Too bad I can’t attend this conference on astronomy and creationism. I’d love to go and see what these guys have to say (although I can guess, since I’ve read several antiscience essays and a book by creationist Hugh Ross, one of the speakers and whose organization, Reasons to Believe, is sponsoring the event).
Why can’t I go? Because just a few days later I’ll be in St. Louis, at the American Association of the Advancement of Science annual meeting, where I’ll be on a panel of scientists talking about the current creationist attack on science.
December 27th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
I wish I could attend that panel but would have to make an aaas of myself?
December 27th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
That calendar of events looks… well, nauseating.
December 27th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
I’ll be lambasting creationist astronomy at James Randi’s meeting as well.
December 27th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
quote from http://www.reasons.org/events/20060210-11_cosmic_fingerprints.shtml
“(…)These two scientists have developed a model for creation that is testable, falsifiable and predictive. For the first time in more than 80 years, this innovative approach catapults the evolution/creation debate from science vs. religion to science vs. science..”
you’ve gotta check this site out, there’s more
Is it me, or are those filthy creationists actually trying to sneak into the ranks of Real Scientists (Urrah!) to pretend that ther is actually a debate between two theories? 
Dr Plait - we’ve got your back!
December 27th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
sick sick sick I tell ya….
go get em Phil
December 27th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
also, everyone click on the ad at the top of the page
December 27th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
the FAQ page on http://www.reasons.org/ is mind numbing…
everything links to relativly unrelated and HUGE documents. Arn’t most faqs supposed to be quick answers to common questions?
*barf*
December 27th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
But King, obfuscation is so much harder when you’re being short and to the point!
December 28th, 2005 at 6:51 am
Hi Doctor Phil! I have been an avid reader of yours for a number of years now and i know you to be fair and honest with those who try to scam others through science, especially astronomy so i know you will treat the whole ID thing properly. Please don’t turn off automatically when you see the “G” word but I am a believer in God and find no conflict between science - if carried out properly - and this amazingly complex world / universe he has given us. In fact, the wonders that are discovered (daily it seems these days!) just serve to further the enhance his greatness. Evolution is such a miracle in itself, certainly Life itself is! The current theories such as transpermia are just a further reflection for me of His plan! Nope, it’s all mireaclulous to me…the huge expanse of time we deal with, the complexity from the greatest part to the smallest (that we know about so far!). I think it is fair to say that most honest scientists see the same thing. But .. for those out there that need to argue facts to prove a faith thing.. that in my estimation mis-interpret scripture … let it go, stop the vindictiveness, stop the lies.. just.. appreciate God’s greatness for what it is. Phil, I dont mean for you to publish this, you won’t hurt my feelings! Just help get rid of the lies about so-called ID science — so we can get on with the truth … it’s in everything we see or let me say, can detect - so far! In fact I believe God wants us to be free and non-truth doesn’t cut it with the Creator! Go for it Phil, I’m on your side.
sincerely
Michael
December 28th, 2005 at 7:29 am
In Kansas most (real) scientists just look at this whole debate as a great big joke. If a parent feels their children should be learning about creationism (a religious-based idea), why can’t they teach their children and leave the rest of us alone? Or are they not “qualified” to explain their viewpoints to a 12 year old? Oh well, just another example of extremists expecting their viewpoints to be considered mainstream! Go Phil!
December 28th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Welcome aboard, Michael! You’re quite right about the distinction between religion and science.
December 28th, 2005 at 9:33 am
Phil,
We are looking forward to seeing you in St. Louis. Without your Blog we wouldn’t have known about the AAAS meeting and the free family events on Saturday and Sunday.
December 28th, 2005 at 9:44 am
I’m with Michael on this. I don’t see the real problem here. You can’t prove that there wasn’t an intelligence behind creation, but you can’t disprove it either. For me all that exists points to the existence of a force, God, behind it. The folks at Reasons (great stuff there!) aren’t twisting science or creating quasi-science. They are looking at science and seeing evidence of a creative force at work.
I encourage all of you to visit www.reasons.org and read some of the material with an open mind. I fear that much of the bad mouthing about them is built on assumptions and not an honest examination. This is not one of your Young Earth groups that have the world and universe being created in 4004 BC.
Dean
December 28th, 2005 at 9:49 am
Check this out on Reasons and see what you think.
Creation Scientists Applaud PA Judge’s Ruling Against ‘Intelligent Design’-Dressing Up ID Is No Substitute for Real Science
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/id_press_release_20051220.shtml
December 28th, 2005 at 10:14 am
“We have a real theory! Just buy our three books! Listen to our endorsement from a dead guy who can’t object!”
I understand that, even if reasonably solid, it might be hard to get this stuff past peer review. But geez, that’s what arXiv.org is for. Or you could probably find some journal, somewhere. Going at things via the popular press pretty well destroys your credibility. The great bit “Donate” button also gives some hint of to whom they’re answering.
December 28th, 2005 at 10:49 am
JerryL you should contact the local organizers. Maybe there is some way you can officially participate!
December 28th, 2005 at 11:42 am
>This is not one of your Young Earth groups that have the world and >universe being created in 4004 BC.
True, but that’s one of the few differences.
>The folks at Reasons (great stuff there!) aren’t twisting science or >creating quasi-science.
Have they found any evidence for God’s Universal Flood Dr. Ross believes in yet? Sarcasm aside, it seems that they are indeed engaging in pseudo(anti)science in that they are looking to fit facts to their preset conclusion (Biblical inerrancy…although they do re-interpret the Bible as needed) rather than building explanations up from the facts, as required by the scientific method.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
The I.D. people and the Creationists are so fond of throwing out words and phrases and red herrings that are designed solely to confuse the public perception of evolution. But anyone with a rudimentary understanding of physics and chemistry knows that evolution ultimately isn’t guided by “chance” or “random” or “accident,” but rather evolution and even LIFE ITSELF springs from the fundamental rules of physics and chemical reactions. For instance:
1: WATER. It’s unfortunate that we have experience with no other watery worlds save our own. But the fact remains that the common gases of hydrogen and oxygen combine very efficiently with each other.
2: CHON. Life on Earth, and probably elsewhere in the universe, depends on various combinations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Given their natural valences, these elements can combine very nicely with each other in the right circumstances.
3: STRUCTURE. Given the presence of water, energy, and an ongoing supply of simple organic molecules, these molecules can organize themselves into increasingly complex structures.
FORGET these foolish arguments about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That law applies to closed systems, not deep sea volcanic vents where all sorts of chemical reactions might occur. Order, complexity, self-replication, and ultimately organic life SPRINGS from the the simply rules that govern chemistry and physics.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Hugh Ross’s knowledge of astronomy is questionable.
On this page: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/forecasts.shtml?main he says:
“Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups (Job 38:31). NOTE: All other star groups visible to the naked eye are unbound, with the possible exception of the Hyades.”
I hardly need point out that Orion is not a gravitationally bound group - but that it contains several which are visible to the naked eye. The Hyades certainly *are* gravitationally bound, and there are numerous other naked-eye examples up there (three or four galaxies including our own; a similar number of globular clusters, and lots of open clusters and binary stars).
And that’s just a minor addition to the more physics-oriented stuff in the talkreason.org link above.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
Dean - I read some of the material on the reasons.org website and have never seen such circular logic in a long time. This isn’t just bad science, it’s bad logic, bad everything.
One in particular discussed the possibility of lost books of the bible such as the gospel of Thomas. Their reasoning was that since the bible is the word of god, it is complete and can’t have any lost books. It seems to ingore all the political wranglings that took place to assemble what was to be included.
I have better things to do with my time than to read material only designed to bolster the delusions of those that accept fairy tales as real.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
*Sighs a bit* I suppose that somebody has to stick up for silly and missguided people here… Yeah, Creationists tend to be somewhat missguided about the “science” that they are attempting to disprove, (I use the word losely because I don’t know a single fiat creationist who has enough of a grasp on the Big Bang Theory, or the Theory of Evolution to justify claiming that they are attacking the real thing… Well, I take that back because one of my collage geology teachers was most decidedly a fiat Creationist) but quite frankly the majority of people posting here appear to have an equilly elementary knowledge of the Bible… I’m going to paraphraise a very wise man who once said “Take the pole out of your own eye so that you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s!” If you don’t like Christians attacking your beliefs in an infintile manner, then gain some real knowledge about the Bible so that you can attack it in a more meaningful manner. Theologically you are five year olds arguing against sages, and scientifically they are five year olds arguing against sages. What’s the point??? Somebody needs to get a real, working knowledge of the other side’s position or no ground will ever be made.
December 30th, 2005 at 7:21 am
DEAR CHRIS:
You write, “Quite frankly the majority of people posting here appear to have an equilly [sic] elementary knowledge of the Bible…”
Well, while I’m not able to quote the Bible chapter and verse, I think I have a pretty good working knowledge of the themes behind each of the “books” of the Old and New Testaments. And I fondly recall being rather fascinated, when I was a youngster, by the story of Creation as set forth in Genesis.
For me, the Bible provides is with a moral and ethical framework within which we might conduct our lives with greater decency and humility. But the Bible is NOT a science textbook. If God truly dictated the story of Creation to Moses, couldn’t He have gotten His facts straight? According to Genesis, the seed-bearing plants were created BEFORE the Sun, Moon, and stars; and while that might sound somewhat poetic, it’s scientifically meaningless.
Biblical literalists might say, “Well, if that’s the way God wanted to do things, who are we to question it?” To which I would say, “Fine, let’s just dispense with scientific inquiry altogether.”
December 30th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Chuck, what Chris is trying to say I agree with. For the most part, it seems many people who are trying to defend the side of science don’t know the bible, or want to. Of course there are exceptions, you are one of the exceptions, it would be great if that were more the rule. What he was after was pointing out that it is a bit hypocritical of the science side to point out that IDers and Creationists don’t know what the theory of evolution actually says, and not know what the Bible actually says. I’ve pointed this out in previous comment sections, I’ve done my own reading, spoken with moderate theologians and read and listened to the far out extremists, I just wish MORE people would get informed. I think (I could be wrong) Chris is actually advocating to keep a separation of Bible and science, but if one side or the other is going to try and pose an argument you really should have better knowledge of both sides first, which I think is something you agree with, right?
December 30th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
DEAR HUGH JASS:
As you point out, “If one side or the other is going to try and pose an argument you really should have better knowledge of both sides first.” And as someone who tries to be diplomatic, I understand your point. But as I follow this debate (reading editorials, columns, letters to the editor, etc.), there are a couple of conclusions I’ve come to:
1: Supporters of modern evolutionary theory generally know more about the Biblical Story of Creation, than supporters of the Biblical side know about evolution. Most people in this country grow up knowing all about “Let There Be Light,” the six days of Creation, Adam & Eve and so forth. It’s part of our religious culture. On the other hand, the supporters of I.D. and Creationism seem more fond of throwing around notions about watches and watchmakers, tornadoes in junkyards, fish turning into dogs, etc.
2: Even amongst supporters of I.D. and Creationism, there seems to be a huge amount of disagreement, even bitterness. Creationists accuse I.D. advocates of not taking a sufficiently literal view of the Bible. I.D. proponents are quick to point out that they are NOT supporting “theistic evolution” … that is, the idea that evolution as understood by modern science is simply the way God does things. “Young Earth” Creationists get terribly bitter at “Old Earth” Creationists. And there has ALWAYS been a huge rift between those who believe the Bible is open to some degree of interpretation, as opposed to those who believe it must be taken literally, at face value. How is the “evolution” side supposed to understand the “theistic” side, when the “theistic” side itself seems so fragmented?
December 30th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
I agree, so I just try to gather my knowledge from as many different sources as possible. I do think there is a divide in the extent of knowledge on one side versus the other. I guess I was just trying to mediate what I thought was going to be an argument about agreement between yourself and Chris. There is still the issue of trying to understand the opposing view point. I’m not convinced that passing knowledge of Genesis from when Grandma made me go to Sunday school as a kid, compares to researching where Moderate Christians, biblical literalists, and the Discovery Institute disagree. I think it is very important in the quest to defend science to understand where the fragmentations of creationist type arguments occur, so to better use those ideas. I like talk origins for this as a start, but going to the primary sources might be better. From what I’ve seen I think there are more who would rather ignore religion or stay satisfied with past knowledge than arm themselves with updates.
December 30th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Settle down guys.
*Why does the thought of a Supreme Overload scare the heck out of some scientist?
*I don’t mind which theory is taught in school as long as the students know it’s a “theory” I was taught the big bang was a fact and the only fact. If it wasn’t for the Discovery Channel I might not have ever learned otherwise.
*If science is not your major most schools just brush past the facts like a history course. –maybe that is what they were trying to change in Kansas.
*Judges also have agenda’s.
*I hope the people to spout to know the “story of creation” in Bible aren’t the same ones buying the “Christmas story” told this time of the year..you know the one with the wise men and baby Jesus in the manger.
December 31st, 2005 at 7:27 am
I’d be willing that more Americans read their horoscope and know their astrological signs than have any substantial knowledge of astronomy. Based on that, maybe we should be teaching astrology as a theory competing with astronomy! And while we’re at it, perhaps we can counter the theory of gravity with the theory of invisible rubber bands!
December 31st, 2005 at 1:48 pm
I’ve been reading, with interest, both sides of this debate for some time and One other thing never mentioned here is that those who don’t believe in a god that created life don’t want religious ideas pushed at them because they want their own ideas set as fact. You want creationist to be tolerant of your intolerence. I agree that religious points of view belong elsewhere in schools and not part of science but to discredit someones belief because it doen’t fit yours puts you on the same level as those wackos. Creationist don’t want your ideas shoved at them either. I am not a creationist or a scientist but I do believe in a God created earth. Since no one canreally say hopw the creation process works you can’t discount big bang, evolution, or a number of scientific theories.
on another note, Chuck says
You write, “Quite frankly the majority of people posting here appear to have an equilly [sic] elementary knowledge of the Bible…â€
Well, while I’m not able to quote the Bible chapter and verse, I think I have a pretty good working knowledge of the themes behind each of the “books†of the Old and New Testaments. And I fondly recall being rather fascinated, when I was a youngster, by the story of Creation as set forth in Genesis.
For me, the Bible provides is with a moral and ethical framework within which we might conduct our lives with greater decency and humility. But the Bible is NOT a science textbook. If God truly dictated the story of Creation to Moses, couldn’t He have gotten His facts straight? According to Genesis, the seed-bearing plants were created BEFORE the Sun, Moon, and stars; and while that might sound somewhat poetic, it’s scientifically meaningless.
Biblical literalists might say, “Well, if that’s the way God wanted to do things, who are we to question it?†To which I would say, “Fine, let’s just dispense with scientific inquiry altogether.â€
to show you vast knowledge of the bible as you claim maybe you should read again because the heaven and earth were created, then the light and dark divided, meaning there was already a light in the day for the seeds that were there, then the sun, moon, and stars were only difined in their roles not created at this point.
Chris’s point well made by you
January 4th, 2006 at 11:36 am
Hugh Jass Said:
>What he was after was pointing out that it is a bit hypocritical of the science side to point out that IDers and Creationists don’t know what the theory of evolution actually says, and not know what the Bible actually says.
No, it’s not hypocritical, because the topic is not biblical interpretation, the topic is science, and the bible is just not relevant, any more than The Origin of Species is relevant to designing an automobile, or a hymnbook is relevant to treating a broken arm.
January 4th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Indianajones Said:
>*Why does the thought of a Supreme Overload scare the heck out of some scientist?
It doesn’t, unless said scientist believes in said Supreme Overlord. What scientists and science advocates are upset about is religious believers distorting and misrepresenting science results and statements by scientists in order to further a religious agenda, an agenda that includes discounting the best results of science.
What many people are concerned about is the pushing of a particular religious viewpoint via a government sponsored and sanctioned venue, in direct violation of the principle of Freedom of Conscience that was so dear to the founders of the Constitution that they enshrined it in the First Amendment. It makes no difference to me if you wish to believe in an anthropomorphic God, or a pantheistic “universe is God”, or even in Holy Flying Monkeys that took a poo and thus created the Earth. But there’s no evidence for flying monkeys, much less a flying monkey that predates the Earth, and there’s no indication that the Earth is actually monkey poo, so the idea that the world may have been formed by a big Flying Monkey taking a dump does not merit equal footing with Evolution. The same applies to supernatural deities feeling lonely and speaking the world into existence.
>*I don’t mind which theory is taught in school as long as the students know it’s a “theory†I was taught the big bang was a fact and the only fact. If it wasn’t for the Discovery Channel I might not have ever learned otherwise.
You’re chasing the “theory” red herring again. A theory is an explanation. Scientific theories are scientific, because they are based upon evidence and because they can be tested by falsification, and they are subjected to scrutiny with deliberate effort to disprove them. The Big Bang model is strongly supported by the evidence, so it is an considered an accurate representation of events.
Perhaps there is a lesson that too many people take away from school the idea that science is a specific collection of results, and not that science is a method of examining and evaluating.
>*If science is not your major most schools just brush past the facts like a history course. –maybe that is what they were trying to change in Kansas.
Yes, that’s what I mean by taking science as a set of facts and not as a process. But if the Kansas school board was seeking to improve science education, advocating Intelligent Design was a fundamentally flawed and poorly chosen method. Improving teaching methods does not include equating religious beliefs with science.
>*Judges also have agenda’s.
Now you’re just making an indirect accusation about this judge’s impartiality and conduct. If you actually read the court’s findings, it becomes explicitly clear that this judge was evaluating the case on the merits and arguments directly presented to the court and interpreting the laws based upon accepted legal methods. The only agenda of this judge was to thoroughly evaluate the case in front of him and reach as solid a conclusion as he could provide so that no future judicial reviews could find any grounds for overturning the verdict. That’s why he went beyond the minimum required to establish the conclusion and analyzed not just one basis for the conclusion, but all lines of legal evaluation to show they were all in agreement and reach the same conclusion.
January 5th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Enough of ID. In fact, enough of religion.
I am sick and tired of it, and the fact that religion may have “led to” science or “preserved” scientific advancement is no longer relevant today. Thunder is NOT caused by angels, or any god. Neither is death. Period.
Science is a way of saying, we have some answers, maybe not all of them, but we’re working on it. Science has a right to be wrong in this respect.
Religion is never wrong, making it inherintely so. It presupposes that it has all the answers, and even if individuals do not, “someone” else does. It’s a fact you just have to have faith in.
Not good enough.
Why this should not be the final word on religion in modern society is a testament to the fact that yes, many people are weak, both of mind and “spirit” and need to be told what is real, instead of agreeing upon it with their own conciousness, and willing to feel wrong at some point. And to those, I say that I hope you believe in hell, cuz not only do I curse you to such a fate, but I’m renting the bus! Stop screwing it up for everyone else already. Religion isn’t a genetic trait of humanity, no matter what thousands of years of trends might lead you to believe. A curious nature is, however; in fact we are not a unique example of this. This should in no way be construed as a structure of “divine intervention”, it is a fact of nature.
It is a basic underlying principle of life, chemistry, and even the universe itself, this tendancy to “try everything at least once” and see what works. Yes, it seems there really could be someone in the driver’s seat at times, but does there REALLY need to be? Or is this just your own insecurity talking? These are questions everyone really needs to ask themselves. And keep in mind that there’s no one but yourself waiting for the answer, and you’ve got the rest of your life to grapple with it.
It is poor practice to increasingly blur the line between fact and fiction, one that tomorrow’s generation is already far too adept at.
The fact is, you are here. This one is inalienable until you’re not here.
The fact is, evidence is a real, tangible thing. This isn’t open to debate. It’s as real as anything can be, much more so than faith.
The fact is, science is a balance of evidence and, hopefully, a progressive faith; science in its proper form also leaves the door wide open to being wrong in the face of further evidence.
The fact is, religion is a retrograde path at best, and a dangerous tool of the sinister and malevolent at worst, and willingly devoid of any evidence or rational thinking at its core. Always. No matter what color tint your glasses may cary. It goes to the old addage of absolute power. No matter what entity such power is designated to, it will corrupt absolutely. And no, true evidence is not something so simple as an entity, unless such entitity could be named as “truth”.