting selected against, not for. They are going extinct at a very high rate. Observations agree with theory. 🙂

  11. Alan FoxAlan Fox

    stcordova:
    My theory is natural selection selects against what is Rube Goldberg extravagant (like multicellular, sexually reproducing animals).Exotic birds are getting selected against, not for.They are going extinct at a very high rate. Observations agree with theory.:-)

    That’s what happens when the niche environment changes too rapidly for evolution to keep up. Species go extinct.

  12. PatrickPatrick

    Richardthughes,

    You clearly have a culture-war bug up your ass regarding JC.

    I’d think a good Christian like Sal would be more circumspect about a Jew with the initials J.C.

  13. stcordova Post author

    That’s what happens when the niche environment changes too rapidly for evolution to keep up. Species go extinct.

    Correction, the word “adaptation” should be used not evolution.

    Extinction is part of evolution. It’s a mistake to think “evolution tries to keep up”. Real evolution is what happens in the wild. Adaptation does not define all of evolution. If evolution is “change over time”, then extinction is part of evolution. You can say adaptation doesn’t keep up, but evolution certainly keeps up because extinction is part of change over time.

    “What happens is what happens”. Evolutionary theory would be more correct to say it is a theory of “What happens is what happens” rather than “What happens is what we believe ought to happen”.

    Evolutionist believe adaptation ought to happen enough to build complexity and avoid extinction until that complexity is constructed. It is a theory based on human notions of “oughts” not actually what “is”.

    Evolutionists think things ought to adapt to unoccupied niches. But “ought” does not mean “can” nor “will”. Not to mention, nature is under no obligation to make available said niches for very long. Raup proved that and we see that in the present day. Extinction is an example of real evolution. Adaptation does not define all that changes over time.

  14. stcordova Post author

    >Sal, have you read WEIT?

    Sorry, I should have responded earlier. Apologies.

    Answer: No. I just quote from Jerry’s publicly available snippets. You know me. 🙂

  15. stcordova Post author

    Rich,

    Sorry, you’re right. Also, it’s not right that I should diss a book I haven’t read like WEIT.

    Sal

    FYI:
    I was sincere about Joe’s book. There are certainly writings on the ID side I’ve been far more critical of publicly (like 2nd law arguments, self-evident truths, ID is science, etc.)

    Joe’s book has some good math and basic science in it, and some of the stuff in it has been used in Mendel’s Accountant in various forms. I recommend it to anyone interested in these obscure topics.

  16. stcordova Post author

    From Joe’s book:

    As I hope to retire in 2017, I should get the book into reasonable shape by then.

    Live long and prosper in your retirment, Joe. Thanks for making your book for free and available on line.

  17. Neil Rickert

    stcordova: In contrast, Coyne is despised. This should illustrate the reason why:

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/francis-collins-vs-new-atheists/

    I am underwhelmed. That blog post equates “number of published papers” with “contributions to scientific knowledge”. But that isn’t so. Some papers are far more important than others.

    I’ll agree with Gregory, that Coyne is anti-theist. I did think his criticism of Francis Collins was inappropriate. However, I don’t have a problem with his criticism of Ben Carson.

  18. RichardthughesRichardthughes

    stcordova,

    Joe is definitely ‘top tier’. We’re immensely fortunate to have him contributing here.

    Give WEIT a go. I doubt it (or anything!) will change your mind, but at least you’ll know what to argue against.

  19. petrushka

    Neil Rickert: stcordova: In contrast, Coyne is despised. This should illustrate the reason why:

    Despised? Not at Amazon.

    Faith Versus Fact is #35 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion

    Being As Communion is #574 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion

    Dembski’s most quoted book, No Free Lunch, is #2050 on the same index.

    I don’t see any Dembski book breaking 200 in any category, although he does well in Creationism.

  20. Dave CarlsonDave Carlson

    Alan Fox: Well, I’d suggest an antitheist as someone wishes to suppress theism by force of law. Is that one of Jerry Coyne’s stated ambitions? I suppose someone could ask him.

    I don’t know if there is an “accepted” definition of “anti-theist”, but I don’t see why suppression by force of law need be part of the definition. That said, this is not an issue that I care about in the least, so I certainly don’t want to argue about it.

  21. Dave CarlsonDave Carlson

    Leaving aside the veracity of Sal’s critiques against a book which he has not read, I find the “argument from bad design” in general to be not that interesting. To the extent that such arguments use inferences regarding the evolutionary history of a particular trait and show that said history is much more easy to explain based on known processes than by divine fiat, I think they’re okay. That said, “this trait is poorly designed, therefore it’s probably a product of evolution not intelligent design”, is less convincing to me.

    Of course, if Sal were to read WEIT he should hopefully see that the chapter regarding bad design–which was my least favorite chapter in any case–tended to be more the former style of argument than the latter.

  22. petrushka

    It’s not the badness of the design that matters; it’s the fit with history.

    Bad designs are not judged to be evolved because they are bad, but because they imply a molecular history.

  23. MungMung

    Patrick: I’d think a good Christian like Sal would be more circumspect about a Jew with the initials J.C.

    If only he’d eat and drink with us sinners.

  24. PatrickPatrick

    Mung,

    I’d think a good Christian like Sal would be more circumspect about a Jew with the initials J.C.

    If only he’d eat and drink with us sinners.

    Based on what I’ve read of Coyne’s blog, I suspect he’d be up for a dinner invitation. Especially if he could wear boots to the meal.

  25. stcordova Post author

    Creationists believe in limited common descent. Instead of a Universal Tree, they argue for an Orchard.

    They believe an empirical way to identify the trees in the orchard is through hybridization experiments. If a dog can interbreed with a wolf, jackal or coyote, then they consider that evidence of common descent from a created ancestor.

    What would be the ancestor for a tree and a fish and a bacterium? Kind of hard to argue for common descent. Most evolutionists say the common ancestor of a tree and a fish and a bacterium is a bacterium. But that would entail the macro evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes, and that would entail the evolution of things like spliceosomal introns and conversion of Shine-Dalgarno sequences to Kozak sequences and a host of other things we don’t even know. It’s not that we can concoct some phylogenetic story, is the question of mechanical feasibility.

    Ivy League PhD and associate professor of biology in Missouri highlights the problems of this macro evolutionary step. It suggests at least an orchard for 2 or 3 domains of life, and if we can suggest an orchard for 3 domains, we might suggest an even bigger orchard and in the process of disposing of Universal Common Ancestry.

    https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-bacteria-and-eukarya/

    “God did it”, seems more believable to me because the evolutionary transition seems to need far more miracles to make it work than evolutionists are willing to admit.

  26. petrushka

    stcordova: What would be the ancestor for a tree and a fish and a bacterium? Kind of hard to argue for common descent.

    That’s why it is correct to call you an IDiot. You feel superior to folks who argue ID from the Second Law, but refuse to learn further.

  27. petrushka

    Sal, suppose you demonstrate your competence by playing devil’s advocate.

    Pretend you are an evilutionist and give us your best shot at defending common descent. Let’s see if you know enough to doubt the judgement of thousands of biologists.

  28. Gregory

    “Creationists believe in limited common descent. Instead of a Universal Tree, they argue for an Orchard.

    They believe…” – stcordova

    Of course, you actually mean ‘We believe’, since you still call yourself a ‘creationist’, but apparently aren’t man enough to say it here because it means, even to most Christians worldwide, that you’ll look like a fool if you do.

  29. stcordova Post author

    From Tan’s paper:

    From
    https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-bacteria-and-eukarya/

    A minimal bacterium has in the ball park of 400 genes (M. genitalium). To evolve to a Eukaryote like yeast (S. cerevisiae) 1100 genes, how did the Origin of Replication Complex (ORC) sites get changed for every gene?

    The leading strand of DNA is synthesized continuously, while the antiparallel lagging strand is synthesized discontinuously, as Okazaki fragments, because nucleotides are always added in a 5′ to 3′ direction in the cell. The RNA primers will be removed and exchanged with DNA by gap filling and the Okazaki fragments will be joined by DNA ligase. During the termination stage, terminators (in bacteria), or chromosomal ends called telomeres (in eukarya), will be synthesized. As detailed below, bacteria and eukarya differ in their requirements for DNA replication initiation and termination in both their DNA sequences (cis-elements) and in their trans-elements, i.e. the proteins that execute and regulate DNA replication (Forterre 2013; Leipe, Aravind, and Koonin 1999; Makarova and Koonin 2013; Merhej and Raoult 2012; O’Donnell, Langston, Stillman 2013; Skarstad and Katayama 2013).

    A.1 Differences in the initiation site of replication

    The first step of DNA replication is the recognition of start sites at the origins of replication by origin-binding proteins. Strikingly, the origins of DNA replication are species specific. Duplicating DNA in E. coli requires an E. coli-specific origin of replication, while duplication in S. cerevisiae requires an S. cerevisiae-specific origin of replication. These origins of replication are not interchangeable. This fact is experimentally demonstrated on a daily basis in many laboratories throughout the world: to clone and replicate an S. cerevisiae gene in E. coli requires a vector with an E. coli origin of replication, and to clone and replicate a bacterial gene in S. cerevisiae requires a vector carrying an S. cerevisiae origin of replication (plus a yeast centromere).

    Bacteria and eukarya also differ in the numbers of origins of replication. Bacteria typically have a single circular chromosome with a single origin of replication, while eukarya have hundreds or thousands of origins of replication spread across multiple linear chromosomes. So how could evolution accomplish the change from one circular DNA strand to multiple linear chromosomes (for example, 16 pairs = 32 in yeast)? The bacterium might begin by evolving an enzyme to chop up its DNA into 16 pieces. But since it would have only one origin of replication, only 1/16th of the DNA would be replicated and the cell would die. It would have to simultaneously generate new origins of replication for all 16 pieces.

    Evolving one from the other seems indistinguishable from a miracle. If it is indistinguishable form a miracle, we can accept it as a miracle. But if we accept miracles, we can accept special creation.

  30. petrushka

    stcordova: Evolving one from the other seems indistinguishable from a miracle.

    Yes, it is unlikely that birds evolved from squirrels.

    Is this an example of your understanding of evolution, Sal?

  31. petrushka

    Gregory: Of course, you actually mean ‘We believe’, since you still call yourself a ‘creationist’, but apparently aren’t man enough to say it here because it means, even to most Christians worldwide, that you’ll look like a fool if you do.

    Sal doesn’t need a label to look like a fool. All he has to do is display his ignorance.

  32. stcordova Post author

    Sal doesn’t need a label to look like a fool. All he has to do is display his ignorance.

    No need to get personal. You make me feel like you don’t like me. :-<

  33. petrushka

    stcordova: No need to get personal. You make me feel like you don’t like me. :-<

    Do you have no self awareness at all? You start a thread with a monumentally stupid personal attack on Coyne, and you are surprised that decent people loathe you?

    You post squirrel to bird evolutionary scenarios so you can shoot them down, and are mystified that people think you are a waste of oxygen?

    Why not dazzle us with your brilliance by playing devil’s advocate? give us your best shot at arguing for common descent. Take your ID arguments and tell us how you think a competent biologist would respond.

  34. stcordova Post author

    Take your ID arguments and tell us how you think a competent biologist would respond.

    Change Tan is a competent biologist. I predict competent biolgists won’t respond because there is no answer. Tan reported what is already in peer reviewed papers, but which no one really is eager to highlight.

    Why not dazzle us with your brilliance by playing devil’s advocate? give us your best shot at arguing for common descent.

    Ok:

    One of the greatest scientific achievements of all time was tracing the evolution of life from non-life into the first life and into the complex and diverse forms we have today. Like a passenger travelling from New York city to the desserts of the Sahara to the cold reaches of Siberia, evolution from non-life to complex intelligent life has taken a variety of courses and modes of travel. There are many modes of evolution. In the study of the history of life, one will encounter terms such as chemical evolution, Darwninian evolution, neutral evolution, etc. Using the word “evolution” leads to so much confusion because its meaning depends on context. But however it is defined, the important thing is we know it happened. It is fact, fact, fact and demonstrated better than any claim in science.

    The various modes of evolution fall into two categories: Chemical Evolution and Biological Evolution. Chemical evolution is a mode of evolution whereby non-living matter becomes alive. We know chemical evolution happened because we are alive today whereas we were not in the past. There is no greater evidence for chemical evolution than the fact we are alive, thus chemical evolution is a fact as sure as you own very life.

    Biological evolution encompasses the various modes of evolution that caused the first life to evolve from a single simple cell into all the life forms we see to day. The modes of biological evolution are Darwinian evolution, neutral evolution, and probably some yet-to-be-discovered modes of evolution. But however we name or label evolution, the important thing to understand is that it happened, and the proof it happened is that you are alive and thinking and reading this paragraph.

    The strongest evidence of Universal Common Ancestry is that we can compare organisms and then taxonomically show both at the morphological and molecular level that they can be arranged in hierarchical fashion.

    Humans using paternity and maternity DNA testing can show who is the father and mother of whom. We can build family trees using DNA, and these trees create hierarchically organized phylogenies. Extrapolating these hierarchically arranged phylogenies shows we are all descended from one ancestor.

    There is one and only one Tree for All life because the essential features of the genetic code (nothwitstanding some minor deviations) are universal. There are many unanswered questions, but the proof you evolved is that you are live when there was once no life on Earth. That is why Evolution is True.

    –LiarsForDarwin (aka Sal from one of his previous essays mocking evolutionary theory)

    How’d I do, Petrushka? 🙂

  35. petrushka

    stcordova: How’d I do, Petrushka?

    Pretty feeble. You’ve just quoted someone making general assertions. Neither you nor your essayist actually demonstrate much understanding. If you want to demonstrate understanding, take the general principle that we “know” how to trace human ancestors via DNA and explain how that is extended to broader lineages.

    You learned to do the math for entropy. Show us how the math works with common ancestry.

  36. Gregory

    Why do you intentionally attempt to deceive people, stcordova, with your ‘they’ referring to ‘creationists’ when you continue to label yourself a ‘creationist’, as if you couldn’t possibly be a Christian and a non-creationist (or non-IDist) at the same time? Have you hoodwinked and duped yourself?

  37. petrushka

    Well, Gregory, it appears that there are Christians and Nominal Christians.

    I assume that’s different from hypocrites and True Christians. And different from Three Sunday Christians and regular attenders. And so forth.

    Not to mention Adventists, JWs, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Unitarians and Quakers.

  38. OMagain

    stcordova: one of his previous essays mocking evolutionary theory

    Yes, because scientific theories are overturns by mocking essays.

    stcordova: Self-destructing designs.

    Yet that makes no sense. At all. Cancer is because “self-destructing designs”. And measles because plim plam ploo?

    So, please go on Sal and tell us all how and why Cancer is part of the design? After all, a “self-destruction” feature sounds far too complex to have evolved, so it must have been designed. Is that right? Do you agree so far?

  39. Gregory

    petrushka,

    If memory serves correctly, stcordova has said here and elsewhere that he is a Presbyterian Protestant, which apparently means he’s been hoodwinked and duped by his sectarian denomination into thinking that he cannot possibly be a Christian and a non-creationist (or non-IDist) at the same time.

    Mung otoh, has apparently been hoodwinked by the IDM in some alternative strange way that resists admitting the Discovery Institute is full of double-talk PR folk that have made very little if any ‘scientific’ contribution to knowledge, along the way disrespecting theists who rightfully reject IDism.

    These two IDist/neo-creationist characters are like oil and vinegar to each other nowadays, nevertheless both opposing Coyne’s anti-theism.

  40. MungMung

    Gregory: Of course, you actually mean ‘We believe’, since you still call yourself a ‘creationist’, but apparently aren’t man enough to say it here because it means, even to most Christians worldwide, that you’ll look like a fool if you do.

    I’m a CREATIONIST!

    It’s important to capitalize all the letters so that the concept is clearly associated with GOD and to clearly distinguish it from YECism.

Leave a Reply