The discussion on a previous post about whether the Earth is flat or not gives me an excuse to post one of my favorite quotations from writer Isaac Asimov.
…when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
Creationists and their ilk should take that to heart: just because you say something is wrong doesn’t make you right. Life, the world, the whole Universe… they’re complicated, with an infinite number of shades of gray. If someone thinks the world is black and white, then their own mind is too small to be able to hold more than one bit of information.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Naw, 42 shades of gray.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
As patently true as this is, I doubt many, if any, creationists will take this to heart, purely because I doubt they’d read a skeptical (dare I say “atheist”) site such as this.
This reminds me of the “turtles all the way down” story, but horribly, horribly real. The thought that someone could be so stubborn as to argue that the world may or may not be flat, is something I didn’t think I would ever see, at least not from someone on a major network.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
“How wrong is the flat Earth?”
-About as Wrongy McWrongenstein winning the gold in the Olympic Wrongability competition.
-As wrong as pi = 3.
-As wrong as Penn Jillette in a speedo.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
(I’m sorry, I’m so sorry…)
September 19th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
I’ll play the Devil’s advocate here…
That the Earth is flat is not a bad approximation over a sufficiently small radius ~10’s of miles.
If, like much of humanity, you never travel for more than 50 miles from your home- then a (on average) flat Earth is quite a useful rule of thumb.
In another context- it’s not wrong at all to approximate a small arc of a circle as a straight line- physicists do it all the time.
————————————-
Of course, that’s no excuse for Shepherd, who I’m sure regularly travels by plane and is involved in discussing international politics on a television show in front of millions.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
A follow up to my above post:
Creationism is much wronger than flat Earthism, because it isn’t even locally correct. It’s not a good approximation at any level.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I love how the flat earth societies website section on proof against the evidence is “down”. The flat earth society makes me so f@#$#%##$#@%##$#ing mad. They show on their website a worse grasp on simple theories of gravity and acceleration than a 1st grader. Oh, and pictures from space should have shut them up.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Penn in a speedo? Oh god, that’s wrong, more wrong than Dane Cook.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I also like that quote. Some people have actually brought up when I say “The world is round” that I am not correct, because it is not a perfect sphere. Well, the world is round. No, not a perfect sphere, not perfectly smooth either - obviously - but it’s round.
When they said the world was round they were correct. Later when it was discovered it was not a perfect sphere this did not mean that those who thought it was “round” before were wrong. It only meant that the idea was refined. Now we knew it was not only “round” but also “Somewhat wider in the middle, but still round.”
One could make the same comparison with evolution. Darwin said that evolution was caused by gradual changes working with natural selection and he was correct.
Later this theory was refined when evidence indicated that evolution may occur in brief “spurts” and then be relatively stable, based on climate change or other major changes which force adaptation.
Later the theory was refined even further when the discovery of DNA and genetic mechanisms allowed for a better understanding of how mutations might occur and how species could be traced back through DNA testing.
This is how science tends to work: Well established and tested theories are very very rarely proven wrong. They are occasionally amended or slightly changed. They are frequently expanded or extended with improved understanding.
To me, this is both exciting and validating.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
After reading this post I had to go and have a look at the website for the flat earth society, which I had never heard of before.
Now, this may be a stupid question but are these people for real? I mean surely no one, that has had even the most basic education, can seriously believe the world is flat.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I just have to argue with the idea that housewifery/motherhood makes one ignorant or at least excuses ignorance. “I don’t have to think-I’m a mommy!” Waaaaaaaah!!! As a housewife/mommy I come up against this waaaay too often (and it’s always the religious ones) and it makes me wanna spit. I can’t believe I haven’t been watching The View. It comes on during story time at the library, when the playground is open etc. That’s my excuse, anyway. I’m a mommy, and I don’t have time for ignorance? Please? Anybody out there with me?
September 19th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
There are no actual Flat Eart Societies in existance in this day and age.
Sure there would be the odd joke one on the internet. Perhaps there are the occasional few people in the world that strongly believe in it. But they are isolated, certainly not leaders of any large societies.
There are purhaps many people who truley arent interested and wouldnt know (as utterly depressing as that is) such as Sherri Shepherd, but when pressed with some facts, im sure they would agree in its sphericity.
Comparing Creationists to the mythical Flat Earther is disengenuous at best, and lieing at worst. I know how much the BA dislikes liars.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
@ Heather: I suppose it depends upon how much the women value themselves as independent thinkers. It’s easy to take the easy ride and let someone else do everything for you. The problem comes when there is no one left to lean on. What happens if your husband divorces you and takes all your cash? What if a child is hurt and needs immediate assistance, and you are it? Etc, etc.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Lti, how do you there are no Flat Earth Societies out there.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Asimov also said that he believed that knowledge of the universe is fractal, it never ceases to be complex. You investigate matter and find it composed of atoms, you investigate atoms and find them composed of neutrons, protons and electrons, you investigate protons and find them composed of quarks, etc. You always get closer to the nature of the universe but never reach it, and Asimov said he liked that because a world where we know everything would be a terribly boring world. (Maybe that’s why God is always so angry in the Bible, he’s supposed to know everything)
September 19th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
So here I am, minding my own business, clicking around because I can’t sleep. Suddenly, I find myself in the year 2007, there are no flying cars, no cure for cancer, and we actually have a scientist exasperatedly trying to affirm that the world is indeed flat.
Where the HELL did we go start going backwards!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!
*Head explodes a la Scanners*
September 19th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Oops!! I meant, we actually have a scientist exasperatedly trying to affirm that the world is indeed round.
Sorry!!!!
September 19th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
ZOMG. I can’t decide if the flat earth society is for real or not. However, that some people out there actually do think that the Earth is flat makes me want to cry. Reading the “Why a flat Earth” section on the Flat Earth Society page nearly made my brain supernova in a spectacular fashion.
The physicist inside of me just died a little.
Also, since when does being a Mom count as an excuse to not be informed? I’m fairly certain that she hasn’t been a mother her entire life. Therefore, her excuse is practically invalidated. Besides, if she has enough time to sit on a tv show and gossip, she at least has enough time to learn the earth is round.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:40 am
I know the World is flat. It is just a big conspiracy between mad scientists to prove the world is round…
Got ya!
C’mon guys, I don’t think she’s really believing in what she’s saying. She told it to get an attention and she got it. She told she doesn’t care about shape of the world, she just concentrated on local problems showing position of majority of population
What do we discuss here?..
September 20th, 2007 at 12:52 am
No Sergei, I don’t think she really meant it. I think she said it without thinking. That’s exactly the problem, people do to many things without thinking. In this country, our President presides without thinking, our people follow without thinking, and this is just symptomatic of this kind of thing.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:24 am
If I can speak for the English lit majors of the world (I was one), I acutally tend to agree with John in this case over Isaac (and Isaac, I hasten to add, is one of my heroes). “Right” and “Wrong” are absolute concepts. It’s reality that’s fuzzy. All science is, ultimately, is an attempt to break the universe down into ever smaller fragments of right and wrong, much like a sphere that, at closer examination, turns out to be a many-sided polyhedron. It’s a hard-won philosophical tenet of mine that I now refuse to ever KNOW anything. Einstein proved that one’s notion of the universe can be completely overturned from the ground up, and I reserve the right to accept a reality based on evidence while at the same time allowing for any and all of my preconceived notions to be overturned should new evidence come to light. So no, I don’t accept that we have the universe straightened out. If anything I think science is overdue for a massive paradigm shift. I just wish I knew how to kickstart it.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:23 am
One thing the flat earth hypothesis has over creationism is that you can make predictions and test them. Flat Earth is a viable hypothesis whereas Intelligent Design is not. Which is sad for ID. Flat Earth theorists have a better theory (albeit totally disproven) than ID (who have no theory at all). Geocentrism is a better hypothesis than ID. Freakin’ Neal Adams’ expanding Earth hypothesis is a better hypothesis than ID!
I’m still unsure whether or not the Flat Earth Society is real or a great joke. Sometimes it is so hard to tell, and that is scary.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:44 am
You mean no giant Elephants standing on the back of an even gianter Tortoise?
Well, thats boring…
September 20th, 2007 at 5:45 am
@Parallaxicality:
“I reserve the right to accept a reality based on evidence while at the same time allowing for any and all of my preconceived notions to be overturned should new evidence come to light.”
I think that actually puts you on Asimov’s side over John’s. John argues that your second allowance overrides your first right. i.e. that if new evidence can overturn ideas you already hold, then there’s no point holding ideas because they’re supported by evidence at all. Asimov counters that by arguing that evidence-based thinking demonstrates a general improvement towards more correct ideas.
Einstein didn’t show Newton to be ‘absolutely’ wrong, for example. If you use Newton’s equations to calculate the path of a cannonball, you will get a very good idea of where it will land. But if you use them to calculate the orbit of Mercury, then you’ll find a few discrepancies.
““Right†and “Wrong†are absolute concepts.”
So if I were to say ‘pi=3.14′ and Bob said ‘pi=3′, we would both be absolutely wrong? Or would we both be able to provide approximate answers, but mine would be closer to reality?
September 20th, 2007 at 6:20 am
I think the issue that makes me sympathise with John over Isaac is the difference between accepting a vision of reality based on evidence because it is THE TRUTH, and accepting a vision of reality as the “best fit” that science can now apply to observations. I can defend a scientific vision of reality on the basis that it is arguable from evidence, and that no observation has yet come along to disprove it. No, Einstein did not invalidate Newton as a tool for predictions, but he did invalidate Newton as a description of reality. It may very well be that the four-dimensional rubber-sheet universe mandated by Einstein is merely a mathematical illusion, and that at a deeper level the universe is far odder and more complex than we ever imagined. In fact, if I take anything on faith, it’s that our current vision of reality will eventually be overturned.
>So if I were to say ‘pi=3.14′ and Bob said ‘pi=3′, we would both be absolutely wrong? Or would we both be able to provide approximate answers, but mine would be closer to reality?
September 20th, 2007 at 6:22 am
oops, continuing on…
If we are seeking absolute, final truth, which is what is mandated by Asimov’s assertion at the beginning of his essay, then yes. Such approximations in fact deny pi its essential being. Pi is incommensurable, and cannot be truly expressed by any approximation, because any approximation would be commensurable.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:25 am
My father had a psychiatrist friend who once said “We psychiatrists tend to believe that the world is, indeed flat, but tilted slightly toward the West. Those without roots tend to just roll downhill into California.”
September 20th, 2007 at 6:44 am
parallaxiicality your problem seems to stem from thinking that science tries to find an ultimate universal truth, rather than a model that explains and predicts. id suggest reading up on positivism vs realism in the philosophy of science.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:50 am
The Asimov quote speaks to those who complain that science keeps “changing it’s mind,” when it says things like, “We used to think the world was round, but now we’re saying its an oblate spheroid.” This frustrates people who like their knowledge to be packaged up long ago and to remain unchanged throughout the millenia.
In my fundamentalist Christian high school, this attitude was prevalent regarding the sciences. When a scientific theory was tweaked to better explain some new data, this was seen by my teachers as scientists rummaging about looking for an explanation, any explanation, that will keep the them on their throne. “A ten-year-old science book,” I was told, “is nine years out of date.” The implication was NOT that the science book was actually improved, just changed. “And why go to all this trouble of changing your position,” my teachers taught, “when the unchanging truth is right there in the Bible?”
I truly appreciate the Asimov quote for succinctly putting the point. Science has a built-in error-correction mechanism. In case you don’t get it, that mechanism is a feature, not a bug.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:03 am
There’s a wonderful site: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/
They even have a FAQ: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0
It’s actually a good intellectual exercise to build a self-consistent flat earth model. You only have problems when you start to believe it
September 20th, 2007 at 7:26 am
There was a recent post on the listserve for WV science teachers asking for ideas for an alternative assignment while evolution was being taught. One of the suggestions was to have the student research the flat earth.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:39 am
much like a sphere that, at closer examination, turns out to be a many-sided polyhedron.
That is absolutely not correct. A sphere is a smooth shape. It isn’t many sided, it’s “1-sided” (well, it has a single surface with no corners).
A many-sided polyhedron with an arbitrarily large number of sides may be a reasonable approximation of a sphere, but it is definitely not a sphere because if you look at it closely enough, there are corners and edges.
The general equation for a sphere: x^2 + y^2 +z^2 = r^2 produces a surface with no sharp edges or corners.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Geocentrism is a better hypothesis than ID
BA could probably answer this better, but I believe you actually COULD model the entire universe as being geocentric. Doing so, however, makes the mathematics for observed motions very difficult… but not impossible. Granted, I’ve never noticed any geocentrists that actually try to do this math, but I’m pretty sure that with a few flats of Jolt and a 100 lb bag of Doritos, a dedicated person could work out the supporting math.
The heliocentric model is simply “easier”, but to say it is more correct may not be quite correct.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:47 am
My father had a psychiatrist friend who once said “We psychiatrists tend to believe that the world is, indeed flat, but tilted slightly toward the West. Those without roots tend to just roll downhill into California.â€
Up here we tend to believe that weirdness is heavier than common sense, and the centripetal force of the earth’s spin causes it to migrate to the US southeast and concentrate in the Gulf coast states.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:49 am
The Relativity of Wrong…
Phil Plait points out a link to one of my favorite Asimov essays, “The Relativity of Wrong.” Like most of his essays, it begins with an anecdote: in this case, Asimov receives a letter from a fellow “majoring in English literature,&…
September 20th, 2007 at 8:16 am
“Such approximations in fact deny pi its essential being.”
I’m sure pi will take that up at its next therapy session, but the fact remains that we can still achieve a lot using approximations of pi. We know that pi is 3.14159… and a load more numbers. We may well find some surprises to do with pi, we may well make mistakes. But we are not suddenly going to find out that pi has actually been 5 all along (although who knows, there may be some unknown mechanism that will change it in the future somehow).
This is the crux of what Asimov seems to be saying: that science is increasing the accuracy of our understanding of the Universe rather than endlessly contradicting itself. This is nowhere near the same thing as claiming that we have found the final truth, or that we aren’t going to be surprised by further discoveries. It’s just that we have enough evidence to support what we’ve learned so far that we know it can’t be entirely wrong (short of life being a virtual reality simulation or something).
September 20th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Was anyone else pleased to see a close association of creationism and flatearthism on national TV? Are any creationists going to think “That woman is dumb as a sack of hammers… wait a minute!” I sure hope so.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Everyone is being kind of silly here.
1. Every modern “flat Earth society” I have ever seen have always been a bit of a lark.
2. Widespread belief in a flat Earth hasn’t existed since the BC years. Even very few in the Christian church opposed the idea.
The idea that people thought the Earth was flat until Columbus was started by Washington Irving in his book “The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus” published the the early 1800s.
3. The whole “it’s not really a sphere but an oblate spheroid wossname” is really just pedantry. It’s one of the things that turns people OFF to science and math, folks, to be blunt.
>>> with an infinite number of shades of gray.
Well, ideology and politics tend to reduce that number somewhat.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:12 am
lti, I disagree. Creationists and flat Earthers both do precisely the same thing: deny all of reality based on their preconceived notions. In many cases, the latter do it due to Biblical fundamentalism, too. There are, of course, far more creationists than flat Earthers, which makes creationism that much more dangerous a dogma.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Found on Digg - kinda cool:
“Why scientists should embrace the Flat Earth model”
“The much-maligned and misunderstood Flat Earth movement is being subjected to multiple internet thrashings at the moment, after some minor television hairdo in the USA confessed that she didn’t actually know if the world was flat or not. Flat Earthers are not, contrary to popular belief, head-in-the-sand refuseniks who cannot conceive of the third…”
September 20th, 2007 at 10:09 am
@Cyberax:
There is a short story by Philip José Farmer called “Sail on! Sail on!” where Farmer attempts to create a flat world scenario and actually make it internally consistent. It is in the anthology “Backdrop of Stars” (Edited by Harry Harrison, ISBN 450 02269 2) along with an explanation of the story by Farmer himself. The explanation is almost as long as the story. Highly recommended reading.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Hey, I’m a mother and yesterday my 8 year old (who is learning about the universe in his class) asked my how we know there’s a black hole at the centre of our galaxy AND wanted to know what the inside of a black hole looks like. He already knows a BH is like a star where light can’t escape the force of gravity and he wondered if you could see all the light that was trapped, if you went inside one. So, as best as I could, I told him about how we can’t know what it looks like, really, because our rules about physics stop working there.
He’s a smart kid, but he’s not particularly a prodigy. So, no, there’s no excuse for being an idiot just because you’re a mom and have to figure out how to feed your kid and keep him safe. Puh-lease!
By the way, he also told me I was wrong when I drew him a picture of our galaxy to show where we are because he looked it up in one of his books and I apparently drew it with 5 ‘arms’ instead of 4, and we are not as close to the edge as I said we were. Sigh … so proud!
September 20th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
To Elwood Herring:
Thanks, added it to my TOREAD list.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Miranda, just tell him you did it wrong on purpose to see if he would figure it out or just accept what you said.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
ONE BIT OF INFORMATION! OMG, THAT IS THE FUNNIEST THING I’VE READ ALL YEAR! Yeah, I get it, and I’m laughing to hard to write anymore.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Irishman, I like your style! I’ll do that next time (and I’m sure there will be a next time … probably today, when he figures out that Andromeda is NOT the only galaxy visible to the naked eye)
September 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
‘Know’, or ‘be certain of’? The two are not equivalent, and it only muddies the waters to conflate them.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Pfft… Round Earth? No no no… it’s Banana Shaped!
September 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
The way I see it, even discussing whether or not the earth is flat or round, in this day and age, is just plain stupid. Clearly, anyone that thinks the earth is flat is either an idiot, ignorant, or just stirring up trouble to make money. Let’s not feed these people by lowering ourselves into this sort of foolish argument.
It’s bullsh.. Plain and simple. Time to move on.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
BTW, I inquired a while back for a definition of ‘creationist’ or ‘creationism’ referring to those mentioned in most of your BA posts. I live in Australia and we just don’t have the level of ridiculous Christian extremism as you good folks in the USA seem to tolerate, so I have defaulted to thinking that whenever you refer to ‘creationist’ you are referring to these sort of people, the same ones that think each ‘creative day’ was a literal 24 hour period, and other stupid logic.
Am I correct in this line of reasoning? I ask as I know some people that believe in ‘creation’, or at least are humble enough to leave room for the idea, but at the same time, are extremely passionate about accurate science and wouldn’t conceive of even trying to make their religious beliefs go against clear scientific theory. Case in point, the people I know embrace the idea of the big bang, billions of years to form the universe etc, and see no reason why ‘creative days’ cant be long periods of time. After all a ‘day’, in the dictionary is defined as ‘a period of time’.
I have often had passionate discussions with these people and to date haven’t found anything they say about their belief in creation to be at odds with current scientific theory.
My real question is, if these people are religious, but at the same time see no reason to argue with science, are they ‘creationists’ ? Does the ‘ist’ or ‘ism’ part at the end of the word denote precisely what sort of people you
September 20th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
… are referring to ?
PS .. this is not a hostile question but a real inquiry. If its been asked before, kindly point me to the right article for reference. Thanks ;p
September 20th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Up until his death in 2001, a loony by the name of Charles Johnson had been president of the International Flat Earth Society for over 25 years. By all accounts, he really did believe the earth was flat, the moon landings were a hoax, and so on. The society had, at its peak, over 3000 members.
HOWEVER, it’s distinctly possible most of those members considered the society a joke. When I was at university (late 1970s early 1980s), the society was sending out a rather neat membership certificate. It was quite a giggle to have one posted in your room. As I recall, membership was US$5, which wasn’t too much even in those days, and well within the budget of improverished undergraduates. Certainly none of my fellow students who had one (I never bothered) believed for even a moment in a flat earth. They just liked having a certificate on the wall that said(? implied?) they did. I’ve always assumed a fair number of those 3000+ members were in it for the laughs, albeit I would not be surprised if Mr Johnson was sufficiently deluded that he never grasped that.
Unfortunately, both for Mr Johnson and the society, his home, which also served as the society’s headquarters, burnt down in 1995, destroying all the records. Apparently a very small number of people joined (or re-joined?) afterwards, but as far as I can tell, the fire basically ended the society. Whether or not it exists now, years after Mr Johnson’s death, is unclear.
Whilst checking some of the details, I discovered that apparently Mr Johnson did not begin the society. Exactly when or who started it is unclear (sources conflict), albeit it apparently was the real deal (i.e., they really did believed the Earth is flat!). Mr Johnson became president of the society in 1971.
One particularly amusing thing was Mr Johnson lived (at least until the fire) very close to Edwards AFB.
I haven’t been able to find an image/scan of the certificate, but did find this (unfortunately undated) allegedly verbatim copy of one the society’s brochures:
http://tafkac.org/science/flat_earth_society_flyer.html
(And hey, my memory was cooking! That indicates the cerficate was US$5, albeit that was extra over the membership fee.)
September 20th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
It’s an oblate spheroid and that’s the way I like it.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Qd, Creationist and Creationism are terms that are somewhat muddied by unclear understanding and inconsistent use.
The explicit 24 hour day creationists you identify are more explicitly labeled as Young Earth Creationists, or YECs, denoting their adherance to the literal 7 day translation and the belief that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old (give or take a couple thousand, depending upon the individual).
A slightly more relaxed version of Creationist is an Old Earth Creationist, who allows that the “days” of the Bible might have been vague periods rather than literal days. However, they still believe in a literal Creation event, and in humanity’s independent creation from animals, and God’s direct activity.
There are some religious believers who, as you say, are ready to accept the scientific evidence about the age of the Earth and the origin methods, plus the heritage and development of life on Earth. However, they also think that God was involved in the process - directing it, guiding it, setting it in motion, etc. They identify the idea of “Creation” as being God driven, so they mistakenly identify themselves as “Creationists”. This is unfortunate, because they then get upset at criticisms that are not directed at them that they take personally because of the misunderstanding.
The term is an unfortunate choice because it conflates two issues into one label and thus feeds the “Religion vs. Science” mentality that many people are prone to.
When looking at the origins of life on Earth, there are two different basic schemes for life forms to have followed. One scheme says that life forms were created in essentially their modern form, that each was independently and perhaps instantaneously formed in that state, and that the forms of life are basically unchanging over time - in other words, a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit and has always been a rabbit from the day rabbits arrived magically on the Earth. The other scheme says that life forms share common ancestry, that they diversify and change over time, and that the variety of species today may be significantly different from their ancestors of the not-too-distant past.
The first scheme is labeled “Creationism” out of a reference to the biblical creation story. The second is labeled “Evolution” out of recognition concept of transformation over time. Scientifically, we can analyze which is more consistent with the data collected from all forms of biological science. Clearly transformation over time and common ancestry are much better supported than non-changing forms from independent origins.
The second issue caught up in the labels is the question of whether or not God exists. The “Creationist” label is connected to the assertion that “God did it”, and thus is taken by some to mean that the opposing position means “It was not God”. Also, some prominent defenders of the science of Evolution used the speculative implications of the science to argue that God was not required, and therefore the science disproved God. That is an unfair projection of philosophical implications from a scientific topic.
There are plenty of theists who accept the science of common ancestry and change over time but place God as the source. Evolution is God’s method to them. Ergo, no disproof.
When Phil uses the term on this blog, he appears to be arguing against the literalist types of religious believers who reject the sciences of geology and astronomy for the age of Earth, and the sciences of biology with regards to how species diversified and change over time (i.e. Evolution). He is not refering to theists in general, or the people who accept science but also hold religious beliefs.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
The flat earth theory is the wedge issue for the AGW deniers (carbon-derived energy companies) If they can convince people that the theory of the round earth is only a theory and grade schools should “teach the controversy”, then the next step is to argue that if the earth isn’t a sphere, then the whole notion of “global” warming becomes nonsense.
Who sponsers “The View”? Exxon-Mobil? Halliburton?
September 21st, 2007 at 2:49 am
Ok thanks Irishman, that clears it up a bit for me :p Cheers.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
If the Earth is flat, then the Devil Am I…
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Thanks so much for a link to an Asimov essay I hadn’t seen before. We still miss him so much after 15 years. I’d already discussed the View amazing statements with my children and mentioned the “oblate spheroid” - now they’ll get to see Asimov’s entire thought.
I do think the person on the View meant it - she had three chances at the question and did not change her answer. On another blog I wrote “she went home and heard about 200 times that she was not smarter than a fifth grader and reconsidered her future on television. Then she reconsidered the shape of the earth.”
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
the earth in this universe is round but in other universes (if they exsits) planets could be flat in the superman comic supermans enemy bizaro came from a cube shaped planet that was the oppiset of the earth as for creationists I wish to point out that they are the minority in the chirtian comunity the only reson they seem to be the majority is because they have THE BIGEST MOUTHS!!!!!! and are to politalicy active
September 24th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I mostly agree with Irishman, but to me the only really important question is if there is a divine intelligence leading to man’s creation (I believe there is) or if we just a galactic anomaly in a universe of randomized particles. The form, manner, and timeline of a divine creation are just implementation details.
Oh, and even a Biblical literalist has to realize that the Bible itself says that a day “is as” a thousand years. To take it literally is obviously a mistake. I consider myself to be both a creationist and a scientist. They are not at odds. To me science is no more than our attempts to discover to the mechanics and details of the methods chosen for our existence.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:16 am
whahaha this is insane!!!!!! FLAT WORLD SOCIETY WTF!!!!!! These freaks on weels are dumb as dumb.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:49 pm
[…] http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/09/19/how-wrong-is-the-flat-earth/ […]