Report of talk by Paul Taylor of Answers in Genesis (AiG) hosted by the Oasis Christian Centre, Plymouth Road, Redditch, Worcs. 28th February 2010 by Belle de Gene;

Paul Taylor’s talk “creation or evolution-who cares” was hosted by the Oasis Christian Centre during their Sunday morning service. It is an Elim Pentacostal church which is thriving and respected in the local community. The talk was not advertised outside the church nor, I believe, internally. I only became aware of it via the BCSE creation watch. The Sunday service is held in a local school, Birchensale Middle, Bridley Moor Road, Redditch. It was well attended, the people were warm and welcoming and the service prior Paul Taylor’s talk was lively and upbeat. There were about 150 people there from a wide age range, many families. The children and younger teens left the main service before the talk. I’ve tried to summarise his main lies but for anyone that wants to hear them in full before going to see him it’s available as a podcast on the church’s website -under recent sermons on the home page.

Unsurprisingly for an Answers in Genesis (AiG) employee Paul began by promoting their extensive range of books and DVD’s, a film he’s produced about Darwin, his own books and those of his wife. Paul’s very good at what he does and superficially he’s very convincing. Should the development of anything resembling a conscience make him too honest for AiG he’d make an excellent second hand car salesman. The first part of his talk was mainly religious and therefore outside the remit of BCSE but it boiled down to the usual;

“it’s essential to agree with AiG that evolution and faith are incompatible”

He used quotes from the New Testament to support his argument but I was too dense to see how they did as they seemed to be largely irrelevant to the point he was making. He admitted there were Christians who believed in evolution and quoted one from Cambridge University who had the gall to suggest that people like Paul Taylor brought Christianity into disrepute. That was the last honest thing he said and I found myself agreeing with him wholeheartedly.

He went on to tell us that we couldn’t scientifically work out that he was born in the 1960’s, but he could prove it because he had documentary evidence i.e. a birth certificate. This was cleverly linked to him saying we couldn’t scientifically prove evolution but we had documentary evidence for creation-the Bible. He then trotted out the tired old creationist cliché about no scientists being around in the beginning but God was. There was an obligatory quote from Dawkins (who creationists seem to quote more than any Biblical character) which was “we don’t need evidence we just believe in evolution.” This has got to be wildly misquoted if anyone can trace it and put it into context. [comment from BCSE - we have also had a good look around - it is mentioned in passing on Ray Comfort’s blog but with no source given - so this appears to have been made up or created from scratch] This was followed by the other tired old creationist cliché that we’re all looking at the same evidence and interpreting it differently.

The bulk of his ‘scientific’ arguments revolved around determining the age of the Earth at 6000 years rather than 4.5 billion using uranium (U) to lead (Pb) decay and carbon 14. Though no specific scientists or institutions were named I recognised it as the work of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) group from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and AiG, basically the pseudoscientific wing of creationism. It wasn’t particularly clear that it was AiG science he was using and at no point was it made clear that it had not been subjected to the rigorous system of peer review required of normal science (creation science has its own review system whereby creationists review creationists). At no point was it made clear that none of it had been published in the recognised journals of any relevant disciplines (only in their own creationist journals) nor carried out in any recognised research institution. At no point did he tell people that it had all been totally discredited by real scientists.

We were shown a GCSE physics question about the half life of uranium where the ratio U/Pb was 4:1 giving an age for whatever was being dated of 1.5 billion years. We were then told to consider three assumptions that had been made. Note the clever use of the word assumptions.

• The half life of uranium is constant.
• There was no lead in the original rocks.
• There had been no addition or removal of uranium.

This was pointlessly illustrated with an hour glass analogy just in case any of us were hard of thinking. I’d gotten the picture-uranium and or lead could have leaked out of the rocks or been present in the original sample and the radioactive decay rate could have been faster in the past. Creationists had discovered something overlooked by the whole of the physics and earth science community. Problem is they hadn’t-Paul was just being misleading.

The half life of Uranium (U) is constant because (grateful thanks to Professor Braterman of Glasgow University for this which I’ll quote verbatim) “..the decay constant for uranium has not changed because it is fixed by the laws of quantum mechanics and the relative strength of nuclear and electrical forces. We know these have not changed in the past 13 billion years to within 1 part per million or so from spectroscopic observation of distant galaxies. Moreover they could not have changed during any of the time in which terrestrial sediments have been laid down, since they were laid down according to the laws of chemistry that still apply today and these in turn are consequences of the laws of quantum mechanics.” Basically speeding up of uranium decay can’t happen unless all we know about science is wrong. No matter what temperatures or pressures are applied decay rates do not change.

Furthermore decay happens in such a way to give a strict mathematical relationship between parent and daughter atoms, and these ratios don’t suggest any change in rate in any rock or anywhere else. Then there is the problem that quite often many different methods are used independently to date rocks and they all agree! Often different isotopes (other than uranium) are found together, they decay in different ways so the dates can be cross checked-they all agree! If things decay in different ways how likely is it that such consistency would be found if decay rates have changed? When radiometric dates can be checked against known dates from history yet again they agree! Paul didn’t mention any of this!! Lastly there is the thorny problem of the heat that would have been generated by speeding up U decay to give a 6000 year old Earth. This has been dealt with by the geologist Joe Meert and detailed on various sites. Accurate figures are difficult because apparently Microsoft Excel couldn’t deal with numbers that large but basically the Earth would be vaporised. Other more generous estimates erring on the side of AiG have given a figure that would just completely melt the Earth and only vaporise life. As Paul actually suggested speeded up decay could have been a mechanism for Noah’s flood I can only assume it was a flood of molten rock and the ark was made from some hitherto undiscovered material capable of withstanding extreme heat. I suspect Paul would resort to a miracle to explain this if questioned but it would be a pretty bizarre and pointless one if you ask me and we’d still find some evidence for it. It’s worth warning people that AiG are now touting some research by A G Brennecka (Science 327.pp 449 451 Jan 22nd 2010) that they claim confirms their assertions about the inaccuracy of uranium. It doesn’t. This has been dealt with on “dealing with creationism in astronomy” website. For a start the original paper is looking at meteorites rather than terrestrial rocks. Secondly the ratios of the two uranium isotopes differs only marginally from that normally found-which is a testament to how accurate the normally found ratios are. The most likely explanation for it is not a problem with uranium decay at all but possible decay from rare curium created in certain types of supernovae. Lastly it would change the age of the solar system from 4.567 billion years to 4.562 billion, still a tad short of the required 6000 years.

The second and third assumptions rely on the leakiness of the rocks and the stupidity of geochronologists in not noticing this. Problem here is geologists are obsessively careful to choose rocks that can safely be considered “closed systems” i.e. rocks where less than 1 atom in 100,000,000 can seep out, and the types of rocks they can safely use have been determined by years of research. Not every rock is considered suitable for every type of measurement. Some have the wrong chemistry or mineralogy and are discarded and some have been contaminated and are discarded. The zircons chosen to measure uranium to lead for example are chosen because they contain no original lead and so all of the lead can only have come from decay. In addition there are two isotopes of Uranium that decay to give two isotopes of lead. Another lead isotope is produced by thorium. Uranium to lead decay is a multi step process but the upshot is it leaves geologists with three independent measures, i.e. three separate isotopes of lead which all agree.

He then moved on to the helium (He) that’s created as uranium decays. This seems to be the flagship research of RATE group members Humphreys, Baumgardner, Snelling and Austin-determining how much helium would have to be found to cast doubts on the U/Pb figure and make the Earth 6000 years old. Paul admitted they basically take the relevant zircons and measure the rates of diffusion of He out of them at different temperatures until they can get the figures they want. Whilst in saying this he was admitting to blatant manipulation of the data to fit their predetermined age it’s unlikely that many would have picked up on it. Again distinguishing lies from truth does require some background science. However even with this blatant manipulation RATE have had to engage in some very dodgy science. The Talk Origins website details fully referenced criticisms of this and they’ve basically found the following problems. The rocks used were from an area (Fenton Hill) where the geology makes it impossible to avoid contamination with different types of rock. This would have required some rather expert sorting to deal with-by for example, an experienced geochronologist. Their helium diffusion experiments were carried out in a vacuum rather than the extreme pressures found in situ (200 to 1200 bars). Research into diffusion of noble gases at pressure shows it differs hugely from that found in vacuums. Extraneous helium exists in the area which can and does contaminate the rocks making it very difficult to distinguish radiogenic (caused by decay) from environmental helium. RATE did not make this distinction nor test for it. RATE claimed the rocks they were using were granodiorite taken from depths of 750 to 1490m (remember geologists are very picky about the rocks they use). Granodiorite is not found at this site above 2591m and therefore it is gneiss they were using. Their chemical data underestimates the amount of uranium in the rocks throwing doubt on the Q/Qc (ratio of helium) figures. There were substantial errors in the maths used to calculate the Q/Qc values giving too high a fraction of helium. Errors and variables were not reported in their work as is standard in real scientific reports. There were failures to total their data in some of their appendices again incorrectly estimating the amounts of helium released. One of their samples was at the limit of what could be measured and therefore should have been discarded making an already small sample too small. Lots of Humphrey’s values are “missing, poorly defined or improperly or inaccurately measured”. Add to this the fact that no real scientist has managed to replicate what they did, the fact that it’s been ripped to shreds by geologists, chemists and physicists again and again and the fact that RATE admit they can’t find anyone with the relevant expertise in geochronology to work for them and it’s surprising that Paul was so keen to present it. My kids have presented me with far more credible evidence for the tooth fairy than anything here-and I didn’t believe them either. Basically what he neglected to mention was: inappropriate rocks, incorrect data, inability to fully understand helium diffusion, lack of expertise, incorrect maths, omission of data and some other dubious misleading omissions. There are lots more problems with RATE’s work but this should be enough for any question and answer session. Talk Origins and No Answers in Genesis are good fully referenced sources for more detail (and are the ones I’ve mainly used), as is the American Scientific Affiliation (which is Christian and has a very good “Christian perspective on radiometric dating” which might be more palatable to Paul’s target audience).

His other great lie was the fact that carbon 14 was found in a diamond. Again thanks to Professor Braterman for providing the answer to this. Carbon 14 is often found in coal samples due to contamination and it is very likely that what was found in this case was also contamination. The sensors used are very susceptible to contamination by atmospheric carbon dioxide. Genuine scientists are aware of and account for this.

I stayed until the end of Paul’s talk then had to leave so didn’t get to see the extensive range of products he was selling. There was no question and answer session and no opportunity to challenge him without being rude. He received generous applause and lots of oohs and aahs where I was sitting but I’ve heard on the grapevine that at least one other person (with a scientific background) had been disgusted by his lies. It was hard for me to believe that anyone could be taken in by what he said but he could rely on his target audience’s obvious trust in their church leaders and hence by association anyone they invite to lend himself some credibility. He then pre primed them by telling them they couldn’t believe in evolution and the Bible before moving on to the spurious ‘science’ that would help them in that belief and there were lots and lots of things to buy if they’d been confused! Hope someone gets to see him do this talk in Leicester on March 13th (details on AiG website) and gives him hell!

AIG recently re-posted this article from 2007 by Paul Taylor from AIG UK.

This chemistry graduate and ex-teacher takes a break from claiming that 99.9% of the worlds biologists are either incompetent or part of a worldwide atheist conspiracy, to claim that 99.9% of the world’s cosmologists are either incompetent or are part of a worldwide atheist conspiracy.

The point that should concern Christian parents and teachers is that only one worldview—a secular evolutionary worldview—is taught as if it were established fact, contrary to the actual requirements of the National Curriculum.

In Paul’s world he has his own definition of the word “evolve” that leads him to some unusual conclusions about the curriculum;

4.4c — how stars evolve over a long timescale

In 4.4c, the use of the word evolve is likely to cause confusion and is probably included to imply an acceptance of big bang cosmology.

He goes on to accuse the writers of the syllabus of simply assuming that the speed of light has always been constant.  Never mind Einstein and the careful output from thousands of experiments in fields ranging from cosmology, astronomy and physics, he thinks that the world is just six thousand years old beacuse he added up the ages of people in the bible.

From the blog “God Would Be An Atheist” an account of the creationist Paul Taylor at the recent Skeptics In The Pub Event.

No answers in Genesis
Creationism fails again
October 14, 2008

To the London Skeptics (sic) meeting in Holborn last night, to hear Paul Taylor of answersingenesis.org (pictured) give a talk on “Why don’t Creationists just shut up?”

First the upside. Paul is an affable chap, an ex-science teacher who, one suspects, was good at his job and well-liked by his pupils. He has a sense of humour and an easy speaking style and was unruffled by the many technical questions thrown at him in the Q and A session. We sceptics (I’m not a member, so I can use good British spelling) gave him a good hearing and the questions and comments were mostly put in tones of amusement or bemusement. There was no hostility from either side, as you would expect, given that we’re all – well, nearly all – rational people.

Now, the downside. Let’s put aside the fact that the title had nothing to do with the talk Taylor gave – most of us are guilty of saying what we want to say irrespective of the question we’re asked. And let’s temporarily set aside the fact that most of his talk was criticism of conventional evolutionary knowledge and scientific method. There’s no harm in pointing out apparent anomalies in a theory that you don’t understand and don’t agree with. Criticism can lead to intelligent debate and new insights, although last night didn’t get that far.

The real problem was not Taylor’s willingness to criticise conventional science but his inability to present his alternative – Creationism – in any meaningful way. All the questions on that topic received only vague answers. To take one example, two of us asked about the aftermath of the Flood (Genesis chps 6 – 8). I queried how the koala returned to Australia from the middle of Turkey after the waters subsided – a particulaly arduous task, given the distance involved, the inability of koalas to swim long distances and the lack of eucalyptus leaves (their only diet) en route. The other questioner asked about the availability of plants for animals to eat on a water-sodden earth. (Similar questions can be asked about penguins crossing the Sahara and how long the carnivores had to starve before the herbivores procreated enough to allow all species to continue eating their required diet.)

Taylor’s reply was the weakest of fudges. Maybe there was a land-bridge, he said. Maybe koalas had a different diet. As to the herbivores, maybe the plants grew really, really quickly. In other words, he had no idea.

On one level, this response is laughable. Creationism claims to be a science – which implies strict, testable theories – yet it cannot provide a simple, verifiable explanation for one of its most basic tenets, the Flood. There’s a reason why of course – the Bible doesn’t give that information. That in itself is suspicious; if the Bible truly is the word of God, the deity is remarkably uninformative at some very critical points in Biblical history (what crucial information is missing between Genesis 6:4 and Genesis 6:5, for example?), while providing us with too much information at other points (Exodus 33:23).

On another level, however, Taylor’s meaningless response reveals the hypocrisy and arrogance. Creationists are always eager to present harsh analyses of conventional science (this took up the bulk of his talk), using material which has a superficial credibility – yes, there are scientific papers verifying discrepancies in dating methods; yes, there are aspects of evolution that are still poorly understood. But they are always reluctant or unable to put forward clear, verifiable explanations for phenomena from the Creationist point of view (Taylor told us almost nothing about Creationist “science”.)

We were not looking for deep science. We accepted that Taylor was a generalist. But from a Creationist point of view, this was such a relatively simple task. After all, it is much easier to explain how two koalas and their offspring can travel several thousand miles across deserts, tropical forest and open sea than to explain the process by which single-celled life evolved into the complex human organisms that we are today. Yet no Creationist has ever explained even that simple fact; the koala question is extensively discussed on the web, but singularly avoided by Creationists.

It is that which makes me angry – not the legitimate questioning of Darwinism and related disciplines, which I can accept and participate in – but the trashing of conventional science by people who cannot be bothered to explain even the basics of their own theories. It is the desire to destroy rather than create. It is the reaction of the intellectually lazy to complex and continually evolving concepts.

It would be bad enough if this intellectual dishonesty was restricted to adults who fully understand how to debate and reason, but it goes further. The proselytisation of children – the lie that Creationism is somehow a science – is the most damning aspect of the whole charade. Our future depends on our children learn intellectual honesty; in disguising itself in the clothes of true science, Creationism lies to them again and again.

This is not meant to be – and should not be taken as – an ad hominem attack on Paul Taylor. I am convinced that he is sincere and he has not thought through the implications of what he is saying. But that means I want to finish this piece by focusing on one key remark that he made and leading him through the implications.

Paul, you said that your starting point for your “science” was belief in the Bible as the Word of God. Do you understand the implications of that statement? You are basically saying – “this book gives me the answer to everything; now I need to find the evidence to confirm it”.

Your statement is the same as that of the detective who surveys a crime scene and says “the butler did it; now I need to find the evidence to confirm it”. No doubt the detective can find some evidence that supports his theory, and where evidence is lacking he can offer suggestions that point the finger at the butler. And when he finds evidence that suggests or proves the butler is innocent, the detective ignores it. By selecting the evidence that comes to court, the detective ensures that the butler will be found guilty and sentenced for a crime he may not have committed. Creationism, by deciding the answer before it examines the facts, is as guilty of perverting truth and justice as the detective.

Paul, another speaker in the audience last nighted hinted at what real science is – and it is something that I really don’t think you understand. Real science says “we do not know the answer; let’s look at the evidence and see where it leads us”. At the moment, the evidence is leading us clearly towards evolution, despite its uncertainties and inconsistencies, but if ever there is consistent, irrefutable evidence that points elsewhere – including to the Biblical version – I assure you that I and all reasonable men and women will follow it.

We are not asking you to give up your faith, Paul. We are only asking you to use the intelligence that you believe God gave you. Does God really want you to invent silly stories about the koala? Did he really plant fossils all over the world to mess up the minds of his creation? Does he want you to privilege unproveable myths over logic and facts? For the sake of the country’s children, if not your own faith and peace of mind, please think again about the ignorance you are promoting and the damage you are doing to those around you.

With thanks to our correspondent who went to see Paul Taylor speak earlier this year and then submitted this piece for our wiki;

Intro

Paul Taylor is the Head of Media and Publications of Answers in Genesis (UK/Europe) in the UK.  He has a Chemistry degree (BSc) from Nottingham University and many years experience as a schoolteacher and department head.  As with all AiG UK staff, he has no formal qualification in biology, geology, astrophysics or theology.  

Despite this lack of scientific training, Taylor is one of three speakers at AiG’s 11-person operation in the UK.  As such, he holds the AiG line, insisting that the Bible is inerrant and that the entire universe was created in just 6 days.  Taylor has written two books: ‘The Six Days of Genesis’ and ‘Truth, Lies and Science Education’.  He is a frequent speaker at churches, although sadly he chooses not to answer questions at these events, instead running a stall of books and DVDs at the end of his sermon.  

The Blog

Taylor has stated controversial opinions on a number of issues.  His blog requests that all contributors abide by a statement of faith that runs to a full 19 points, including such choice gems as: “That Christ is the vine and Israel is the true branch(es). The church is the wild branch that is grafted into the true vine.”, and that God “has foreordained everything that happens” (so much for free will!).  The original forum failed to attract any postings other than the Statement of Faith itself.  It has since been re-launched in a new format and has rocketed to three posts at the time of writing.  All three are tests from Taylor.  

The blog also includes a link to a ‘J6Dpedia’.   The link is now broken, but according to WikiChristian this was “an online Bible commentary with a 6-day-creation viewpoint.”  

The blog itself is primarily concerned with invective against Christians who disagree with Taylor’s opinions, atheists, the European Union, secular schoolteachers and anyone else who Taylor dislikes, in roughly that order of frequency.  Taylor has also used it to express his disaproval of religious tolerance.  

The Science

In his public speeches, as in his blog, Taylor devotes much of his energies to attacking perceived heresies.  He argues against the day/age theory on scriptural grounds, pointing out that no-one takes other Biblical phrases (such as Josua’s attack on Jericho) as having taken thousands of years (though he neglects to mention that Adam is condemned to die “the same day” as eating the fruit from the Tree).  

When it comes to science, Taylor is on shakier ground.  He has several set-piece talks, and what follows is not an exhaustive listing of all his claims.  Some of his more unusual claims are that: 

• All creatures were created by God as vegetarians and T Rex teeth were designed for eating mangoes (he doesn’t mention the other predatory features such as forward-facing eyes and a small digestive system, not does he seem aware of evidence of bite-marks on some fossil dinosaurs).  He further backs this up by pointing out that modern carnivores are able to survive on a vegetarian diet, using the example of the lions in London Zoo which survived on a diet of cabbages during the Second World War.  The Zoological Society of London has responded to this claim in an email from their press office: 

  “In fact, the lions and other carnivores were not put on a vegetarian diet.  In his article ‘The History of London Zoo’ (The World of London Zoo, p.74), John Edwards writes: ‘…the carnivores were kept alive with comparative ease, because the Zoo was sent a lot of condemned meat from bomb-damaged buildings, as well as the corpses of dogs from Battersea Dogs’ Home.’  Lions cannot live on grass. Like domestic cats, they would only eat grass as an emetic.”  
   

• The Australopithecine fossil ‘Lucy’ was fully ape-like, with no human characteristics.  As part of this, he claims that Lucy did not walk upright, and devotes much time to attacking the Natural History Museum’s reconstruction of Lucy, which shows her with human-like feet, despite the Lucy remains not having any feet.  In conversation, Taylor has admitted that he is aware of other Australopithecine remains that do have the feet preserved.  These feet are intermediate, with a grasping toe but a human-like heel, and would have been suited to an upright gait.  Taylor shows no recognition of the fact that the pelvis and spine of Autralopithecenes are also distinctly bipedal.  

  Taylor’s criticism of the Natural History Museum for using a reconstruction alongside replicas of the Lucy fossils stands in sharp contrast to his enthusiastic endorsement of the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum, with its displays of humans playing with and riding dinosaurs, something flatly contradicted by all the available fossil evidence.  

• Traditional Creationist solutions to the ’starlight problem’ (how light from stars millions of light-years away can reach the Earth in just 6000 years) fail – a changing speed of light would have many consequences we do not observe, and starlight created already en route to Earth would imply a deceptive creator (something that Taylor cannot countenance).  Instead, he subscribes to the ‘White Hole Cosmology’ – the idea that the entire universe is inside the event horizon of a massive white hole, with the Earth at its centre.  Aside from a few obvious problems (why can we not see this nearby 2 light year-wide radiation source from Earth?  Why doesn’t the relativistic compression of 14 billion years worth of starlight into 6000 years fry the Earth?), this is considered pseudo-science by every qualified astrophysicist in the world, not leastly as is requires us to assume that the Earth is in a uniquely priveledged position in the Universe, an assumption that has been unpopular since Copernicus’ day.  It also contradicts measurements of the cosmological constant.  In his talks, Taylor breezes over these points by simply saying they are ‘technical’.
• Taylor, like many Creationists, actually accepts most of what Darwin said.  However, he seeks to distinguish between ‘microevolution’ – apparently defined as ‘evolution on a scale that Paul Taylor can reconcile with his interpretation of the Bible’ – and ‘macroevolution’, which is everything else.  As an example of ‘microevolution’, Taylor uses the Brassicas – the Family of plants that includes the cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, turnip, rapeseed, mustard, radish, horseradish, cress and watercress, as well as Taylor’s personal bugbear the Brussels sprout.  Taylor is happy to accept that all these plants evolved from a single common ancestor.  However, he offers no explanation for how we can tell that these specific plants evolved from each-other, but that other plants such as peas did not.  Could this be because if he did explain his reasoning, it would also support evolution at much greater levels than he can accept?  It is also strange that Taylor is able to accept evolution at the Family level among plants, but rejects the idea that humans, chimps, gorillas and orang-utans constitute a similar Family.  His only justification for this is the concept of ‘information’, though he does not explain how we can tell whether a pea contains more information than a cauliflower.  
• Taylor says that we should take the Bible literally.  However, his interpretation of what constitutes a ‘literal’ reading of the Bible can be quite unusual, and often seems to owe more to his personal opinions than the text.  He claims that the Bible predicted relativity on the basis of verses such as Psalm 90: “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night”.  He also gives this strange non-sequitur on his blog: 

  “I believe that education is part of the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28:’And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.’”

He has also claimed in public that Gregor Mendel discovered natural selection prior to Darwin.  

Our full wiki entry on Paul Taylor can be seen here.