The NCSE is reporting (via an AP article) that an antiscience academic freedom bill has died in Alabama. These bills are a pox on the country, popping up in state legislatures everywhere. They purport to allow teachers freedom to teach controversies, but that’s creationist slang that really means violating the First Amendment and teaching religion in schools.
The Alabama bill’s cause of death is unclear; the article merely says it was because it didn’t pass in the House where it was introduced. I’d love to hear that the politicians had epiphanies and realized that passing it would irreparably damage students’ ability to learn, but I suspect it’s far more likely to have been due to some arcane parliamentary issue.
And lest you think this kind of garbage is quarantined to the U.S. south, I heard last night after my talk from some college students in the audience that Michigan is considering just such an unconstitutional bill. You don’t get much farther north than that.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
It’s the end of the legislative session in Alabama. Bills are dying left and right simply because there isn’t time to pass them.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I really do worry about this stuff, and I wonder if we don’t take it seriously enough as a society.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
The USA really has to decide to grow up. All this silliness about the bible and evolution was argued about and decided over a hundred years ago by people who were much more intelligent than the current participants. Nothing new has been added to the arguments since. Evolution is a reasonable explanation for what nature shows us. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the creation of life.
Aldous Huxley said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”, yet that seems to be the hope of the ID’ers.
From the outside, the USA seems to be starting a collapse into a new dark age. How long will we have to wait before we see Americans burning books on the school house steps?
May 10th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Still gnawing at this bone, are we? I love it how taking exception to one hallowed concept in biology suddenly means believers are completely Anti-Science!
As if we have issues with physics, astronomy, and chemistry as well! All tools of the devil if you ask B.A.!
May 10th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Teaching in a southern state, I asked my school’s science department head if there was a policy to deal with these attacks on science from state and local governments. I was told, “We have never thought of it.”
May 10th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
You don’t get much farther north than that.
Some consider Canada to be farther north than Michigan. (And we don’t need Creationism any more than you do
)
May 10th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Matt:
Science is a process. It is not the data, not the theories, not biology, geology, nor physics. These are all fields that use science to gather data and draw conclusions.
You cannot be partially anti-science. If you disagree with the data and conclusions from one field (biology) without your own valid data, then you have no safe haven in other fields. The scientific method crosses all those boundaries.
In other words, science is not like shopping. You cannot pick and choose which results you like and which ones you don’t.
May 10th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
@Matt Garrett
1. Science doesn’t *do* hallowed concepts, okay? If the whole of science treats something as pretty-much unbreakable, it’s because nobody’s managed to break it yet, and that resilience gives confidence in using the concept as a tool.
2. “Believers” covers a lot of ground. The ones introducing anti-evolution bills are anti-science, yes. They stand fast on their rock of certainty, and are horrified at the existence of a mental process able to erode it.
3. “As if we have issues with physics, astronomy and chemistry as well!” Well, yes. Can you add philosophy, cosmology, geology and information theory to your list?
May 10th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Gee, I think I’ll lodge a complaint about somebody’s religion being treated badly. After all, the forum forbids religious discussions except under certain specified exceptions that the tinhorn mods now choose to ignore.
Why shouldn’t the same rules apply here? I think Phil is engaging in some hit-and-run troll activity. After all, has he responded yet? Hmmm? There you have it: He should ban himself.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Who’s religion is being treated badly? Just because anti-science crusaders are being being laughed at (rightly so), how is this against any religion?
May 10th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
While this is indeed good news, sadly the repeal of the law banning …personal gratification devices, shall we say?… also died in the same manner.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
It’s sarcasm, Pleco. Check the links.
One of the aforementioned tinhorns shut down one of my BABB strings because a religionist complained that his/her religion was being impugned. This is not the case unless the complainant’s superstition of choice includes a dogma that UFOs are demonic manifestations.
The tin-horn added a gratuitous comment about suspecting me of “hit-and-run troll activity,” apparently since I had not responded in the five days the post had been up. That isn’t very long for a low-activity string, I have a lot to do these days and there was nothing worth responding to anyway.
I have been a member of that board for over seven years, btw, 4 years longer than the offending moderator.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
[…] via Bad Astronomy […]
May 10th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Actually, denying evolution also requires denying many findings from those fields as well.
Also, evolution isn’t any more a “hallowed” theory than gravity or germ theory. Like them, it’s merely a correct theory which fits the data available, and the creationists who oppose it are only able to attack it through deception and underhanded political shenanigans, because they have no data and no experiments which disprove it.
Attacking a scientific theory using lies and political manipulation is anti-science. It doesn’t matter which scientific theory one chooses to attack. To attempt to deny a scientific theory by lying about it is anti-science, because deceptive tactics like those used by creationists undermine the very scientific method itself.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Michigan! uh-oh, they’re coming for me! (i live in east lansing)
@Matt Garret
Anyone who demands their holy-book be taught as fact in school, over evolution and an “old Earth,” which lines up with everything we have discovered in geology, biology, DNA, and astronomy is indeed anti-science (and theocratic).
Learn about religion in church, but do not force it on students who would like to learn how the world actually works, and would rather not have their education hi-jacked by a religious agenda.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I wonder if the proponents of this bill have thought through the implications? Since they must provide at least a figleaf of Constitutionality, they cannot limit this newfound “freedom” to Biblical Creationism or even ID.
What happens if a teacher decides to start expounding on, say, the theory that humans were planted here by reptoid aliens as part of their food production program? The proponents of such ideas can claim a scientific rationale as easily as Creationists do and it would have the same protection under the law.
Similarly, if an over-enthusiastic fan of Edith Hamilton wants to tell the kids the Olympian gods are real, who is to say no?
May 10th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“Some consider Canada to be farther north than Michigan.”
One of my favorite trivia questions!
If you head due south from Detroit, what’s the first foreign country you’ll reach?
May 10th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
BA: “They purport to allow teachers freedom to teach controversies, but that’s creationist slang that really means violating the First Amendment and teaching religion in schools.”
BA: “And lest you think this kind of garbage is quarantined to the U.S. south, I heard last night after my talk from some college students in the audience that Michigan is considering just such an unconstitutional bill.”
I hate to nitpick here, but a state passing such a law does not violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which reads as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Whether it violates the state’s constitution, I have no idea.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
As a student in a public high school, I’m totally against having religion taught in school. That’s not to say that teaching the backround and history of religions are necessarily bad because they are important to history (for instances, why the Jewish people felt that they had the right to claim Jerusalem and why the Arabs too felt that they also had the right to claim it) and liturature (Shakespeare makes a lot of allusions to Greek mythology so we did read Edith Hamilton before starting Shakespeare).
However, recently in my BioChem class we started evolution. Instead of teaching the class herself, my teacher feet so uncomfortable teaching the unit (because of her religion, and yes she blatantly told the entire class this) that she is instead having the class use the book and make posters to teach each other with. But why should I complain? She the coolest teacher ever, she sometimes even plays her IPod for us while we work! <-Verbal Irony, my English teacher would be so proud!
Needless to say, I learned nothing that I hadn’t been taught last year, read in a book or saw on T.V.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Robbie
>>>”I hate to nitpick here, but a state passing such a law does not violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution”
Technically no, since the wording of these “academic freedom” bills say something along the lines of being able “to present the full range of scientific views in regards to biological evolution”. It then goes on to say that teachers will not be punished for presenting those views.
Problem is, there ARE NO scientific “alternatives” to evolution. Unfortunately, if a fundie teacher who does not understand this starts talking about either God (any God) or ID, that teacher will still be in trouble.
Even if the bills where passed and they said that religious alternatives were allowed, I doubt very much that these bills would trump the First Amendment. At which point, it would go to court and the fundies would be in REAL trouble.
But hey, whoever said fundies were smart?
May 10th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Darth Robo, I have no idea what your point was.
Let me clarify my point. It was simply that the First Amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no law…”. This does not apply to the states since they’re not congress.
May 10th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Jeffersonianon 10 May 2008 at 4:16 pm
“Some consider Canada to be farther north than Michigan.”
One of my favorite trivia questions!
If you head due south from Detroit, what’s the first foreign country you’ll reach?”
ohh ohh ohh, i know this one, its Indiana, my home state :). just ask my dad, he doesnt recognize michigan as part of the US. though his opinions sometimes are worth one grain of salt
May 10th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Its really sad and surprising that there are still some ‘educated’ people who do not understand a concept as simple as evolution.And they are adamant-sometime I think why not situations like this nurture the development quite justifiably of a Hitler’s stand to eliminate such elements for humanity’s own good ? How long humanity should be left to tolerate such nonsense in the name of freedom of speech and any tom,dick and Harry’s self boasted right to go on repeating absurdities like that !
May 10th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Robbie, the 14th Amendment is construed as extending the Bill of Rights to the states.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
um
Sorry to burst someones bubble here
But teaching relgion in public schools is not unconstitiounal
“seperation of church and state” does not exist
There is however something saying “there will be no state sactioned relgion” or something like that
May 10th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
@pat denning
““seperation of church and state” does not exist”
Actually, it does. I recommend doing a little research on the history of the First Amendment and look at some of the letters written by its writers. You will find that a separation of church and state was the intent behind the amendment, for a number of reasons.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
@Robbie,
I think the pertinent part of Amendment XIV that bad Jim is referring to is this:
May 10th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Seems pretty clear to me
May 10th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Minnesota actually has had a few bills introduced by creationists who are grasping at any straw they possibly can reach in order to find some way to teach that evolution is bad. The one they introduced this year never made it out of the education policy committee.
Echoing what Todd W said in reply to Pat Denning regarding the First Amendment, the First Amendment has been determined to be applied to the states through the 14th amendment. Of course, strict constructionists such as Scalia and Roberts and Thomas are not so happy about it and think that this should be changed.
Critical analysis of evolution is how all of science works, and there are a plethora of controversies, real controversies being worked out and investigated. The bills try to fix a problem in science that isn’t really there. The only problems are from people with a narrow view of science who think that evolution is bad because it doesn’t fit their religious interpretation.
Academic Freedom Bills, as written, are indirect attempts to promote a religious viewpoint yet they are too transparent to pass Constiutional muster. The Discovery Institute is going to have to go back to the drawing board.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Here’s a scenario:
Imagine that this kind of bill is passed. Let’s say that a Muslim student disagrees about the teaching of the Holocaust in History class. At this point, this student gets allies: Holocaust deniers. They now go to the board to force the school to “teach the controversy” about the Holocaust.
Thanks to such a law, history classes would have to teach the controversy that states that the Holocaust was either exaggerated or simply a hoax.
I think that there should be one class of science history that explains real controversies rather than the made up ones like “ID/creation/creation science/anti-Darwinism versus evolution.” Let the students see that Science is not so boring and is full of fierce and furious competition. Let them get excited at finding something new about the universe.
Let’s re-introduce curiosity in schools. Oh, but science is awesome. Far better than that paranormal crap.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
How does teaching religion in schools violate the 1st Amendment? You might be a great astronomer, but a Constitutional Scholar, you ain’t:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
I’m just curious, why do evolution scientists insist on trying to prove evolution is true by proving creation isn’t? Isn’t that a logical fallacy?
Robert
May 10th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Here’s another, far simpler scenario:
Scientologists use such “academic freedom” bills to sneak their brand of “science controversy” into schools. Can you say “every thing you ever heard of the brain and brain chemistry is wrong. Here’s an alternative theory….”
These kinds of bills are reactionary and expel any intelligence in the process of making them. The results would be messy, and would get far messier than a million-year-old nebula.
Here’s another “teaching the controversy”:
TEACHER: Attention, students, we are coming into a controversial theory on an upcoming subject. I have been told that I must warn you that although it is claimed that the United States of America landed on the moon, there are those who say that their is strong suggestion that such a moon landing did not happen. So, in addition to teaching the controversy against evolution, I have to teach the controversy against the moon landing.
*pause, teacher sighs*
TEACHER: I know that at least one of you kids has a gun, would you please put me out of my misery. Stupid revisionists.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Ad Hominid, there is a rule on BAUT not to discuss mod actions except with the mods. I take a dim view of you bringing it here. A very dim view.
And this blog is not affiliated with BAUT. The rules here are different. Sarcasm or not, I don’t appreciate you complaining here about BAUT, nor calling a mod a tinhorn.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
@ Robert
Well, it doesn’t… teaching religion in public schools that are funded by taxpayer dollars is. Clearly. And that you would even try to make an argument otherwise is simply… well… I’m not gonna sugercoat it… plain ignorant. Not even the DI would try to make that claim. The supreme court has held time and time and time again that any teaching of religion in a public school is in direct violation of the First Amendment. Sooo… are you saying you’re just smarter than the Supreme court? Really? Hmmmm…
Well… see, the problem with your supposition is that you are the one who created it. Not one scientist has ever used falsification of Creationism as a means of proof for evolution. Ther very thought behind such an idea is plainly unscientific. There are literally thousands of volumes of data that present a strong case backing the theory of evolution, and not one of them is centered around falsifying Creationism as a means of proving evolution.
So, to answer your question, yes, it would be a logical fallacy if your assertion were in any way, shape of form true… but since it’s just your own fabrication… no need to answer it.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
@robert
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
That means church and state are separate. If church and state were not separate, then there would be a law that establishes religion or favours one religion over another.
For example, in the UK, Canada, Australia, et al. the head of state is also the head of the church of England… in those countries, religion is established even if it wields little or no power (as in Canada and Australia). In the UK, high-ranking archbishops rate seats in the House of Lords (equivalent to being a senator in the USA, but unelected).
The US, however, forbids that sort of thing through the first amendment.
The topic of disestablishment rears its head in the UK from time to time, and gives rise to the longest non-medical word in the English language: antidisestablishmentarianism which refers to the concept of not supporting separation of church and state.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
To Todd W. and bad Jim: Thanks for mentioning the Fourteenth Amendment, but upon further reading and reflection, I think my point still holds up.
The words you quoted Todd W. don’t seem to apply here and if that is how people take them, I think they do so incorrectly.
Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So the First Amendment clearly states “Congress…” and then the Fourteenth Amendment then states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” Well, a state passing a law respecting an establishment of religion isn’t the US congress passing a law respecting an establishment of religion so I don’t see how the Fourteenth Amendment applies here at all.
To put it another way, the First Amendment restricts congress from doing something and the Fourteenth Amendment restricts the states from violating peoples’ rights. I don’t see how they interact in this case.
Again, if these laws violate state constitutions, which they very well may, I have no idea.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
@robert
I’m just curious, why do evolution scientists insist on trying to prove evolution is true by proving creation isn’t?
No, evolution scientists aren’t interested in creation at all, at least as far as the science of evolution is concerned.
What scientists of all flavours worry about is that creationism is the thin end of a nasty wedge that, once driven into school cirricula, will start indoctrinating children with anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, religious nonsense that will serve only to send the US back to the dark ages in a way that would make any Muslim extremist proud.
Your statement also seems to reek of projection. It’s creationists that want to prove evolution incorrect. In fact, evolution scientists would WELCOME such proof! All the creationists need to do is come up with some hard, reproduceable, irrefutable evidence and that would simply be the end of evolution. The person who produces such evidence would get a Nobel prize (medicine or chemistry, I’d think). It would be THE scientific breakthrough of the century.
Creationists are making the claim that is contrary to the current immense body of evidence, so the burden of proof is on creationists. Evolution scientists will not care what Creationists think until those creationists start producing scientific evidence.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
And by the way… to those of you pedants making the case that the term “Separation of Church and State” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights…. I would please ask you to stop assuming most of us here are just plain stupid or uninformed.
DUH. We know that particular phrase is not, verbatim, part of the Bill of Rights… nor has anyone made the claim that it is. The phrase is used to refer to the spirit of what the first amendment refers to, as first quoted by Jefferson, and has been used by the Supreme Court when referring to the First Amendment since the late 1800s.
Or here’s an example for those of you of the religious persuasion who might be poo=pooing what I’m trying to tell you: Using the phrase “Separation of Church and State” to descrive the spirit of the First Amendment is no different than using the phrase “The Lord works in mysterious ways”… a phrase which appears no-where in the Bible but has been quoted I don’t know hom many times as Biblical verse. But when you hear it, you get the point… right?
May 10th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
“I’m just curious, why do evolution scientists insist on trying to prove evolution is true by proving creation isn’t? Isn’t that a logical fallacy?”
Except it’s creationists who insist on trying to prove that creationism is true by proving that evolution isn’t. The whole push behind the Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom movements has been an attempt to cast doubt on evolution. Scientists don’t need to disprove creationism to validate evolution. The theory holds up well enough on the evidence, something that is lacking on the creationist side.
Perhaps that’s why they have to resort to ad hominem and underhanded legislating to try and push their agenda?
May 10th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Robbie, forgive me if I’m being daft or missing something here, but are you saying that individual states are legally able to ignore the First Amendment of the Constitution and teach religion in public schools?
Robert (the different one)
>>>”I’m just curious, why do evolution scientists insist on trying to prove evolution is true by proving creation isn’t?”
No, that’s what creationists do. You know, “evolution is wrong, so GODDIDIT!”
May 10th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
@ Robbie
Again, stop making the assumption that because you can read the literal transcript on the Bill of Rights, that you are in any way quilified to interpret its legal bearing on US law.
That job belongs the the US Supreme Court. And just like using “Separation of Church and State” as a phrase used to confer the intent of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has long since, and many times over, interpreted the 14th Amendment to imply that the Bill of Rights shall apply to all states.
I know you are trying to make a point or state your case ny quoting word-for-word parts of the Amendments… but unless your are a US Supreme Cpourt Justice, you just aren’t qualified to make arguments by using bits and pieces of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The interpretations made by the Supreme Court are based on a study of the Constitution as a whole, and how each item and bill relates to the others.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Darth Robo: “Robbie, forgive me if I’m being daft or missing something here, but are you saying that individual states are legally able to ignore the First Amendment of the Constitution and teach religion in public schools?”
Not at all. What I’m saying is that the First Amendment does not apply in this case. The states are not violating it.
Celtic_Evolution: “The phrase is used to refer to the spirit of what the first amendment refers to, as first quoted by Jefferson, and has been used by the Supreme Court when referring to the First Amendment since the late 1800s.”
Pet peeve of mine here. Why do people feel the need to rephrase the First Amendment or refer to the spirit of it. The damn part we’re talking about is 16 words long. It doesn’t really need to be shortened or dumbed down. End rant.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Celtic_Evolution that was a beautiful appeal to authority argument. Thank you for making it.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Ugh… so many typos… hurts the eyes…
sorry about that, ladies and gentlemen…
May 10th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Fine… call it an “appeal to authority” if it makes you feel better… I love it when people start picking off the ol’ “logical fallacy” tree. I guess that’s better than providing an answer to the question, eh?
So first of all, it isn’t “people here” re-phrasing the first amendment. That honor first went to Thomas Jefferson. I know… he couldn’t read 16 simple words either.
My question remains… what makes you think that your ability to read the “16 words” written in the first amendment is somehow more valid than 150 years of upheld Supreme Court interpretation? Pet peeve or not.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
WE’RE WINNING!
May 10th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Robbie, The Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment to make the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment apply to state governments and public schools.
These anti-science pro-religion academic freedom bills most definitely violate the First Amendment and if one of these bills is ever passed, there will be a trial, the creationist traitors will lose again, and more taxpayer money will be wasted, just like in Dover.
Then the creationists will rename creationism again, and there will be another trial, and more money will be wasted.
The solution? I suggest hunt down and kill all creationists. Nobody will miss them.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
And by the way, Robbie… Pet peeve of mine… that use of “appeal to auhtority” is tossed around a great deal in here… and I’m not sure using the Supreme Court as an authority on the interpretation of the Constitution (which is its primary function) constitutes a fallacious argument.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Not sure that was called for, BobC… no matter what your position or belief…
May 10th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I called it an appeal to authority because that’s clearly what it was. You stated that since I’m not on the Supreme Court I am not qualified to and shouldn’t even try and interpret the meaning of the Constitution.
“I love it when people start picking off the ol’ “logical fallacy” tree.”
I do too. Aren’t we all about logic here at the Bad Astronomy blog?
“So first of all, it isn’t “people here” re-phrasing the first amendment.”
Let me quote myself to clear my position on this up: “Why do people feel the need to rephrase the First Amendment or refer to the spirit of it.”
I wasn’t just referring to people here. My pet peeve includes Thomas Jefferson in this case.
I see your question as coming from a flawed premise. The way I would ask myself the question is like this: “What makes you think that your ability to read the “16 words” written in the first amendment is somehow more valid than any one else’s interpretation?”
I couldn’t care less whose opinion mine contradicts. To do so would remove logic from the picture.
And the answer to my rephrasing of the question is that I am a reading, thinking, skeptical, analytical person and have every right to question any conclusion or disagree with any opinion I want, regardless of how long it has been held or upheld by whomever.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Robbie, I think you need to look up the “appeal to authority” fallacy. Try wikipedia or something.
Appealing to an authority is NOT a logical fallacy, in and of itself. It is only a fallacy when the authority cited is not a credible source of information for the topic.
As the purpose of SCOTUS is to intrepret the constitution, and it is widely recognized as the pre-eminent authority on such, it is not fallacious to cite SCOTUS rulings when discussing how the constitution should be intrepreted.
May 11th, 2008 at 12:31 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Read that first paragraph. Hell, read the whole thing. Appealing to an authority IS a logical fallacy, in and of itself.
May 11th, 2008 at 12:56 am
For an astonomer you sure are an ignorant jerk.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Man, we just have THE lamest, most ineffectual trolls on this site!
May 11th, 2008 at 2:14 am
As a practical matter, the Supreme Court exists, and its decisions are the law of the land. Appeals thereto are not logical fallacies. A state law or local ordinance contravening the Bill of Rights will not long stand.
It’s true that the court is a political animal, and just what is or is not constitutional varies. We used to tolerate racial segregation. We don’t now, and it wasn’t because the constitution changed. We the people did.
We’ve actually become more relaxed about official endorsement of religion than the founders were. There is no mention of any god in the Constitution (except for thedating of the title) and the convention declined Franklin’s suggestion that they pray for guidance. The creators of this rigorously secular document were not the ones who saddled us with the motto “In God We Trust”, and it’s likely that they would be saddened by the current presidential contenders’ religious panderings.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:23 am
Evolving Squid: Why did you only quote half of the Establishment Clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;?”
Celtic Evolution: Could you show me in the Constitution where it gives the Supreme Court the power to rule on whether or not legislation is Constitutional?
I know the answer, but apparently you do not.
For those of you who want to hang your hats on everything the Supreme Court has “decided” perhaps you’d like to explain why Dred Scott was overturned?
FWIW, I don’t want ID taught in schools either, nor do I want my children taught evolution as a fact, especially with such flawed “scientific” discoveries as archaeoraptor. Finding a handful of bone fragments, then declaring a new species, and then explaining what color it was, what noise it made, and what it ate isn’t science, it’s pure conjecture. And I’d bet my brontosaurus on it. Just like the rant on Ben Stein’s picture, the problem isn’t the “science,” it’s the arrogance of the so-called scientists and the inability to see beyond their own spectacles and allow any dissent whatsoever. Natural Selection is quite obviously true, however, interspecies evolutionary steps and the role of evolution in the origin of life just as quite obviously isn’t.
Perhaps, we’ll someday learn the lessons of Sir Isaac Newton, and find a “better” explanation, but until we do, well, at least Albert Einstein was intelligent enough to say “we just don’t know…” As is Stephen Hawking put it: “The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.”
So, feel free to slam the door shut in intellectual thinking and “decide” for millions of children what they should learn, however, for some, the Constitutional protections against the establishment of a religion apply to the religion of Evolution also… Just like any other religion, there’s no substantial proof, it’s never been seen, and it’s taken on faith. And even if it is true, you cannot prove that there was absolutely not intelligent design behind it. After all, even the greatest scientific minds today believe that every one alive may have descended from one woman in Africa. http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm
The other “theory,” that humans evolved in parallel on different continents turns statistical science on it’s head even more than accidental, spontaneous, creation of life from non-organic matter.
In other words, sure, string theory, dark matter, dark energy, the “Big Bang” are all “exciting” theories, but they’re just that: Ideas dreamed up by big thinkers with no proof or basis in reality. After all of the mental gymnastics one has to go through to apply relativity to the Big Bang, you’d think scientists would have given up on it by now. Most people in the 21st Century should know by now that true science isn’t coming up with an idea and trying to prove it. That’s alchemy. And you can’t call yourself a scientist if you rule out every single possibility and make a conclusion before all of the evidence is in. In other words, the idea that evolution is 100% proven is sophistry at best and disingenuousness at worst, and is simply modern day mysticism.
Robert
May 11th, 2008 at 6:28 am
“Creationist Reality Denial” should be an Olympic sport.
It’s more entertaining than badminton.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Except it’s creationists who insist on trying to prove that creationism is true by proving that evolution isn’t.
That is an argument that is completely lost on creationists. If, through the finding of some truly Earth-shattering evidence, evolution could be disproven tomorrow, it STILL doesn’t mean creationism is true. Because so many creationists are against the scientific method, this simple fact eludes them.
In fact, creationists have a property in their claim that even if it were proven true, would start most creationists frothing-at-the-mouth in anger…
That property is that a god created things… the controversy: which god performed creation?
It’s not enough to determine that a god created life, the universe, and everything. It’s important to know which one. Generally in this sort of debate, it is assumed that the god of creation is Yaweh / I am / Allah, but we all know that Hindus think it was some other god, as did the Vikings, the ancient Greeks and Romans, etc. To say “God created the universe” is an inadequate explanation of creation EVEN FOR A CREATIONIST.
To prove creationism as it is normally presented in North America, it is not only necessary to prove that an invisible sky fairy created everything, but it is also necessary to prove that the sky fairy in question is the particular sky fairy in the Christian bible.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Evolving Squid: Why did you only quote half of the Establishment Clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;?”
Because that clause is clear and was the subject of the point at hand. “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” refers to people practicing religion, and you are talking about separation of church and state. Those aren’t the same thing and the practice of religion is not the topic at hand.
“establishment of religion” refers to separation of church and state - specifically that some religion is not established as a state religion.
“prohibiting the free exercise thereof” refers to not making laws to prevent people from practicing religion.
This may help: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/established+church
May 11th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Constitutional protections against the establishment of a religion apply to the religion of Evolution also
If you could imagine that there was a religion of Evolution, then yes you could imagine that the establishment clause would apply.
But there is no religion of Evolution, so it does not apply.
You don’t seriously need to be schooled on the whole “is atheism a religion” thing do you?
May 11th, 2008 at 7:25 am
I had half of a reply to Robert put together in Word before binning in. Not worthy of my time when I have a big report due tomorrow.
Concisely: not even wrong.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:25 am
I see a Larry Farfarman episode ahead.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:38 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU&NR=1
hmmm… I really don’t even know where to begin… i think i detect a hint of sarcasm though…
May 11th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Adrian #2
I hear you… there’s no point in debating with a person who already feels they have a better grasp on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and its proper interpretation than the very judicial body who’s job it is to interpret it.
And Robbie… I can read the Wikipedia definition of “Appeal to Authority” just as well as you can… but apparently unlike you, I can also understand it.
Just incorrect, sir… please see some other references on logical fallacies. Derek and bad jim pointed this out to you, but just as your supreme understanding of the constitution and bill of rights far outweighs what anyone else might tell you, I’m sure you’ll insist your definition is correct.
And ironically enough, your link to Wikipedia to back your statement WAS an actual Appeal to Authority fallacy. In fact, listed among its own examples of fallacious Appeals to Authority is this: “Believing something because it was written in Wikipedia. ” Oh, just wonderful!
Did you catch that, Robbie? Now THAT is an appeal to authority. Thanks for clearing that up for the rest of us!
May 11th, 2008 at 8:10 am
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when the authority being appealed to cannot be held as an expert on the topic at hand. This is an appeal to authority fallacy:
If the president of the United States says evolution is false, evolution must not be true.
It is a typical A-to-A fallacy because it relies wholly on the authority of someone who cannot be reasonably expected to know any more than an average person, let alone be an expert on the subject at hand.
This is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy:
PZ Meyers says there is a mountain of evidence that supports evolution, so a creationist explanation for speciation is not likely true.
This is not an appeal to authority because PZ Meyers is a reknowned biologist, considered to be an expert in that field. He is supposed to know a lot more about that field than you or me. He publishes research in that field, writes articles, and furthers the body of knowledge. We’re supposed to be able to depend on that kind authority to be able to speak intelligently and CORRECTLY on topics within his field of expertise.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Umm… Robbie
It’s not very credible to site Wikipedia. As much I love using Wiki, I haven’t been able to on any report/project/paper since 7th grade. No teacher will even accept my paper if I cite.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Typo-
No teacher will even accept my paper if I cite *Wiki*.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:56 am
With regards to Robert:
If I remember my history of science correctly, creationism was the first theory that the earliest biologists (or the people who did things we would today call biology) worked with, but even before Darwin was born there were many scientists who were dissatisfied with it because it was not consistent with the evidence. Creationism as a scientific theory failed then on its own lack of merit. It fails now for the same reason. It has nothing at all to do with evolution.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:06 am
There are three divisions of the US government: Executive, Legislative and JUDICIAL. The function of the judicial is to pass on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of laws passed by the legislature but that is only done when someone complains about that particular law. In other words, the Supreme Court merely decides the constitutional applicability of arguments presented to it by opponents/proponents of a particular law. They are supposed to be experts on the constitution and its applicability to our current social situation,( which is also, interestingly enough, what a matawa does in Islam,,,).
The law is based upon logic, evidence(gee, why does THAT sound so familiar?) and precedence. When I was in college(in the stone age of the early 1960s) I was presented with a list of 20 questions, from a pop quiz taken by a friend majoring in law. He was trying to show how difficult study of the law was. He was somewhat surprised I was able to answer 3/4 of the questions by merely applying logic to the problems, since I was a physics major with no knowledge of legal precedence.
The PRINCIPLE of separation of church and state is one of the over riding precedents of our legal system. It is an essential part of our ability to get along in a society that has many different religions. NO religious dogma may be allowed to have the upper hand in our society.
The essence of the DiscoTutes arguments is that science is as much a dogma as any religion and should be treated the same way. Fortunately, the law of our land is so oriented to logic and evidence that appeals to precedence(old dogma) are usually repudiated in favor of logic and evidence. Best two out of three rules the day,,,
GAry 7
May 11th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Creationists have also started to make noise in Maine.
May 11th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Celtic_Evolution, you are wrong, but let’s read the post before I linked Wikipedia to find out why I did so.
Derek: “Robbie, I think you need to look up the “appeal to authority” fallacy. Try wikipedia or something.”
So what I was doing in that case was using Derek’s own example to prove him wrong. It was quite simple really. It’s the previous post to me linking it. You might want to check that for yourself.
Honestly, this talk about there even being authorities on the Constitution is silly in the first place. It was written as simply and clearly as the authors could make it for a reason. Anyone with a grasp of English and a dictionary can interpret the Constitution and be an authority on it. It was written for the layman.
The reason this works is because, first and foremost, you interpret a law by the words provided and their meaning. You only ever consider things like original intent and precedence when the meaning of the words of the law are unclear.
May 11th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Furthermore, what some of you have been doing in disagreement with my point is merely changing the subject and not addressing it at all by employing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.
Here’s how it’s gone so far:
Me: “The law in question that was struck down does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments.”
Opponents: “The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise therefore you are wrong.”
May 11th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
It’s a shame that schools aren’t teaching the principles of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
May 11th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
@ Robbie
Yeah… that’s about right… so what’s the problem? How the heck is our response changing the subject? The subject is, frankly, your completely erroneous statement that the law in question doesn’t violate the constitution. And our response is to point out to you that it does, in that in violates the First amendment, and in doing so as a state, the 14th amendment. You then continue to insist that “nuh-uh, nuh-uh… I READ it. It doesn’t say anything with the words “Church and State in it, so it doesn’t violate the constitution. The Constitution is simple if you just read it and those supreme court idiots just don’t get it.”
So excuse us for feeling a bit exasperated at that point of view, and our attempts to try to point out to you WHY the Supreme Court again and again rules that such a law DOES violate the first amendment and why it’s the Supreme Court’s job to make such rulings regading the constitution.
It is not that we are simply changing the subject… it’s that you still seem to think you are somehow just smarter and more qualified than the Supreme Court to judge on this topic… and I for one find that not only offensively arrogant, but just plain wrong. So I will continue to say as much.
And despite at least 4 of us trying to explain to you otherwise, I still don’t think you truly understand what an “appeal to authrority” falacy is.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Robert
>>>”nor do I want my children taught evolution as a fact, especially with such flawed “scientific” discoveries as archaeoraptor.”
Oh dear. You mean the archeo-raptor which turned out to be two separate fossils that STILL fit with evolution and was NOT found to be fake by Creationists? What are you gonna mention next, Piltdown Man? (snicker, giggle) The reasoning behind the fake fossil was NOT an attempt to prove evolution by creating a fake fossil but for someone to make money off a supposedly unique one. And at the risk of appealing to authority myself, let me point you to this thread:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/05/09/real-controversy-in-evolution/#comments
>>>”Perhaps, we’ll someday learn the lessons of Sir Isaac Newton, and find a “better” explanation, but until we do, well, at least Albert Einstein was intelligent enough to say “we just don’t know…” As is Stephen Hawking put it: “The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.”
This the same Stephen Hawking who (if memory serves) is on the list of Project Steve?
>>>”Constitutional protections against the establishment of a religion apply to the religion of Evolution also… Just like any other religion, there’s no substantial proof, it’s never been seen, and it’s taken on faith.”
Perhaps you could tell us what the um, DOCTRINES of evolution are?
>>>”And even if it is true, you cannot prove that there was absolutely not intelligent design behind it.”
Nobody can ever prove that there WAS Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why ID ain’t science.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Add math and statistics (Dembski especially, and more generally confusing unconditional and conditional probabilities by way of the religious anthropic argument).
@ Robert:
As regards to what? He wasn’t a biologist. (And as the saying goes, a creationist quote is a quotemine, so you will have to provide the full context, preferably the reference, before we rely on it.)
But as far as abiogenesis goes you will hear biologists say the same. While the scientific community accepts evolution as the basic theory of biology, independent of abiogenesis.
Besides, “we don’t know yet” is an acceptable answer in empirical science.
Wrong! The concept of matrilineal and patrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA @ PRCA) is a statement on populations genomes as all such statements. Moreover, as forward lineages progresses some goes extinct, so the MRCA and PRCA population will change over time. MRCA and PRCA aren’t statements of abiogenesis, they are statements of evolution.
Here is another statement of evolution: humans derive from a common ancestor with modern apes. And as opposed to your claims, we know this.
How is a multiregional evolution after African migration a claim on abiogenesis? After all, humans are currently evolving ” in parallel on different continents”, yet we don’t observe abiogenesis.
You don’t know what scientific theories are any more than validation (not “proof”) nor facts. Theories contains their facts by way of their predictions, and the dependencies means they are more evidenced than any isolated fact.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
There are three obvious problems with these bills.
1) They single out evolution among other sciences.
2) This also forgets that evolution is our best evidenced science by way of the complexity of the process studied, thus so many interdependent observations and mechanisms in evidence.
3) Academic responsibility is the priority in education, not academic freedom. (And the reverse goes for research, which is largely self correcting due to the market of ideas mechanism used.) You can’t responsibly analyze and discuss the current questions in sciences before teaching the basics.
IANAUC (I Am Not A US Citizen) but singling out a religion shouldn’t be any better than “academic freedom” bills singling out a science. Considering freedom for religion it is actually much, much worse when people from one religion are repressed by another.
And in no nation is it responsible to teach religion, such as creationism, in science class.
However, in Europe you can teach religion in comparative religion classes from early on. As long as religious teachers don’t push their own religion there is no problem.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
“2) This also forgets that evolution is our best evidenced science by way of the complexity of the process studied, thus so many interdependent observations and mechanisms in evidence”
The obvious problem with that is that it simply isn’t true! There are MANY more branches of science that are much better understood and documented and contain much less conjecture, and um, well, faith.
“Nobody can ever prove that there WAS Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why ID ain’t science.”
Nobody can ever prove that there WASN’T Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why evolution isn’t science.
See, it works both ways, I believe that is called “hoist on your own petard.”
Why do *some* people have such an incredible difficulty with the idea of there being God? Perhaps because it threatens your own ideas of intellectual and moral superiority? Perhaps because it doesn’t allow you complete “freedom of will?” Perhaps simple arrogance or ignorance?
So, apparently, all of you are SOOOOOOOOOO incredibly smart that anything you believe MUST be true, and anything you disagree with MUST be wrong! Hmmm? Isn’t that really what you’re saying?
Robert
May 11th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Celtic_Evolution: “You then continue to insist that “nuh-uh, nuh-uh… I READ it. It doesn’t say anything with the words “Church and State in it, so it doesn’t violate the constitution. The Constitution is simple if you just read it and those supreme court idiots just don’t get it.””
Hello straw man. How about you stop employing logical fallacies in every post arguing with me and debate the actual issue?
The only arguments actually presented to me have been that 1) I don’t know what an actual appeal to authority is, and 2) the Supreme Court ruled otherwise therefore you’re wrong. Neither of which actually deal with the issue I originally had with BA’s post.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
‘The obvious problem with that is that it simply isn’t true! There are MANY more branches of science that are much better understood and documented and contain much less conjecture, and um, well, faith.’
What branches are they?
you do realise that Evolutionary science draws on the other ‘branches’ of science. If you discount Evolution then you have to discount physics and chemistry, they are interlinked.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
It’s hard to say what we can make of the death of the Alabama bill. On the one hand, it “died” along with many other bills pretty much without discussion because the state Senate has been under filibuster for quite a long time. The Lt. Governor broke the filibuster using a very controversial trick. The session is almost over, and only the really important bills (budgets) are even being considered. I don’t think the bill’s death tells us anything about its chances for passing.
On the other hand, this is I think the fourth time this bill has come up. That may tell us that it will never pass. However, this most recent version may have been the stealthiest of all the ones proposed in the various states this year. It didn’t mention evolution specifically and strangely made reference to the “controversial teachings” being supported by peer-reviewed research. However, in all news reports about it, it was referred to as the bill that would allow teachers to include criticisms of evolution in their classes.
I’ll be watching for it again next year, and will do my damnedest to get my scientist colleagues active early.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Nobody can ever prove that there WASN’T Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why evolution isn’t science.
Actually, there’s a mountain of evidence that there wasn’t Intelligent Design behind speciation. That’s why evolution is science and ID is not.
No, I’m not going to recite it all here, look it up for yourself… it’s not like the papers and journals aren’t publicly available. You can deny the existence of the evidence all you like, but that doesn’t make it not exist.
On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever supporting the idea of Intelligent Design. All that supports ID is untestable conjecture. That is also why ID is not science.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Robert
>>>”Nobody can ever prove that there WASN’T Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why evolution isn’t science.”
That’s has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read. That first sentence above has nothing to do with evolution, so I don’t see how the second sentence would follow. And remember, evolution says NOTHING about whether or not there is a god, therefore Intelligent Design (if there was an actual theory) would have no bearing on it, unless there were limits in Intelligent Design uh, “theory” placed on the ‘designer’. A little basic science principle for you: In order to be scientific, a theory has to be falsifiable. Now, those pre-Cambrian rabbits would certainly falsify evolution. Can you tell us what would falsify ID? In fact, (I’ve been asking this question alot while having some fun at Topix but never ever get an answer) could you tell us what the uh, “scientific theory” of ID actually is?
>>>”Why do *some* people have such an incredible difficulty with the idea of there being God?”
Why are you posting this here instead of somewhere which actually promotes atheism? Remember, many Christians accept evolution even if you don’t. Creationism does not cover the whole of Christianity.
>>>”So, apparently, all of you are SOOOOOOOOOO incredibly smart that anything you believe MUST be true, and anything you disagree with MUST be wrong! Hmmm? Isn’t that really what you’re saying?”
Uh, no. But please post some more creationist nonsense so everyone can see just how stupid creationism is for themselves.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
@robert
Why do *some* people have such an incredible difficulty with the idea of there being God?
Well, I can’t speak for every atheist, but I have no reason to believe that my difficulties with the idea of their being a god are that much different than other people’s difficulties with that idea… So to answer your question:
1. Because the people who DON’T have difficulty with the idea seem to have an overpowering desire to control every aspect of everyone else’s life, whether or not everyone else wants anything to do with some god. I don’t want people telling me how to think, who I can sleep with and when, or what skin I can grow on my willy.
2. Because believing in a god is intellectually lazy and specifically stunts the ambition to better oneself, or to increase one’s knowledge of the universe around him. This is a demonstrable fact. Belief in god halted western progress for nearly 1000 years, and for the most part turned the Arabs and Persians from scientific leaders to iron age drones. That is a truly terrifying difficulty with the idea of there being a god.
3. Because it is logically unreasonable to believe that there is an invisible, unknowable being who controls the entire universe and deliberately obscures himself from detection but takes such a personal interest in the life of an individual that the individual can be subjected to eternal torture and damnation for simply not believing that there is an invisible, unknowable being.
4. Because no religion has existed since the beginning of time. All religions prior to those in existence right now have risen and died out. There is no reason to believe any religion currently in existence right now is not at some intermediate place along the path of rising and dying out.
5. The previous reason could be overlooked if any religion was able to produce evidence to support the notion that the god they put forward actually exists.
6. Because the very idea that an omnipotent, omniscient being would be so arrogant as to demand unfailing WORSHIP from its creations on pain of eternal torture. Wouldn’t that be like setting your children on fire because they don’t say “hi Dad” when you come home from work? The very idea of a being that would threaten anyone with ETERNAL torture for any reason is utterly, completely, thoroughly, repugnant but to make such a threat over something as egotistical as worship takes it one step further into repugnance. This is kind of like #3 but is more specific in terms of the nature of a god.
7. Because where gods go, so does the belief that a certain person or people are somehow chosen… that they’re better than everyone else, that they’ve got the inside track on something awesome, however you want to describe it. To me, that hubris is surpassed only by what I mentioned in #6. The concept that humans are the acme of “creation”, or that some specific group of humans is - by virtue of their invisible friend who, for reasons unknown, refuses to demonstrate his existence - somehow better/more worthy/uber/awesome/whatever disgusts me. And this point, the acme of creation thing, is really what irks the religious folks about evolution. Because if humans evolved from some primitive ape, it’s a lot harder to justify humanity’s trashing of the world like a bunch of drunken frat boys than it is if the world was handed to us by god like a cheerleader full of Rohypnol.
So the real question - the question that has the most bearing on the here and the now - is: Why do some people have such difficulty with the idea that there aren’t any gods?
May 11th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
It occurred to me after writing all that, that I am feeding a troll (even if it felt good to write).
My apologies all.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Robert:”Why do *some* people have such an incredible difficulty with the idea of there being God? Perhaps because it threatens your own ideas of intellectual and moral superiority? Perhaps because it doesn’t allow you complete “freedom of will?” Perhaps simple arrogance or ignorance?”
Agree with robert 100%
Captain Swoop:”you do realise that Evolutionary science draws on the other ‘branches’ of science. If you discount Evolution then you have to discount physics and chemistry, they are interlinked.”
i dfail to see how because evolution relies on other ‘branches’ of science that it proves evolution, now if other ‘branches’ of science relied on evolution that would be a different story.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Evolving Squid:”So the real question - the question that has the most bearing on the here and the now - is: Why do some people have such difficulty with the idea that there aren’t any gods?”
i dont have difficulty with the idea, and each is free to believe what he will, however i am not trying to force you into my way of thinking.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:30 am
>>>”i dfail to see how because evolution relies on other ‘branches’ of science that it proves evolution, now if other ‘branches’ of science relied on evolution that would be a different story.”
You used the word “relies”. Captain Swoop didn’t. Evolution does not “rely” on geology for example, it is just a simple fact that facts of geology coincide nicely with evolution.
And as for you agreeing 100% with Robert regarding his comments about God, I remind everyone again that evolution does not say there is no God. So what’s the problem? Answer: None. Unless one happens to be a creationist who doesn’t “believe” in evolution. Problem is, creationists objections are purely based on theology, not science.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:52 am
Umm. Folks, even if an authority makes a statement in his or her field of study, stating that they are correct because of their personal status as “expert” is still fallacious. A statement is true or false based on its relationships to supporting evidence, never on who made the statement. I admire the accomplishments of BA and PZ, but I think they’ll agree that they must still be duly diligent when making assertions. You know there are a lot of people insisting on being called “Dr.” who cannot support what they say.
Those of you arguing about the Constitution need to do some research on the principle of incorporation, the process by which the Federal Constitution is considered operative on the State and local level. It’s an interesting sport because people are notoriously two-faced about it. How so? Well, take each of the Amendments to the Constitution and see how they are treated. The 1st is routinely upheld for individuals, the 2nd is routinely denied - see Morton Grove v. Quilici. It’s confusing because people do not think to define terms first before they argue “rights” vs. “powers”, etc.
Enjoy!
May 12th, 2008 at 4:16 am
Robert: Nobody can ever prove that there WASN’T Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why evolution isn’t science.
Prove in a way that doesn’t prompt the response, “Well, God could have meant it to be that way”? Of course it can’t disprove that; talking about what God “meant” is fruitless, since even religious folk will try to tell you that no one understands the mind of God.
But it can and has disproven many empirical assertions of ID: that blood clotting or bacterial flagella are “irreducibly complex”, for example. There hasn’t been an empirical assertion of ID that has stood up to scientific inquiry.
Faust: i dfail to see how because evolution relies on other ‘branches’ of science that it proves evolution, now if other ‘branches’ of science relied on evolution that would be a different story.
Well, since biology is the study of living things, and evolution is a theory that explains how populations of living things behave, it should be no surprise that evolution has a lot to do with biology.
Nevertheless, you should look into its applications in (for example) medicine and epidemeology. These sciences depend heavily on evolution. (What kind of thinking, do you suppose, goes into determining which strains of flu should be vaccinated against in the coming season, and to which degree?)
As to how the fact that evolution is consistent with other branches of science lends support to evolution, one must remember that a scientific theory can only hold if it explains all the available facts. If a new idea in geology contradicts a well-established theory in physics, that new idea will find it hard to gain traction. If, on the other hand, this new idea makes use of a well-established theory in physics to explain itself, it immediately merits greater consideration — because that idea may also (by implication) be supported by all the evidence gathered that suggested the theory.
That’s what we mean when we say that the sciences are “interlinked”. There is strong evidence from geology, chemistry, physics, natural history, and other branches of science that evolution occurs and has occurred. The fact that these different branches reach the same conclusions when tracing different lines of evidence is a strong indication that the conclusions are on the right track.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:32 am
First i would like to say thank you MattFunke for the response given
“Well, since biology is the study of living things, and evolution is a theory that explains how populations of living things behave, it should be no surprise that evolution has a lot to do with biology.”
i agree 100% that evolution as a theory as alot of supporting facts, however it does not explain all available facts, there are still holes in the theory as well as missing “links” (for lack of a better word), just as i am sure creation theories have missing links (and i dont always agree with everything the creation scientists say), what i am saying is that we have and use the same information and the same sciences to prove our theories, we are not just saying the earth is 6000 years old, why because God says so, we are not just sucking figures out of thin air.
i am not saying do not teach evolution in school, what i am saying is allow people (if they want to) to hear the different view points, if i want my child to hear about creation science and evolution side by side so that he or she can make up her own mind, then that should be allowed, i am not forcing anyone to believe like me, i just want them to have all available facts.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Faust (my last response got stuck in moderation queue, but someone else done a better job anyway)
There are NO FACTS of Creationism. THAT’S why creationism cannot be taught in schools. (Plus the fact it’s religion). There will always be “missing links” in evolution (missing link is an outdated concept), however, that’s not a problem for the theory. As for “holes” I have no idea what you’re referring to.
You don’t HAVE to BELIEVE in evolution…
May 12th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Evolving Squid:
“No, I’m not going to recite it all here, look it up for yourself… it’s not like the papers and journals aren’t publicly available. You can deny the existence of the evidence all you like, but that doesn’t make it not exist.”
Perhaps you should evolve more. So far, all you’ve done is quote yourself, make statements, and refer to facts that “everyone knows.” It really isn’t fair to single you out, since that seems to be the crux of the entire evolutionist argument presented here so far: I believe it, therefore it must be true!
“1. Because the people who DON’T have difficulty with the idea seem to have an overpowering desire to control every aspect of everyone else’s life…”
And how is that any different than you? You insist there be no public prayer, that no one practice their religion in the public square, that no politician have religious beliefs, that religion take no part in legislative decisions, yet you insist that both sides of the evolutionary argument may not be taught!
MattFunke: Before you go any further, you might want to look up the difference between evolution and natural selection. The latter is pretty much a given, and explains everything you stated, the former is not proven, and probably won’t be in our lifetime.
Celtic Evolution: “I hear you… there’s no point in debating with a person who already feels they have a better grasp on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and its proper interpretation than the very judicial body who’s job it is to interpret it.”
So… What you’re saying is that I’m completely wasting my time trying to explain this to you?
Darth Robo: “>>>”Nobody can ever prove that there WASN’T Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why evolution isn’t science.”
That’s has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read.”
You are EXACTLY right! Notice that that sentence was simply a re-statement in the opposite direction of else’s “dumbest things I have ever read” statement. In other words, if you read “between the lines” I have used EVERY single argument others have used here towards me, but when I turn them around and restate them towards them, they ridicule them! It’s not necessarily the best debate tactic ever, but it is highly amusing to watch people who don’t know what they’re talking about defend something they don’t understand!
So, let me get this straight: I should believe in the scientific fact of evolution and the fact that God doesn’t exist simply because - you guys said so! Yet those of you that descended from monkeys accuse ME of being narrow-minded and intolerant? Even after I agreed and said I didn’t want ID taught in schools? And said I wanted evolutionists to stick to the facts, and stop embellishing?
OK, read this: “Scientists have identified a new dinosaur species that had one of the longest necks relative to body length ever measured.
A typical neck bone in this creature was about the size of two loaves of bread.
The species, Erketu ellisoni, belongs to the group of massive four-legged herbivorous dinosaurs called Sauropoda, the largest land animals ever to walk on Earth.
This giant group also includes Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, and the largest of them all, the 120-foot long Argentinasaurus.
E. ellisoni had an extremely elongated neck. A single neck vertebra measures nearly two feet long, longer than the same vertebrae of the much larger Diplodocus carnegii.
“If you compare the index of elongation — how long vertebrae are compared to how long or tall the dinosaur is — to Diplodocus carnegii, [E. ellisoni’s] vertebrae are longer, but even more stretched out from front to back,” said study co-author Dan Ksepka, a graduate student at Columbia University who studies at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.”
Wow, impressive creature, eh? Well, sort of… If you actually READ what the article says: “Researchers also recovered a chest plate, two lower leg bones and a potato-sized ankle bone in Bor Guve in Mongolia’s Gobi Desert in 2002.” So, we have a half a dozen bones, and a whole lot of “may haves.” (PS, unlike my evolutionary opponents, I’ll actually cite my sources, I’m sure Phil would approve of that small part of intellectual honesty: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188536,00.html)
Any chance that the two foot long vertabrae was a deformity? Since the graduate student only found one of them, how do we know how many it had? Maybe it only had 2 or 3? There’s way too many unanswered questions, and common sense should tell anyone with a quarter of a brain that you just simply cannot come to the conclusions in the article without more evidence. And I’d bet my brontosaurus on it!
May 12th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Oh, BTW, Google the words “dinosaur may have.” You get 539,000 hits! It reminds me of a display that I saw that has the skeleton of an Iguanadon compared to a skeleton of an iguana, and amazingly enough, they’re almost identical! So, what do you think the chances are that if an iguana lived long enough, it would be the size of an iguanadon? Well, considering that I’ve seen a Komodo Dragon up close and personal (through glass), I’d say that’s a distince possiblity!
For instance: “The 1830s saw additional dinosaur bones, which were discovered in England and received names such as Hylaeosaurus (“Wealden lizard”), Cetiosaurus (“whale-like lizard”), Poekilopleuron (“mottled rib”) and Thecodontosaurus (“socket-toothed lizard”). These first dinosaurs, however, were not called dinosaurs; paleontologists of the time saw them as giant, lizard-like reptiles.
For example, Mantell estimated Iguanodon’s size by simply scaling up a modern iguana to produce a 25-meter-long giant. (Later knowledge of complete skeletons of Iguanodon would reveal that it was only 8 to 9 meters long.) Of course, all the discovered dinosaur fragments from the 1830s resembled the bones and teeth of living lizards (and crocodiles), so the image of dinosaurs as gargantuan lizards was well-founded at the time.”
Of course, the author of this piece is just a paleontologist, what would he know?
http://www.geotimes.org/jan06/feature_threedinofaces.html
Robert
May 12th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Aw hell. Michigan? Seriously?
Then I shall go write a pre-emptive letter.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:38 am
And how is that any different than you? You insist there be no public prayer, that no one practice their religion in the public square, that no politician have religious beliefs,
That is absolutely false. Although I would prefer that people “keep it real” and not have religious beliefs, and although I long for the day when religion is finally and forever gone from the planet, I would never compel someone to not practice religion.
I would, however, require that the state not compel anyone to practice religion.
Put simply, practice all the religion you want. Just don’t make anyone else practice it - and that means that forcing people to pray in schools, at public gatherings and so forth is something I would oppose. Any student who wants to pray privately in his spare moments at school is welcome to do so.
I don’t even stop people from praying in my own house, as long as they don’t disturb people.
that religion take no part in legislative decisions,
Absolutely. Definitely. 100%. Religion should take no part whatsoever in legislative decisions. Legislation should be based on evidence and reason, not fantasy and hearsay.
yet you insist that both sides of the evolutionary argument may not be taught!
I insist because THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE.
However, let me use small words so that you might better understand what I am saying.
If you produce a scientifically valid hypothesis, and back it up with verifiable evidence, and that hypothesis (backed by the evidence) points to a different mechanism for speciation than evolution, then BY ALL MEANS, PLEASE TEACH IT. In fact, you should be COMPELLED to teach it.
But…
At this time there are no hypotheses that are supported by evidence that counter the theory of evolution. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. The wild ramblings of the Discovery Institute do not meet the very simple criteria I have set out. It’s not even a matter of religion - the creator could be the great Azathoth (sp?) instead of the Christian god… it’s irrelevant who the creator is supposed to be. What is relevant is that there is absolutely no verifiable supporting evidence for creationism in any form.
If you want to hold a religious service in a public park, I’m cool with that as long as it doesn’t involve hurting other people. I would oppose the state holding a religious ceremony, however.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:44 am
So, let me get this straight: I should believe in the scientific fact of evolution and the fact that God doesn’t exist simply because - you guys said so!
No, you should believe the former because there are literally mountains of evidence that are publicly available that support the theory of evolution. You can read them for yourself.
You should consider that God doesn’t exist because the only evidence for God is pretty slim: one book written by bronze age sheep farmers 2000 years ago.
I don’t want you to believe in evolution because anyone here says so. I want you to go learn about it. Who knows… maybe you’re the guy who has that piece of evidence that will bring evolution crumbling down? Nobody will know as long as you cling to that irrational belief in creationism despite the complete lack of supporting evidence. I challenge you to bring evolution down. Do good science and if your hypotheses are correct, we won’t be talking about Darwin, we’ll be talking about Robert.
I don’t want you to stop believing in God because I say so. I want you to go learn about it. Follow your own advice and learn boths sides of the God argument…
May 12th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Name one scientist who promoted archaeoraptor as a genuine find.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Faust: i agree 100% that evolution as a theory as alot of supporting facts, however it does not explain all available facts, there are still holes in the theory as well as missing “links” (for lack of a better word),
It doesn’t have to. No scientific theory has to explain its holes. It just has to explain what we see.
In other words, we see evolution. The fact that we don’t have every single step in the phylogenetic tree for every species is irrelevant — just as it’s possible to have a universal theory of gravitation without knowing the gravitational acceleration of every single astronomical body out there.
Faust: what i am saying is that we have and use the same information and the same sciences to prove our theories, we are not just saying the earth is 6000 years old, why because God says so, we are not just sucking figures out of thin air.
Perhaps. But to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, you must also ignore certain kinds of evidence, or else devise elaborate justifications for what we see with no experimental basis (e.g., assuming that the same radioactive clocks can “tick” at wildly different rates). I remind you that scientific theories attempt to explain all the facts we see; a theory that assumes that the Earth is 6000 years old ignores a great deal.
Faust: i am not forcing anyone to believe like me, i just want them to have all available facts.
It is a fact that the Earth is not 6000 years old. It is a fact that the Earth was not created instantaneously. It is a fact that organisms took substantially longer than six twenty-four hour days to appear. We are as certain of these facts as, say, a forensic scientist examining a murder scene is of the conclusions she reaches about the type of firearm used based on the bullet, casing, and powder marks left behind, if not more so.
I think it would be useful to teach creationism in a social studies class, since the impact of the movement cannot be denied. But it’s not science.
Robert: MattFunke: Before you go any further, you might want to look up the difference between evolution and natural selection. The latter is pretty much a given, and explains everything you stated, the former is not proven, and probably won’t be in our lifetime.
It seems you need to study your scientific history more. Evolution was posited based on the available evidence long before natural selection was proposed as its driving mechanism. Read up on Carolus Linnaeus; John Ray; George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon; Erasmus Darwin; and Jean Baptiste Chevalier de Lamarck, to name a few. They all preceded “On the Origin of Species”.
It might also behoove you to study the many available evidences for evolution completely outside the fossil record, though this recommendation is based on the weight you seem to be attributing to an incomplete fossil in scientific conclusions (many conclusions about incomplete fossils need to be based on much more than the remains).
Evolution has been witnessed directly many times, both in the wild and in the laboratory. That you expect evolution as a theory to be “proven”, though, seems to betray some ignorance about the scientific method.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:46 am
MattFunke: “It doesn’t have to. No scientific theory has to explain its holes. It just has to explain what we see.”
i agree, but it does not mean that they dont exist, plus i was pointing out that creationists and evolutionist alike keep harping on the others flaws instead of being objective in finding the answers.
MattFunke:”It is a fact that the Earth is not 6000 years old. It is a fact that the Earth was not created instantaneously. It is a fact that organisms took substantially longer than six twenty-four hour days to appear. We are as certain of these facts as, say, a forensic scientist examining a murder scene is of the conclusions she reaches about the type of firearm used based on the bullet, casing, and powder marks left behind, if not more so.”
i am not a scientist so please feel free to correct me if i am wrong, i have a basic understanding (very basic) of how radiometric dating works, as i understand it each element has a rate at which it decays, by having a look at the rock (fossil, or whatever) and seeing how much of the decayed element is left behind that tells us the age of the rock, however this itself is based on certain ussumptions, like the starting amount of the parent element, that the conditions have been the same since the begining of time, etc, etc,,, (i could probably look this up and use big words to make myself seem more intelligent, however i do understand the concept)now i have read that tests have been done that have seriously questioned the reliability of radiometric dating and that known items have ( 50 - 100 years) have dated into the millions, so that for me means that maybe the earth is a little (or a lot) younger that we thought, however it is not fact that the earth (in my opinion) is not 6000 years old (we only need an old earth for evolution to be true).
as far as i understand it, to prove a scientific fact the results must be observable and repeatable, neither evolution nor religion fit that criteria.
MattFunke:”a forensic scientist examining a murder scene is of the conclusions she reaches about the type of firearm used based on the bullet, casing, and powder marks left behind, if not more so.”
number one these tests are based on repeatable and observable experiments, the match a bullet to the gun by firing the gun (each barrel leaves a “fingerprint if you will) and matching up the bullet that way (yes we have all watched CSI, not that complex), however you are comparing observable tests with ones that we cannot observe, ever.
MattFunke:”I think it would be useful to teach creationism in a social studies class, since the impact of the movement cannot be denied. But it’s not science.”
i dont think that evolution or religion fall into the science catagories, but more so that scientific facts will either prove or disprove them.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:05 am
neither evolution nor religion fit that criteria
evolution is observed and repeatable.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=observed+instances+of+speciation&meta=
May 12th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Jeffersonian- the foreign country south of Detroit would be Windsor, Ontario, Canada??
Evolving Squid- Excellent post of 7 reasons for atheism, hope you don’t mind me parroting that in future arguments!!
May 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
[tongue in cheek]
I support ID in schools. It’s high time all kids learned the truth. That the universe and all we see was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created everything by touching it with his noodly appendage.
Evidence..? It’s says in the book. And thats enough evidence for me.
[/tongue in cheek]
May 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Faust: i agree, but it does not mean that they dont exist, plus i was pointing out that creationists and evolutionist alike keep harping on the others flaws instead of being objective in finding the answers.
The “evolutionist” harps on the creationist because the creationist demands to have his theories taught in a scientific arena when they are not science.
When it comes to “finding the answers”, it’s relatively easy to see that there is plenty of evidence for evolution (the fact that life appears to be sorted in nested hierarchical fashion, shared morphologies among many disparate species, vetigial structures, and molecular biological evidence are but a few indicators) and against young-Earth creationism.
Young-Earth creationism makes arguments against evolution. (Arguments are not evidence.) When asked for evidence, the best they have come up with is to trot out old ideas, resort to logical fallacy, or bring up “difficulties” that were resolved in the scientific literature decades or even centuries ago. It should also be noted that they have turned up no evidence whatsoever for creationism.
Faust: as i understand it each element has a rate at which it decays, by having a look at the rock (fossil, or whatever) and seeing how much of the decayed element is left behind that tells us the age of the rock, however this itself is based on certain ussumptions, like the starting amount of the parent element, that the conditions have been the same since the begining of time, etc, etc,,,
You have the basic concept right. The thing is, though, that geologists understand the laws of physics and chemistry as well. They are very good at determining whether the chemical content of a rock has been altered since its formation. (In some cases, the structure in which the decayed material is found is crystalline, which indicates rather powerfully the initial composition of the rock.) These understandings are so good that separate tests conducted by independent laboratories get results that lie very close to each other (within a percent or so), in spite of the fact that it would be in a laboratory’s best interest to show why a competing laboratory’s answers are suspect.
Besides, dating is usually done with several samples from the same site, and they agree with one another. What are the odds that all of the samples are contaminated to precisely the same degree? Is this simply coincidence?
Different radiometric tests using different elements (and, therefore, different clocks) in the same sample agree. (It’s rather rare that only one radiometric clock is used.) More coincidence?
Radiometric clocks yield results consistent with other timekeeping measurements that have nothing to do with radiology: tectonic drift, stratigraphy, and Malinkovitch cycles, for example. Is this coincidence, too?
Faust: now i have read that tests have been done that have seriously questioned the reliability of radiometric dating and that known items have ( 50 - 100 years) have dated into the millions,
In most cases, those problems boil down to a problem not unlike trying to time a 100-meter dash with a calendar. You shouldn’t be surprised when your results are off if you’re testing for something clearly outside the precision of the test.
Frankly, the creationist claim that radiometric dating is unreliable rests on a few examples where results were unexpected. The vast majority show incredibly consistent results. If you’re interested in chasing this further, if you provide a cite to the unexpected results, I’ll see if I can track down what information there might be on the matter, and we can discuss its merits.
Faust: however it is not fact that the earth (in my opinion) is not 6000 years old (we only need an old earth for evolution to be true).
Not so.
We also need an old Earth because no radioactive element with a half-life shorter than 80 million years exists anywhere in detectable levels on this planet (with the exception of daughter products of other radioactive isotopes, of course).
We also need an old Earth because the biomass represented by the remains preserved in layers of rock is enormous.
We also need an old Earth because large formations exist that could not have formed quickly (e.g., coral reefs).
We also need an old Earth because continuous records of various processes exist that go back far longer than 6000 years (e.g., layers of ice deposits in Greenland and Antarctica; sedimentary varves; evaporite deposits; paleomagnetism).
We also need an old Earth because the record indicates shorter days in the past, which we can only explain away with the Moon’s tidal action on the Earth over long time periods.
There are many other things we’ve observed that we need an old Earth to explain. And the remarkable thing is that when we compare what these different lines of evidence say about the age and history of the Earth, they all agree with each other.
Faust: as far as i understand it, to prove a scientific fact the results must be observable and repeatable, neither evolution nor religion fit that criteria.
Observable and repeatable are good criteria. Fortunately, evolution has been directly observed. In the lab and in the wild. Many times. We’ve even forced it to occur in repeatable ways by controlling the organism’s environment.
Creation has never been observed. Nor has it been repeated.
Another criterion you might want to consider is falsifiability. Evolution makes predictions about things we haven’t actually discovered yet — for example, what kinds of fossils might be found where. If we ever find a rabbit in pre-Cambrian rock, for example, it will conclusively disprove evolution and be the find of the millennium!
Ditto for coprolites bearing the remnants of flower-bearing plants before there were (according to evolution) flower-bearing plants. Or a gizzard in a mammal. Or a bird with mammary glands. Or a bird with a left aortic arch. Or a bat with feathers. And so on.
What predictions does creationism make about things we haven’t found yet? What is falsifiable in creationism?
Faust: you are comparing observable tests with ones that we cannot observe, ever.
Not so. Evolution has been observed. Repeatedly.
Faust: i dont think that evolution or religion fall into the science catagories, but more so that scientific facts will either prove or disprove them.
Things are never “proven” in science. Only disproven. And young-Earth creationism has been rather soundly disproven.
Science never claims to deliver the truth — only to set limits on the maximum amount of error that a given explanation can have. In the same way that we do not doubt that gravity exists, even though we almost certainly do not have all the details correct, we do not doubt that evolution exists, even though we almost certainly do not have all the details correct.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
My apologies for double-posting. This is meant to clear up some ambiguous attributions in the former post.
Faust: i agree, but it does not mean that they dont exist, plus i was pointing out that creationists and evolutionist alike keep harping on the others flaws instead of being objective in finding the answers.
The “evolutionist” harps on the creationist because the creationist demands to have his theories taught in a scientific arena when they are not science.
When it comes to “finding the answers”, it’s relatively easy to see that there is plenty of evidence for evolution (the fact that life appears to be sorted in nested hierarchical fashion, shared morphologies among many disparate species, vetigial structures, and molecular biological evidence are but a few indicators) and against young-Earth creationism.
Young-Earth creationism makes arguments against evolution. (Arguments are not evidence.) When asked for evidence, the best they have come up with is to trot out old ideas, resort to logical fallacy, or bring up “difficulties” that were resolved in the scientific literature decades or even centuries ago. It should also be noted that they have turned up no evidence whatsoever for creationism.
Faust: as i understand it each element has a rate at which it decays, by having a look at the rock (fossil, or whatever) and seeing how much of the decayed element is left behind that tells us the age of the rock, however this itself is based on certain ussumptions, like the starting amount of the parent element, that the conditions have been the same since the begining of time, etc, etc,,,
You have the basic concept right. The thing is, though, that geologists understand the laws of physics and chemistry as well. They are very good at determining whether the chemical content of a rock has been altered since its formation. (In some cases, the structure in which the decayed material is found is crystalline, which indicates rather powerfully the initial composition of the rock.) These understandings are so good that separate tests conducted by independent laboratories get results that lie very close to each other (within a percent or so), in spite of the fact that it would be in a laboratory’s best interest to show why a competing laboratory’s answers are suspect.
Besides, dating is usually done with several samples from the same site, and they agree with one another. What are the odds that all of the samples are contaminated to precisely the same degree? Is this simply coincidence?
Different radiometric tests using different elements (and, therefore, different clocks) in the same sample agree. (It’s rather rare that only one radiometric clock is used.) More coincidence?
Radiometric clocks yield results consistent with other timekeeping measurements that have nothing to do with radiology: tectonic drift, stratigraphy, and Malinkovitch cycles, for example. Is this coincidence, too?
Faust: now i have read that tests have been done that have seriously questioned the reliability of radiometric dating and that known items have ( 50 - 100 years) have dated into the millions,
In most cases, those problems boil down to a problem not unlike trying to time a 100-meter dash with a calendar. You shouldn’t be surprised when your results are off if you’re testing for something clearly outside the precision of the test.
Frankly, the creationist claim that radiometric dating is unreliable rests on a few examples where results were unexpected. The vast majority show incredibly consistent results. If you’re interested in chasing this further, if you provide a cite to the unexpected results, I’ll see if I can track down what information there might be on the matter, and we can discuss its merits.
Faust: however it is not fact that the earth (in my opinion) is not 6000 years old (we only need an old earth for evolution to be true).
Not so.
We also need an old Earth because no radioactive element with a half-life shorter than 80 million years exists anywhere in detectable levels on this planet (with the exception of daughter products of other radioactive isotopes, of course).
We also need an old Earth because the biomass represented by the remains preserved in layers of rock is enormous.
We also need an old Earth because large formations exist that could not have formed quickly (e.g., coral reefs).
We also need an old Earth because continuous records of various processes exist that go back far longer than 6000 years (e.g., layers of ice deposits in Greenland and Antarctica; sedimentary varves; evaporite deposits; paleomagnetism).
We also need an old Earth because the record indicates shorter days in the past, which we can only explain away with the Moon’s tidal action on the Earth over long time periods.
There are many other things we’ve observed that we need an old Earth to explain. And the remarkable thing is that when we compare what these different lines of evidence say about the age and history of the Earth, they all agree with each other.
Faust: as far as i understand it, to prove a scientific fact the results must be observable and repeatable, neither evolution nor religion fit that criteria.
Observable and repeatable are good criteria. Fortunately, evolution has been directly observed. In the lab and in the wild. Many times. We’ve even forced it to occur in repeatable ways by controlling the organism’s environment.
Creation has never been observed. Nor has it been repeated.
Another criterion you might want to consider is falsifiability. Evolution makes predictions about things we haven’t actually discovered yet — for example, what kinds of fossils might be found where. If we ever find a rabbit in pre-Cambrian rock, for example, it will conclusively disprove evolution and be the find of the millennium!
Ditto for coprolites bearing the remnants of flower-bearing plants before there were (according to evolution) flower-bearing plants. Or a gizzard in a mammal. Or a bird with mammary glands. Or a bird with a left aortic arch. Or a bat with feathers. And so on.
What predictions does creationism make about things we haven’t found yet? What is falsifiable in creationism?
Faust: you are comparing observable tests with ones that we cannot observe, ever.
Not so. Evolution has been observed. Repeatedly.
Faust: i dont think that evolution or religion fall into the science catagories, but more so that scientific facts will either prove or disprove them.
Things are never “proven” in science. Only disproven. And young-Earth creationism has been rather soundly disproven.
Science never claims to deliver the truth — only to set limits on the maximum amount of error that a given explanation can have. In the same way that we do not doubt that gravity exists, even though we almost certainly do not have all the details correct, we do not doubt that evolution exists, even though we almost certainly do not have all the details correct.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Any thoughts on this Evolution as mythology article?:
http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2008/05/12/evolution-as-mythology-part-2-of-5-evolution-is-not-a-scientific-theory/
May 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
@Mike R.
Excerpted from the article:
The fundamental problem with evolution as a scientific theory is that it is neither predictive nor falsifiable. Embryologist and geneticist C. H. Waddington says, “The theory of evolution is unfalsifiable… If an animal evolves one way, biologists have a perfectly good explanation; but if it evolves some other way, they have an equally good explanation… . The theory is not … a predictive theory as to what must happen.”1
That paragraph is patently false, and is written by someone who clearly has no understanding of what the theory of evolution is about.
The theory of evolution predicts that critters evolve, not the specific direction that they will evolve. It is easily falsifiable - two cardinals lay an egg which hatches into an ostrich. That would falsify evolution. Or John and Jane tie one on after a night of cheap champagne and a dime bag. 8 weeks later, Jane gives birth to a squid. That would not only falsify evolution but would make a great story for Geraldo Rivera.
Evolution makes one prediction: that species will change over time due to selection factors in the environment in which they live that cause some individuals to be more likely to survive than others.
That’s it. It really is that simple. Creationists would like to read more into it than that, of course, but they’re simply wrong to do so.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
“That paragraph is patently false, and is written by someone who clearly has no understanding of what the theory of evolution is about.”
Waddington probably knew something about evolution…
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Hal_Waddington
Waddington was educated at Clifton College and Cambridge University, where he was a lecturer in zoology and a Fellow of Christ’s College until 1942, where his friends included Walter Gropius, C. P. Snow, and J. D. Bernal.[1] His interests began with palaeontology but moved on to the heredity and development of living things. He also studied philosophy.
… but thanks Squid.
BTW, cool pictures of Hawaii.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
@Mike R.
Excerpted from the article:
The fundamental problem with evolution as a scientific theory is that it is neither predictive nor falsifiable. Embryologist and geneticist C. H. Waddington says, “The theory of evolution is unfalsifiable… If an animal evolves one way, biologists have a perfectly good explanation; but if it evolves some other way, they have an equally good explanation… . The theory is not … a predictive theory as to what must happen.”
Let’s look at the entire quote, shall we? (Emphasis is all mine.)
“I think the next great controversy was about the nature of the theory of evolution. Some physicists were saying it is not a real theory at all; either it doesn’t explain any thing or it explains everything. This is something I think we want to try to clear up. I tried to make the point that my own view about this is that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable, or at least very difficult to falsify, to the same degree that Newtonian physics is very difficult to falsify. The criticism was that if an animal evolves one way, biologists have a perfectly good explanation; but if it evolves some other way, they have an equally good explanation. So what is the good of all this explanation? If I find Jupiter has six moons, the physicists have a perfectly good Newtonian explanation; but if I find it has seven, this doesn’t do anything to Newtonian physics which can easily produce a slightly different explanation which explains that just as well. This is exactly parallel to what is going on in evolution theory. This means that the theory is not, at this level, a predictive theory as to what must happen.”
Plainer English: Evolution can show why things are the way they are, the same as Newtonian physics. The fact that it cannot necessarily explain why things are not otherwise — that is, why certain scenarios have not occurred — is not an indication that the theory is not falsifiable.
Note that the objections to evolution as a theory were not even Waddington’s; they belonged to some unidentified physicists which the paper you referred to carefully left out.
I trust you would not declare Newtonian physics outside the realm of science or unfalsifiable. It is merely unfalsifiable with respect to certain specific circumstances.
In fact, you ought to know that evolution is ultimately falsifiable, since both Evolving Squid and I showed you some circumstances under which evolution would be falsified.
The article itself is generally a collection of quotes out of context and completely removed from their original intent mixed with erroneous conclusions. This is but one example.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Indeed, I should have allowed for the possibility that Waddington knew what he was talking about but that his quote was taken out of context or otherwise misrepresented.
However, I stand by the assertion that the quote as given, in the context in which it was presented to me demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution is about. The statement as given is simply, plainly, clearly, demonstrably false.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Told ya.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Evolving Squid: “evolution is observed and repeatable.”
I think that you might have misunderstood my statement, when I said that religion and evolution alike cannot be proven by observable and recreatable results, I did not mean evolution from monkey to what is currently typing vigorously away at the keyboard, no no, I meant evolution theory as a whole, as a complete theory, i.e. the primordial soup going ka boom to what is currently typing away vigorously at the keyboard.
Now for just a second bear with me. And like I have said before, feel free to correct me when I am wrong we are about to take an incredible journey and travel back to the moment our universe was born, 13 billion years ago.
In the beginning there was nothing, no space and no time.
Then there was light, suddenly a tiny speck of light appeared, it was infinitely hot, and inside this tiny fireball was all of space, this was the beginning of time, the cosmic clock began to tick, time could now flow and space could expand. This tiny super hot fireball had already started to expand, the universe was the size of a marble (or big enough to fit into the palm of your hand, or the size of a single atom, no one can really decide on this one), and this marble sized universe was very unstable and underwent an enormous growth spurt.
Sound familiar, now I have to apologies I got this of a national geographic show on the birth of the universe, however all that I have read goes much along the same lines, in the beginning there was nothing, and then magically there was something, nothing, something.
now I don’t really have to be much of an expert to understand that any substance left alone will not have any reaction whatsoever, no matter how volatile or unstable it is, there have to be a chemical reaction, a change in temperature, a climatic change, whatever, however without an action there cannot and will never be a reaction.
So what made this super compact super hot fiery little atom sized universe go Ka Boom, sort of sounds like a cheap magic trick in my hand I have nothing and 1 and 2 and 3 and presto we have a universe (everyone clap).
Now the basis for my belief or religion is in the beginning there was God…
Yours is in the beginning there was nothing, and then something.
now I am not mocking your belief but what we have here is something that is un observable, un recreatable, un testable and sort of in explainable (considering that in the beginning it is very, very vague).
Sounds to me like neither religion, nor evolution meet the criteria if you ask me, also sounds like fairies in the sky doing magic tricks.
Now as far as I have read (with my limited scientific knowledge) this is not the only item that cannot be explained, let alone observed and so on and so forth
May 13th, 2008 at 12:33 am
MattFunke:”The “evolutionist” harps on the creationist because the creationist demands to have his theories taught in a scientific arena when they are not science.”
However you have already agreed with me that we use the same science to prove our theories? so the science cannot be flawed, the only difference is that our hypotheses is based on the fact that God created everything.
MattFunke:”(the fact that life appears to be sorted in nested hierarchical fashion, shared morphologies among many disparate species, vetigial structures, and molecular biological evidence are but a few indicators)”
i know it is a bad argument but it could also be attributed to a common designer.
MattFunke:”These understandings are so good that separate tests conducted by independent laboratories get results that lie very close to each other (within a percent or so), in spite of the fact that it would be in a laboratory’s best interest to show why a competing laboratory’s answers are suspect.”
but the different labs would be using the same base assumptions, would it not?
MattFunke:”Different radiometric tests using different elements (and, therefore, different clocks) in the same sample agree. (It’s rather rare that only one radiometric clock is used.) More coincidence?”
again correct me if i am wrong, but not all elements have the same half life, i mean if you wanted to measure millions of years you would need urainium and argon, so it is not like they are testing against many different elements.
MattFunke:”Frankly, the creationist claim that radiometric dating is unreliable rests on a few examples where results were unexpected. The vast majority show incredibly consistent results. If you’re interested in chasing this further, if you provide a cite to the unexpected results, I’ll see if I can track down what information there might be on the matter, and we can discuss its merits.”
I would appreciate that and i will get back to you on the site, like i have said i am here for the truth and that is the bottom line.
MattFunke:”We also need an old Earth because no radioactive element with a half-life shorter than 80 million years exists anywhere in detectable levels on this planet (with the exception of daughter products of other radioactive isotopes, of course)……….etc…….”
Ok now i have a question if you could answer it, cause i am pretty sure every creationist has used this argument on you so you would be fully aware of it, but my question is not saying that it did happen my question is what if it did happen. if there was a world wide flood (notice i am not saying there was before people jump on my back for it) of the magnatude that creationists claim, a truly catastrophic event, would that not explain all of that, the different layers, all these things forming in such a short period of time? etc?
MattFunke:”Observable and repeatable are good criteria. Fortunately, evolution has been directly observed. In the lab and in the wild. Many times. We’ve even forced it to occur in repeatable ways by controlling the organism’s environment.”
See my post to the squid, the bases, the begining of all evolution, where it all starts, its very begining can never fit that criteria.
MattFunke:”What predictions does creationism make about things we haven’t found yet? What is falsifiable in creationism?”
that is a very good question, one which i need to think on.
but in return i have a question for you (this is how we learn) again i have read that they have found human bones in layers that they should not have found these, that they have found human footprints in the same layers as Dinosaur bones? however whether accurate or not, i am not sure.
PS a truly nice post, thanks.
Squid:”That paragraph is patently false, and is written by someone who clearly has no understanding of what the theory of evolution is about.”
I agree, that is a bad argument to use.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:56 am
@Faust
the primordial soup going ka boom to what is currently typing away vigorously at the keyboard.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with primordial soup going kaboom. You are referring to the conjectures surrounding abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is NOT the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution does NOT cover abiogenesis.
Never has, never will.
You’re making a common mistake that creationists make when you like the two, but it’s no more accurate than denying the theory of gravity because you disagree with the big bang.
And speaking of the Big Bang, the rest of your post goes on about that. The Big Bang is not the theory of evolution, nor does the theory of evolution offer any insight into the big bang.
The theory of evolution was devised to explain diversity of species. It was not devised to explain any of:
1. How the universe came to be.
2. How life came from non-life.
3. How stars form, use up their fuel, and die.
4. Any other bollocks mistakenly ascribed to it.
Now the basis for my belief or religion is in the beginning there was God…
Yours is in the beginning there was nothing, and then something.
How did God get there? If your answer is that God was always there, then answer this:
Why is it more reasonable to believe that an invisible, intangible, untestable, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being always was there and decided to make the universe, than to believe that there was some primordial spacetime foam that burped and formed our universe?
May 13th, 2008 at 4:58 am
@Faust
Really, you and I believe almost the same thing about the origin of the universe. I just have 1 less god in my framework than you do.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:16 am
Faust said “I did not mean evolution from monkey to what is currently typing vigorously away at the keyboard, no no, I meant evolution theory as a whole, as a complete theory, i.e. the primordial soup going ka boom to what is currently typing away vigorously at the keyboard.”
Well see, there is your problem. You are not talking about evolution there but abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life, evolution is about the origin of species. I.e. evolution says nothing about the origin of life, only how it evolved after the origin happened. Conflating abiogenesis with evolution is a creationist/ID trick we are all used to here.
The rest I’ll leave to someone with more time than I have.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:23 am
Evolving Squid:”You’re making a common mistake that creationists make when you like the two, but it’s no more accurate than denying the theory of gravity because you disagree with the big bang.”
Fair enough (althoug my view as always been evolution means from big bang to us) maybe my statement then does fall very flat, so educate me then, what you are saying is that evolution is how we got here from amoeba to ………… human?
Evolving Squid:”How did God get there? If your answer is that God was always there, then answer this:”
the point of my post that clearly missed the point, was that just like i have no clue, no one has the absolute answer. just like someone that believes in the big bang, does not mean that we know how it started so both assumtions would be guessing, and therefore neither can be proven or disproven.
but you have pointed out that the big bang and evolution of the universe is not evolution as a theory.
as for what and why i believe in a God, is purely my own opinions and is based on faith in those opinions, yes there are logical reasons why i believe, but they are mine, and i dont try and convince people to believe as i do.
Evolving Squid:”Really, you and I believe almost the same thing about the origin of the universe. I just have 1 less god in my framework than you do.”
i love this line, it is absolutly brilliant.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Robert
>>>”It really isn’t fair to single you out, since that seems to be the crux of the entire evolutionist argument presented here so far: I believe it, therefore it must be true!”
Plus the 150 years of research, evidence and peer-reviewed papers etc. You got anything substantial against it other than “I disagree!”
>>>”You insist there be no public prayer, that no one practice their religion in the public square, that no politician have religious beliefs, that religion take no part in legislative decisions, yet you insist that both sides of the evolutionary argument may not be taught!”
Who says that? Prayer shouldn’t be in class time, that’s about it.
>>>”In other words, if you read “between the lines” I have used EVERY single argument others have used here towards me, but when I turn them around and restate them towards them, they ridicule them! It’s not necessarily the best debate tactic ever, but it is highly amusing to watch people who don’t know what they’re talking about defend something they don’t understand!”
You DON’T seem to understand FALSIFIABILITY. And that is why you are mocked.
>>>”So, let me get this straight: I should believe in the scientific fact of evolution and the fact that God doesn’t exist simply because - you guys said so!”
(sigh) I say AGAIN, evolution does NOT say “There is no God!”. Believe in whatever you want, I don’t care.
Faust
>>>”feel free to correct me when I am wrong ”
Okay, your whole diatribe was wrong. Evolution does not have to explain neither the origin of the universe or abiogenesis. Ah, the Squid already told ya.
>>>”so the science cannot be flawed, the only difference is that our hypotheses is based on the fact that God created everything.”
Then give us all the scientific evidence you have of God. What useful scientific predictions does it make?
May 13th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Faust: However you have already agreed with me that we use the same science to prove our theories?
No. I have not agreed. The creationist must ignore mountain ranges’ worth of data in order to come to the conclusion that the species we see today were created instantaneously or that the Earth is merely 6000 years old.
It is relatively easy to criticize experiments that have been done as invalid without really engaging their arguments, as one sees in the creationist camp. It is quite another to perform careful experiments to see what the Universe is really like.
Faust: the only difference is that our hypotheses is based on the fact that God created everything.
Where have I argued one way or the other about whether or not God was involved? We’re merely talking about the way populations of organisms behave and have behaved. None of this implies God’s presence or absence.
Let me put it another way. Using mathematical models (VSOP 89, for example), it is possible to determine where the planets will be in their orbits ten years hence. If you make a prediction using this model and the planets end up in the appointed places at the appointed time, does that necessarily mean that God had nothing to do with it? Why?
Faust: i know it is a bad argument but it could also be attributed to a common designer.
If so, it was a rather poor designer. Why would there be beetles with fully-formed wings and fused carapaces? Why would ostriches keep inordinately complex wings for balance and courtship displays (rather like insisting on using a television as a hammer)? Why would things be created to look exactly like they had all arrived through common descent — so much so that many different tests using different criteria and analyzing different sources of data yield identical phylogenetic trees?
Faust: but the different labs would be using the same base assumptions, would it not?
They would be using the same methods to determine the degree of contamination in a particular sample, yes. But doesn’t it strike you as odd that these assumptions would lead to exactly the same amount of contamination for all rocks in a given geologic stratum? If the amount of contamination was simply determined on a case-by-case basis to make the ages work out, why haven’t competing labs cried foul to ensure more work for themselves?
Faust: again correct me if i am wrong, but not all elements have the same half life, i mean if you wanted to measure millions of years you would need urainium and argon, so it is not like they are testing against many different elements.
It is exactly like that. That is exactly what I meant. It is desirable and common to test different radiometric clocks with different elements (ticking at different rates) in the same sample. When we do this, the ages agree.
Scientists are eager to get their hands on as many different independent indications of a particular datum as they can. Being able to use, let’s say, both potassium-argon and uranium-lead dating in a single sample is a valuable thing.
Faust: if there was a world wide flood (notice i am not saying there was before people jump on my back for it) of the magnatude that creationists claim, a truly catastrophic event, would that not explain all of that, the different layers, all these things forming in such a short period of time? etc?
Sadly, no.
Consider the Coconino Sandstone layer in the Grand Canyon. It has lizard footprints in it. There are layers of stone above and below it. What flood process could account for that?
Within each stratum are dozens of substrata. We find these strata and substrata in the same order everywhere in the world. Many of these substrata are a fraction of an inch thick. What flood process could account for a layer a fraction of an inch thick everywhere in the world?
There are layers that cannot have formed underwater; the laws of chemistry prevent it. Fossils are not sorted hydrologically. (Even bacteria show evolutionary progression through the layers.)
There are too many fossils for a single biosphere. The Karroo Formation in South Africa alone has 800 billion fossil land vertebrates with the average size of a fox (roughly 21 animals per acre of land on Earth). There is 670 times the amount of carbon in petroleum than there is carbon in every living thing on Earth. There is enough fossilized plankton in chalk deposits to cover the entire planet to a depth of one meter. The Monterey Formation in California alone contains enough diatoms to bury the entire planet to a depth of one foot. The Mission Canyon Formation in the northwestern U.S. contains enough fossilized crinoids to bury the entire planet to a depth of one-quarter inch; larger crinoid deposits than this can be found in Canada, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Indiana, Mississippi, Australia, Libya, the Ural Mountains, Belgium, Egypt, Central Asia, and China. The limestone deposits on Earth alone contain 214,000 times the mass of formerly-living matter than there is currently-living matter on the planet.
There are too many colossal meteoric impacts in the fossil record. If we assume these were all laid down during the course of a year-long flood, we must assume that Earth was host to millions of megatons of meteoric impact in that one year.
There are animal burrows in the geologic column, placed intermittently all the way from bottom to top. How were burrowing animals (or just their burrows) preserved so that they could be laid on top of other layers in a flood?
Why do we find coprolite at all?
Faust: See my post to the squid, the bases, the begining of all evolution, where it all starts, its very begining can never fit that criteria.
Evolution does not even attempt to describe the very beginning. It only attempts to describe what happens to life once it’s here. Pointing out that evolution does not describe how life got here is like pointing out that there is no medieval agriculture in “Star Trek” — it’s just outside the scope of what’s being discussed.
Faust: but in return i have a question for you (this is how we learn) again i have read that they have found human bones in layers that they should not have found these, that they have found human footprints in the same layers as Dinosaur bones? however whether accurate or not, i am not sure.
Of course it’s how we learn. It’s the only way to learn the way the world really works. Kudos to you for being willing to ask questions and listen to the answers. Learning that young-Earth creationist teachers are lying (or badly mistaken) is difficult; I faced that difficulty myself, and it almost shattered my faith (since young-Earth creationist teachers are careful to construct their teachings to show that concepts like sin and redemption rest on believing their interpretation of Genesis).
The case that I’ve heard that sounds like what you’re describing are the Paluxy River tracks. Sadly, it’s a hoax. Some of the “human” footprints show deliberate alteration; some are erosional features that show no human traits without selective highlighting; and some “human” tracks are three-toed dinosaur prints that have been subject to mud collapse, erosion, and infilling.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
May 13th, 2008 at 8:39 am
@Faust: Here’s something else to consider with respect to radiological dating.
First of all, despite our most valiant efforts, we have not been able to create circumstances that change the rate at which radioactive elements decay (without resorting to exotic environments that are unlikely to have been in the wild, e.g., bombarding the elements with nucleons) — not humidity, not temperature, not pressure, not anything. Any theory that uses the idea that radioactive elements might have decayed at different rates in the past assumes that we will find something someday in spite of some brilliant experiments by some very clever people over the years. Contamination assumes consistent contamination in every sample tested thus far by the same (proportional) amount, be it by removing the parent isotope or putting in the daughter isotope.
(It’s also kind of interesting that Apollo returned minerals that reveal the age of the Moon — and the dates agree with tests that show the age of the Earth. Meteorites also show the same age. Were all of these things changed in exactly the same way?)
You might also consider Lake Suigetsu in Japan. Every spring, one-celled algae blooms and dies on the surface of the lake. When they die, they sink, and coat the bottom of the lake with a thin, white layer. The rest of the year, darker clay deposits form a dark layer on the bottom of the lake. We can count the light layers like tree rings, one per year.
There are about 100,000 layers. Since the dead algae is organic, we can use carbon-14 dating to arrive at the age independently. The ages derived from counting the white layers and from carbon-14 dating the dead algae agree. Why would they, if all the layers were deposited at once (or nearly so)?
As for various kinds of radiologic dating agreeing with one another, I think you’d find it interesting to look at how we’ve dated corals in Papua New Guinea with both carbon-14 and uranium-thorium dating methods. The dates derived from both of the radiologic “clocks” agree.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:21 am
MattFunke:”here have I argued one way or the other about whether or not God was involved? We’re merely talking about the way populations of organisms behave and have behaved. None of this implies God’s presence or absence.”
No, you have not, and yes you are correct neither of this is proof of Gods existance or absence.
MattFunke:”If so, it was a rather poor designer. ….. etc”
i dont see poor design at all, i see every single creature created (or evolved if you will) to fit its enviroment perfectly, and although certain items may not have an apparent purpoise or use now, we may find that they do serve a great purpoise to that insect / creature, in fact many creatures depend on certain plants and other creatures for survival, things seem to all interlink (not in the evolutionary sense) and are dependent with each other, for me i feel that everything that has been created was created perfectly, and have not been shown different yet. it is like a puzzel where everything fits together perfectly.
MattFunke:”They would be using the same methods to determine the degree of contamination in a particular sample, yes. But doesn’t it strike you as odd that these assumptions would lead to exactly the same amount of contamination for all rocks in a given geologic stratum? If the amount of contamination was simply determined on a case-by-case basis to make the ages work out, why haven’t competing labs cried foul to ensure more work for themselves?”
i found a site that seems to explain this a lot better than i can, if you dont mind reading it and give me your comments on it, i could give you the jist of it here, but i do not feel that i would carry the message across as well as they have. i feel that it is worth a read.
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
MattFunke:”Evolution does not even attempt to describe the very beginning. It only attempts to describe what happens to life once it’s here. Pointing out that evolution does not describe how life got here is like pointing out that there is no medieval agriculture in “Star Trek” — it’s just outside the scope of what’s being discussed.”
If someone can then explain or even give me an answer of which portion is evolution. so that i dont make the mistake of inadvertantly bluring the lines.
MattFunke:”Of course it’s how we learn. It’s the only way to learn the way the world really works. Kudos to you for being willing to ask questions and listen to the answers. Learning that young-Earth creationist teachers are lying (or badly mistaken) is difficult; I faced that difficulty myself, and it almost shattered my faith (since young-Earth creationist teachers are careful to construct their teachings to show that concepts like sin and redemption rest on believing their interpretation of Genesis).”
thanks, but just keep in mind that i learn, this does not mean that i will change my faith or even my belief, i do however like to learn new things, and yes essentually if i am incorrect then i need to adjust accordingly.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Faust: i see every single creature created (or evolved if you will) to fit its enviroment perfectly,
But that’s exactly what natural selection predicts: that populations of organisms will change to meet the demands of their environment. Accidental changes that happen to be useful for survival in the environment will persist.
Of course, the environment isn’t static; and the organisms won’t be, either.
Pointing out that animals fit their habitats really well no more implies a designer than pointing out that a puddle fits a pothole really well.
You might find it interesting to look at the recent reports of Podarcis sicula, a lizard that got moved from one Adriatic island to another to see how it would change in 1971. We’ve recently caught up with them (and were able to use the original population as a control), and they’ve changed to adapt to the new environment. They’ve gone from primarily eating insects to consuming many more plants, and their skulls, habits, and speed have all adapted to permit better access to this new food. Even more remarkable, their digestive systems have acquired new organisms to help them digest (nematodes that are not present in the digestive tracts of the control population) and new features (cecal valves that let them close off sections of the tract to permit more thorough digestion, not present in the control population).
We’ve observed directly as one species change into another through selective pressures — bacteria, plants, insects, mice, and more. What barrier is there that bars this in the ancient world?
If there is no development, why do species appear in a single time and place (for that species) among other species that are strongly related to it? Why do organisms show vestiges of other species that they are considered to be related to, even down to the way their molecular chemistry operates?
Faust: for me i feel that everything that has been created was created perfectly, and have not been shown different yet.
What do you mean by “created perfectly”? It’s not as if evolution produces half an organism. Every organism that survives is complete; every organism we see, past and present, represents the forefront of evolution along its particular branch. What would constitute a less than “perfectly” created organism?
Faust: http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
Just some quick points that jump out at me right away:
* None of this explains how different dating methods could all be contaminated or changed to precisely the same degree.
* Many of the supposed errors (e.g., dating a very recent lava flow to be much older with potassium-argon dating) stem from the “using a calendar to time a 100-meter dash” precision problem I alluded to earlier.
* Geologists know of many of the difficulties associated with obtaining accurate dates from some samples. They also know how to avoid them. For example, potassium may be incorporated with argon as a sample forms, but it is easily overcome by using (40)Ar/(30)Ar dating instead of potassium-argon dating. In any case, it is false that this is a universal problem for potassium-argon dating (the majority of rocks simply don’t contain excess argon). It is also the case that geologists know that rocks that might have allowed the potassium to volatize or leach away in water cannot be used for potassium-argon dating.
* The original question remains: If radiometric dating methods are suspect, why don’t competing labs cry foul? If Lab B can show that the assumptions made by Lab A in dating their sample are questionable, they stand to discredit Lab A and gain some of Lab A’s former business. Why don’t they do this?
* Different dates from different dating methods is an understood phenomenon. If dates derived from different dating methods show different results, all dating methods are considered suspect and the sample is disregarded. (To imply otherwise impugns the honesty and ethics of people who devote their life’s work to accurate dating methods.) It’s worth noting that the vast majority of samples do not show different dates from different dating methods. It’s also worth noting that it is not desirable to throw out too many samples, since dating is expensive.
* Geologists perform tests on the samples they acquire to determine the reliability of the dates they get, experimenting with different techniques on different minerals subjected to different conditions to see which assumptions are valid and which are not. Many of these “disagreeing dates” are the result of these experiments dishonestly portrayed as ordinary field measurements.
* All measurement techniques are invalid in some contexts. That does not make all of them invalid in all contexts.
* Woodmorappe’s paper is flawed because it ignored geological context and well-known dating limitations; because his treatment of individual cases is terribly superficial; because his paper is not written as a technical analysis (which could be received and analyzed by geologists); and because he uses obsolete data (such as data from tests while the technique was still being developed).
I’m sure more will jump out at me once I have the chance to read through more carefully.
Faust: If someone can then explain or even give me an answer of which portion is evolution.
Evolution merely handles inherited changes in populations of organisms over time. It doesn’t deal with the origin of organisms, the origin of the Earth, or the origin of the Universe. (Radiometric dating isn’t evolution, incidentally, but there are misconceptions about it that I seem to have to address from time to time.)
Faust: thanks, but just keep in mind that i learn, this does not mean that i will change my faith or even my belief, i do however like to learn new things, and yes essentually if i am incorrect then i need to adjust accordingly.
Well, it’s not my place to convert you (or, um, un-convert you) from any kind of faith. Ultimately, I suppose I have no problem with a young-Earth creationist believing what he or she does; I just have a problem with the statement that “real science” (or any science at all) supports their claims. I do, however, consider it a mark of maturity for one to be willing to admit that one might be incorrect and might need to modify their beliefs.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:26 am
@Faust
what you are saying is that evolution is how we got here from amoeba to ………… human?
Almost, but not quite. Humans didn’t evolve from amoeba, any more than we evolved from a chimpanzee. This is another common misconception about evolution. It is highly unlikely that humans evolved directly from anything that exists today.
The theory of evolution suggests that changes occurred in organisms that existed aeons ago. Those changes eventually led to speciation. More changes kept accumulating leading to more speciation. With the passage of time, some line of changes added up to producing modern humans. Other lines of changes ended up producing blue jays, alligators, and tse tse flies.
This is also the answer to the very common creationist question “If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?” Of course, there are still apes for the same reason that even though you exist, your third cousins also still exist… your great great grandparents probably don’t though… you and your third cousins share a common ancestor, but you aren’t the SAME. Similarly, all apes (including humans - who are apes) share a common ancestor but aren’t the SAME as each other and that common ancestor no longer exists.
So it is wrong to say that evolution says “humans evolved from amoeba” because it doesn’t. It is fair to say that evolution says that “humans evolved from a primitive eukaryote that existed sometime in the past. It would say that amoeba also evolved from some primitive eukaryote as well. It may even say that we and amoeba share a common ancestor (my knowledge of biology doesn’t go that far, so I don’t know if that statement is true).
May 13th, 2008 at 11:14 am
MattFunke:”Of course, the environment isn’t static; and the organisms won’t be, either.”
Bad argument maybe but i do believe that we were created to adapt to our enviroment (what creationists call micro evolution), but this does not mean that we were not created perfectly to fit our enviroment and to adapt to our enviroment, the example that you pointed out with Podarcis sicula is not a change where the lizard became a different species, or even that is did not become something that have already been observed in other “lizards” and the changes that it underwent did not take millions of years, but were relativly quick.
i do not think that any creationist would disagree with “micro evolution”, and yes i understand that using micro evolution is a bad argument because now we are drawing the line to make the parts that suit us fit and the parts that dont (makro evolution) fall by the way side, but my point remains that this does not prove that the earth is not young and does not prove that we were not created perfectly.
yes evolution does not create a half organism (although we should then find the fosilised half evolved creatures, but as far as i know we have yet to find these “missing links”) and yes evolution does in a way have explanations (sometimes very good ones) on how we evolved to what we currently are, but evolution is also based on assumptions,
my best on this was a show on national geographig about scientific ADAM, it is a must watch and has no creationist point of view, the researcher takes DNA samples from different men (quite a large amount but i would need to watch the show again to see exactly how many) from different countries and different races, and in checking for mutations in the Y cromosone traces them all back to one single man, this had me doing backflips in my head (finally science has proven that we are all decendant from one man) this was scientific evedence that the bible got something right, and even moreso proven by a scientist who does not believe in God, great right, not so great because the show went on from fact to assumptions, they dated this man to have lived about 60 000 years ago, they then also modeled what he looked like, not on fact at all but taking a skull dated 100 000 years and a african tribe believed to be the same as him, took the in between of that and walla this is what he looked like, but the last bit is what got me the most, the assumption that man evolved from “monkey” would mean that all men currently could not have evolved from a single man, so they go on to state that obviously through time all other “trees” must have died out. this is an assumption.
yes i know that it is long winded and seems off point, but my point is this:
a) science has proven a common man (to my knowledge), the bible also states we all come from one man.
b) evolution does not have all the answers, neither does creation science.
i do not see how creationism and a young earth can be discounted based on science, if we compaire only evolution as you have explained it and creationism in the sense that god created every living creature (and created it perfectly and to be able to adapt to its suroundings), then i do not see how science (in that sense) is incompatable with creation.
MattFunke:”I’m sure more will jump out at me once I have the chance to read through more carefully.”
i would prefer that you read it more carefully, seen as the points you raised are addressed in the article, and for me the article seems to be written by someone with some science knowledge and not a stupid person, he seems to go very in depth as well, now if he is getting something wrong (which from what i have read, not just on creationist sites, seems to be fairly correct), but if there are items that are wrong i would like to be able to see where it is wrong and make my assumptions based on that.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Evolving Squid:”Almost, but not quite. ”
got it, but them my question is this, what exaclty is unscientific about creation science?
if we address evolution as you and everyone else here has explained it then we are not addressing the very begining, so if we take creation at the same point (also not addressing who created God and the rest of those questions) then the only difference here is one evolved from a primitive eukaryote and the other was created by a super duper being?
creationists are bound by the same laws of science to achieve there results, and as far as i have seen none of them have tried to manipulate or change science to achieve there answers (an example is the link i provided above, this guy is using science, his statements on K/Ar40 dating are not incorrect, i can verify that) so the only thing left for me to assume is that maybe his assumptions are incorrect, but that said evolution also has assumptions and sometimes those assumptions have also been proven incorrect, therefore that would meen that both sit in the same catagory and neither can be called un scientific?
no sure some creationists use false arguments and some down right manipulate data to suit there needs, and some dont even understand what they are talking about and some are to stupid to actually listen when someone says to them that using the second law of thermodynamics is not really conclusive proof, but then again i have met evolutionists that make the same mistakes (from the opposite end).
and yes no one is perfect and i myself sometimes fall into the same traps, but all i am saying is that creation science is as scientific as evolution, the big bang, and all the rest, is it not?
so for me that really is not the issue, the real issue is learning what you have to say (about my beliefs as well) so that we all learn (maybe even you learn something) and in the end ones beliefs may alter (maybe a lot maybe a little) ones beliefs may be strengthened, but in the end we are all closer to the truth.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Faust: the example that you pointed out with Podarcis sicula is not a change where the lizard became a different species,
Perhaps that’s true; I don’t know if that particualar lizard speciated or not. But we have observed speciation directly. In all sorts of organisms — bacteria (Helacyton gartleri), mosquitoes (the molestus form of Culex pipiens), plants (Primula kewensis), deer mice (Peromyces maniculatus), birds (Phylloscopus trochiloides), and bees (Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta).
The fact of the matter is that many small changes can accumulate into large changes. If they can’t, then a mechanism needs to be shown which would prevent this. Otherwise, suggesting that it must because of how the animal was created is mere speculation.
Faust: but my point remains that this does not prove that the earth is not young and does not prove that we were not created perfectly.
The only way this relates to the age of the Earth is that we can see that different kinds of organisms arose gradually. As far as being created “perfectly”, I would ask why it is that there are homologous structures in organisms that don’t need them (for example, whales with carpals and “floating pelvises”), or why vestigial structures exist (indicating suboptimal design).
Faust: as far as i know we have yet to find these “missing links”
You’re in luck. Transitional fossils are abundant.
Between nautiloids and ammonoids, there are bactritids.
Between fish and amphibians, there are Tiktaalik roseae, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys, Hynerpeton, Tulerpeton, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Pederpes finneyae, and Eryops.
Between amphibians and early reptiles, we have Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus, and Paleothyris.
Between synapsid reptiles and mammals, we have Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Dimetrodon, Procynosuchus, Thrinaxodon, and Yanoconodon.
Between diapsid reptiles and birds lie Yixianosaurus, Pedopenna, Archaeopteryx, Changchengornis, Confuciusornis, and Ichthyornis.
We can trace the evolution of whales through Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus, Aetiocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Eurhinodelphis, and Mammalodon.
We see the evolution of the horse taking place through Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, and Equus.
Between non-humans apes and modern humans lie Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus.
There are many gaps, yes, but there is by far enough information to see a clear progression between species. Each one had adaptations for its environment.
Faust: evolution is also based on assumptions,
Name something logical that isn’t based on assumptions (besides the axioms themselves).
It is the nature of science to offer tentative, falsifiable explanations that can be overturned (or not) by new information that comes along. It’s worth noting that evolution via natural selection has withstood a century and a half of intense criticism (far more intense than many other natural theories) and the discovery of new things (molecular biology, for example), yet still remains strong.
Faust: not so great because the show went on from fact to assumptions, they dated this man to have lived about 60 000 years ago,
This was no baseless assumption. We know the rate at which mutations creep into the human Y chromosome. It’s fairly easy to backtrack to when the male ancestor we all have in common must have been alive through chemistry alone.
Faust: the assumption that man evolved from “monkey” would mean that all men currently could not have evolved from a single man,
Wait, what? Why not? (Of course, we all had an apelike ancestor, not a monkeylike ancestor, but neither one precludes a common human male ancestor for all humans.)
Does the fact that my sister and I share the same great-grandfather mean that we cannot also share the same father?
Faust: evolution does not have all the answers, neither does creation science.
Having all the answers is not, and never has been, a prerequisite for science.
Faust: i do not see how creationism and a young earth can be discounted based on science,
I gave you many reasons why not. We know the Earth cannot be young, for a start. To assert that it is requires denial of massive amounts of knowledge.
Faust: i would prefer that you read it more carefully, seen as the points you raised are addressed in the article,
Not all of them. It treats Woodmorappe’s paper as reputable, for example. It also makes assertions such as that anomalous dates are often simply not reported, but does not address why or why it is that competing labs say nothing.
Faust: and for me the article seems to be written by someone with some science knowledge and not a stupid person, he seems to go very in depth as well,
I’ll grant you that the author seems intelligent enough. He does not, however, go into considerable depth. His arguments simply consist of listing facts, denial of proposed theories, and stories that “maybe it happened this way”. Were this a proper scientific paper, he would show why proposed theories are false, as well as present falsifiable suggestions and reproducible experiments which attempted to show his own claims as false (but failed to). In short, there’s no science.
(That’s another thing about being an ethical scientist: If you have a claim, you do your level best to disprove it, since that’s the only side of logical proof open to your inquiry.)
Faust: what exaclty is unscientific about creation science?
It makes no falsifiable predictions. It is not observable. It is not repeatable.
We have observed evolution directly. We have repeated results by manipulating the environment. Evolution makes falsifiable predictions (for example, that a mammal will never be found in pre-Cambrian rock), and has yet to be falsified.
Creation “science” fails to follow through on some very important properties of science. Evolution has those properties. That is why evolution is science and creation “science” is not.
Faust: evolution also has assumptions and sometimes those assumptions have also been proven incorrect, therefore that would meen that both sit in the same catagory and neither can be called un scientific?
Here’s the thing. When evolution is shown to be inconsistent with available data, the theory has had to change to fit the data. When creation “science” is shown to be inconsistent with the data, creation “science” doesn’t change; a just-so story is erected to explain why all of the data that contradicts the model must be misinterpreted, and the “theory” continues on exactly as before.
Faust: no sure some creationists use false arguments and some down right manipulate data to suit there needs, and some dont even understand what they are talking about and some are to stupid to actually listen when someone says to them that using the second law of thermodynamics is not really conclusive proof, but then again i have met evolutionists that make the same mistakes (from the opposite end).
As I’m sure you’re aware, one should not judge a theory by its adherents. One should judge a theory in light of what it says, whether what it says is falsifiable, and whether it continues to stand in the light of new facts as they are accumulated.
Faust: all i am saying is that creation science is as scientific as evolution, the big bang, and all the rest, is it not?
No. It is not.
The Big Bang Theory, for example, had some predictions which would have rendered it false if they had failed to pan out (e.g., the presence of microwave background radiation). Creation “science” makes no such predictions.
Evolution makes predictions that are falsifiable as new data comes to light. Creation “science” does not, in spite of the fact that it could. For example, if creation “science” were true, we’d expect to see recent fossils following a radiant pattern from where Noah disembarked… leaving an obvious fossil pattern that we have failed to observe. We’d expect to see a broken line in plant species, but the ancient bristlecone pines in California show an unbroken line dating back more than 10,000 years. We’d expect fossils of animals with superior mobility to be found at the shallowest levels of sedimentary rock, but we don’t (for example, flying dinosaurs are buried with all the other dinosaurs). We’d expect to see little if any sea life in fossils (the opposite is true). We’d expect to see man-made tools at the very bottom of the fossil record (since stone or metal tools would sink faster than any organism and obviously don’t tread water), but we don’t find any tools there.
Why has creation “science” not attempted to address any of these difficulties? By contrast, you’ll find scientists attempting to crack some tough nuts associated with evolution all the time.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Awesome discussion, thanks everyone…. my brain hurts.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
yes evolution does not create a half organism (although we should then find the fosilised half evolved creatures, but as far as i know we have yet to find these “missing links”)
no. There is no such thing as “half-evolved” any more than there is “half-pregnant”. You are correct in that evolution does not create a half-organism.
Now, if you want to say that we should then find in the fossil record a series of transitional forms that lead from one species to another, then yes we have found so many missing links that you’d be hard pressed to count them. But if you’re looking for a mermaid, a chickenosaurus, or a ratmonkey then no, you won’t find them nor does the theory of evolution suggest that something like that would exist.
a) science has proven a common man (to my knowledge)
Genetic research suggest that statement is correct. Such research also indicates that we all descend from a single mother as well. The research continues to suggest that the woman in question lived tens of thousands of years before the man.
got it, but them my question is this, what exaclty is unscientific about creation science?
if we address evolution as you and everyone else here has explained it then we are not addressing the very begining, so if we take creation at the same point (also not addressing who created God and the rest of those questions) then the only difference here is one evolved from a primitive eukaryote and the other was created by a super duper being?
The difference is that there is a mountain of evidence that supports the theory of evolution, and absolutely none that suggests - as creationists do - that the creatures on the earth today bleemed into existence essentially simultaneously in the forms that they are in now.
The mechanism of the bleeming isn’t important for a discussion on evolution (that’s abiogenesis - something else entirely). What is important is that there is no evidence to suggest that they were bleemed at all. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that things evolved from “lower” (”older” might be a better term) species.
That is the difference between creation “science” and real science with regard to evolution.
all i am saying is that creation science is as scientific as evolution, the big bang, and all the rest, is it not?
No. Evolution is very well supported by evidence. Creation as an explanation for the diversity of species is not. The Big Bang is supported by evidence (though perhaps not as strongly as evolution is supported, but it is well supported nevertheless). Goddidit is not supported by any evidence.
The B.B. theory makes predictions about how the universe developed. These predictions ahve been borne out by observation. Goddidit has not worked out so well.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
The Bible ‘predicted’ that we would have a more recent common male ancestor than female one….
Noah, his son’s and their wives were on the ark.
All are descended from Noah, and also all are descended from the earlier Eve.
YEC’s would disagree with the 10,000 years separating the two ancestors, but many Bible scholars agree/allow for the creation of man up to 100,000 years ago or so.
I know this is a meaningless coincidence to most, but some may find it interesting.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Faust
Evolving Squid is doing all the work here, but still
>>>”i dont see poor design at all, i see every single creature created (or evolved if you will) to fit its enviroment perfectly”
Then why do I need glasses? Why does the appendix occasionally want to kill people?
>>>”i found a site that seems to explain this a lot better than i can, if you dont mind reading it and give me your comments on it, i could give you the jist of it here, but i do not feel that i would carry the message across as well as they have. i feel that it is worth a read.”
>>>”i would prefer that you read it more carefully, seen as the points you raised are addressed in the article, and for me the article seems to be written by someone with some science knowledge and not a stupid person”
Well, I would say it’s nonsense as David Plaisted, the guy who wrote it is basing his objections on theology, and is not qualified in the relevant areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Plaisted
It IS the same guy:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/
>>>”b) evolution does not have all the answers, neither does creation science.”
There is no such thing as Creation “Science.”
>>>”what exaclty is unscientific about creation science?”
It makes no testable predictions. It assumes Goddidit before it looks at any evidence. That is anti-thetical to science. It only offers anti-evolution arguments (occasionally anti-big bang arguments). It offers no POSITIVE evidence.
Mike R.
The Noah story never happened. You know that, right?
May 13th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
@Mike R.
All are descended from Noah, and also all are descended from the earlier Eve.
Oh, you should have picked door number one!
Sorry, the Bible says all - including Noah - are descended from Adam who lived at the same time as Eve. Score 1 for genetics, 0 for the Bible.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Mike, Faust, et al:
It’s been great discussing this stuff, but this thread is miles back on the RSS feed, so I’m moving on. I encourage you to do a bit of reading. Some basic MODERN biology texts would be a good start - they should have enough information to lead you to more detailed references as your interests and abilities can handle.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:50 am
MattFunke:”The fact of the matter is that many small changes can accumulate into large changes. If they can’t, then a mechanism needs to be shown which would prevent this. Otherwise, suggesting that it must because of how the animal was created is mere speculation.”
VEry true, and i agree we can observe these changes, and even recreate them in some examples, but what we observe is not changes that happen over very long periods of time, these changes that you are mentioning are happening in a very short period of time, and i do doubt (but may be wrong) that any of these changes are as vast as a cold blooded land dweling lizard has been observed evolving into a warm blooded flying (or even not airborn) bird.
MattFunke:”The only way this relates to the age of the Earth is that we can see that different kinds of organisms arose gradually. As far as being created “perfectly”, I would ask why it is that there are homologous structures in organisms that don’t need them (for example, whales with carpals and “floating pelvises”), or why vestigial structures exist (indicating suboptimal design).”
like i stated before just because we have not discovered the purpoise does not mean that one does not exist, however i have read that the appendix (that is thought to be vestigal) does actually play a role in the human body, although i think that this has not been concluded as yet. as our knowledge increases and our research furthered we will have these answers.
MattFunke:”You’re in luck. Transitional fossils are abundant.”
this then warrants me doing some research and more reading into the matter, if you could provide me with links?
MattFunke:”Name something logical that isn’t based on assumptions (besides the axioms themselves).”
i never said that, my point was that creationism is bashed due to certain assumptions, however to me it is logical to some degree.
MattFunke:” man to have lived about 60 000 years ago,
This was no baseless assumption.”
Sorry this is my fault for not being clear in my story telling, i did not mean that they assumed the age, i do understand how they came about with the date, it was just in the end bit of the show where they make a few assumptions that i later go on to mention.
MattFunke:”Wait, what? Why not? (Of course, we all had an apelike ancestor, not a monkeylike ancestor, but neither one precludes a common human male ancestor for all humans.)”
like i said the show stated that we “know” that others must have evolved in the same manner and same time on different continents, but those must have died out because there is not evidence of them (in tracing back the DNA)
MattFunke:”Having all the answers is not, and never has been, a prerequisite for science.”
THat is my point. i am however stumped of the rest of your post, and any reply i offer would really just be a creationist, changing the subject or speculating of items that he knows to little about, i am not saying that my theory is wrong but i do feel that the points you have raised on your side warrant a certain amount of homework on my side.
however what i am finding increasingly difficult is how men a little more intelligent than myself tend to fall into common traps instead of providing us with answers, i can go onto the link i pointed out yesterday and read it and feel that he makes perfect sense, i can also read up on the RATE group how they did there studies and that to makes sense, then i will read from an opposite angle on why these tests were false, and in the end that to makes sense but it always turns into a finger pointing exersise and at the end of the day when both sound logical how do i make and base my decission, when no one is getting to the point when no one is interested in the truth but only proving that they are correct, where does that leave me?
do i need to become an expert on radiometric dating, fossils, astronomy, just so that i can learn the truth and base my assumptions on science, or should i as an intelligent man who can think logically be able to find out that the result and conclusion is?
May 14th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Mike R.
What do you mean your brain hurts, i think my brain gave up and left the building, although i must say this is one of the better disscussions of the subject that i have ever had, usually it turns very nasty very quickly without people taking the time not to argue but to actually discuss the subject, and to everyone here that have taken the time to actually discuss this, i take my hat off to you.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Mike R.: “I know this is a meaningless coincidence to most, but some may find it interesting.”
Actually i find all of this interesting.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Faust
>>>”VEry true, and i agree we can observe these changes, and even recreate them in some examples, but what we observe is not changes that happen over very long periods of time, these changes that you are mentioning are happening in a very short period of time, and i do doubt (but may be wrong) that any of these changes are as vast as a cold blooded land dweling lizard has been observed evolving into a warm blooded flying (or even not airborn) bird.”
There are transitional fossils which show changes happening over a long period. Tiktaalik is one of the best examples, and it was actually predicted by the theory. It has both fishlike and amphibian traits. And whereas most people tend to think of fossils being found by accident or found where other fossils are abundant, with this one they narrowed it down to 3 possible places in geological layers, then they went out and found it. Creationism has not even come close to making any kind of useful scientific predictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
>>>”like i stated before just because we have not discovered the purpoise does not mean that one does not exist, however i have read that the appendix (that is thought to be vestigal) does actually play a role in the human body, although i think that this has not been concluded as yet.”
I’m pretty sure that porpoises have been found. (sorry, couldn’t resist). The appendix’s function has been found if I recall, and if I remember rightly, it is supposed to collect bacteria to help us become more resistant to them in the future. Or something like that. Problem is, it has a nasty habit of becoming infected and therefore dangerous to our health. This would not be a good design, indeed there is nothing in biology which indicates “design” by a “designer”.
>>>”this then warrants me doing some research and more reading into the matter, if you could provide me with links?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
The internet is your friend.
>>>”i never said that, my point was that creationism is bashed due to certain assumptions, however to me it is logical to some degree.”
No, Creationism is bashed because it’s based on an assumption of the supernatural, has no scientific evidence and makes no useful scientific predictions. At all.
>>>”i am not saying that my theory is wrong but i do feel that the points you have raised on your side warrant a certain amount of homework on my side.”
Correct. Except there IS no Creation “theory”. Unless anyone out there can tell us what it is?
>>>”where does that leave me?”
With more homework?
>>>”do i need to become an expert on radiometric dating, fossils, astronomy, just so that i can learn the truth and base my assumptions on science, or should i as an intelligent man who can think logically be able to find out that the result and conclusion is?”
Not necessarily, you could remember that the people involved with these scientific fields are experts in their fields, that NONE of these rule out God (unless one ascribes to a literal interpretation of ancient superstitious scripture) and that the people who object to these sciences do so on theological and supernatural grounds, neither of which are scientific. Also, a little digging usually turns up that creationists who write up all these objections are normally not even qualified to critique what they speak of. If radiometric dating is wrong then nuclear power plants all over the country would be having big problems. Not to mention that astronomy also tells us that the Earth (and the universe) is old, and we’d have to re-evaluate those too. In other words, if one throws out evolution, then a whole slew of sciences (which all correlate nicely with each other) would also have to be thrown out the window. It would be enough to make one wonder how any scientific progress could ever be made at all.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Faust: i agree we can observe these changes, and even recreate them in some examples, but what we observe is not changes that happen over very long periods of time, these changes that you are mentioning are happening in a very short period of time, and i do doubt (but may be wrong) that any of these changes are as vast as a cold blooded land dweling lizard has been observed evolving into a warm blooded flying (or even not airborn) bird.
We haven’t directly observed a reptile becoming a bird, no. But we have the forensic evidence that it happened — in the morphologies of the lizard and the bird; in the stratigraphy of the fossil record, regardless of what you happen to think about aging techniques; in the similarity of their DNA; and in their molecular biochemistry.
The degree of change you suggest is simply too vast to watch quickly. (In fact, if it were to happen quickly enough for us to observe it in the last few centuries, it would be a pretty solid indication that evolution is false.) However, there is no change between them that requires something to change in the DNA or molecular biochemistry in a way that has never been seen before.
Think about how remarkable that is. Even before DNA was discovered, it was proposed that reptiles became birds based on other evidence (e.g., morphologies and fossil stratigraphy). Now that we have discovered DNA, we have found that we can explain the changes necessary to make that happen, using only the types of changes we’ve watched DNA make all on its own.
Faust: just because we have not discovered the purpoise does not mean that one does not exist, however i have read that the appendix (that is thought to be vestigal) does actually play a role in the human body,
You’re confusing “vestigial” with “useless”. “Vestigial” merely means “rudimentary”. A vestigial structure can still have a function (and often does); it’s just that the structure is far too complex for the role it plays — rather like using a television as a hammer. It can do the job, but that’s clearly not the job it was designed for (as one can see by looking at how televisions that bear a strong resemblance to yours are usually used).
For example, an ostrich has wings. On most other birds, these complex structures are adapted specifically and primarily for flight. Ostriches use them for balance and courtship displays. This does not mean that the ostrich’s wings are useless, but rather that they are highly adapted structures and that they are not being used for the purpose they were highly adapted for.
Dandelions reproduce without fertilization — yet they still produce pollen and retain flowers. There are many flightless beetles with fully-formed wings underneath fused carapaces. I’m sure you’ve heard of animals with fully-formed eyes that cannot see (like the Mexican tetra).
Even on the molecular level, we see vestigial structures — chemical processes that are rudimentary (or entirely useless), but still take place.
Here’s the point: no organism can have a vestigial structure that was not previously functional in one of its ancestors. You can see, I trust, that this makes a huge number of predictions as to which vestigial structures are impossible for any given species, since the phylogenetic tree is constructed independently from vestigial structures (they use derived characters and molecular sequence data; for example, all mammals have placentas, mammary glands, one bone in the lower jaw, three bones in the inner ear, and so on, with no reference being made to vestigial structures at all).
No mammal should ever be found, past or present, with vestigial feathers. No arthropods should have vestigial backbones. No primates should have vestigial horns or wings. No amphibians, birds, or reptiles should have vestigial nipples. No primate should have a vestigial gizzard. And so on.
The fact that every vestigial structure we’ve ever found has had a functional counterpart in an ancestor of that organism is powerful evidence that evolution is correct.
Faust: MattFunke:â??Youâ??re in luck. Transitional fossils are abundant.â??
this then warrants me doing some research and more reading into the matter, if you could provide me with links?
You could Google the specific organisms I referred to. Here are some other links that show transitional fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html
Faust: i do understand how they came about with the date, it was just in the end bit of the show where they make a few assumptions that i later go on to mention.
Oh, I see. My apologies. I didn’t understand.
Faust: at the end of the day when both sound logical how do i make and base my decission, when no one is getting to the point when no one is interested in the truth but only proving that they are correct, where does that leave me?
do i need to become an expert on radiometric dating, fossils, astronomy, just so that i can learn the truth and base my assumptions on science, or should i as an intelligent man who can think logically be able to find out that the result and conclusion is?
Fortunately, you don’t need to become an expert on all of this… though I grant that trying to keep up with who said what when and why is challenging.
Science doesn’t work by trying to prove that something is correct. It works by showing what is not correct. That’s why the concept of falsifiability is so important. If you’re being ethical, you need to show exactly what it is that would prove your ideas false.
That’s the biggest reason why evolutionists insist that creation “science” isn’t science. It never shows what data would prove it false. Indeed, if evidence comes along that would seem to prove it false, they don’t try to explain this contrary evidence so much as try to devise reasons why the evidence should be ignored and quote people who agree with them (or mutilate quotes from other people so that they appear to agree) rather than devise an experiment to determine the truth.
Let’s take the paper you showed me. Plaisted’s reason for ignoring varves is that “they show so little evidence of erosion or any kind of activity between the layers”. On the face of it, this does seem like an interesting point. If Plaisted were actually interested in doing science, he’d devise an experiment to show how much erosion should be expected and why, making conditions as close to those seen in varves as possible. He’d also make measurements of actual varves to see how much actual erosion there is between layers. He’d show the difference and why it is significant. And he’d include things that he didn’t test for. The important thing is that someone coming along later should be able to replicate exactly what he did and get exactly the same results; and someone else should be able to take into account some of the things he didn’t and see what kind of an effect those things have, even if the effect is to contradict his claims entirely.
Incidentally, that’s also why claims that the Grand Canyon could be washed out quickly on the basis that layers of ash from Mt. St. Helens’ eruption were washed out quickly are bogus. They’re not comparing like to like. Can you devise an experiment to show that it is possible to erode rocks like those seen in the Grand Canyon quickly? Under what circumstances?
It’s not enough to note that the geologic column is in layers and that hydrologic sorting produces layers. Does hydrologic sorting produce layers like the ones we see in the geologic column?
In short, you should be looking for whether experiments are done at all to support the claims, whether the experiments attempt to replicate what we see as closely as possible, and what the experimenter proposes might show that his ideas are wrong. If someone throws an idea out at you, feel free to ask for experimental verification of that idea, and what it would take to prove that idea false. If they actually have data they can point to, it requires you to do a little homework, but in the end, you’ll know why you think what you think, and that’s really important.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
A quick, more detailed analysis of Plaisted’s paper:
* I’m not 100% sure he knows what he’s talking about. For example, he says, “Lava that cools underground cools much more slowly, and can form large crystals. This type of lava typically forms granite or quartz”. If it’s underground, it’s not lava. It’s magma. In addition, you can get many more types of extrusive igneous rocks than “basalts” and many more types of intrusive igneous rocks than “granites”. And contrary to what he says, calcium-rich micas can contain strontium, and quite a bit of it at that.
* He speculates that decay rates might have been faster in the past. However, as I pointed out earlier, this is mere speculation. There is zero experimental evidence that shows that anything that elements on Earth might have faced in anything approaching a natural environment does anything to decay rates. As to the unusual stuff he mentions (massive amounts of neutrinos, cosmic rays, and/or neutrons), he gives no explanation as to why the chemistry of other elements was not also affected. (Of these suggestions, neutrinos aren’t even relevant; they frequently pass through the entire planet without stopping, and wouldn’t be a consistent way to affect decay rates of elements.)
* He states that the potassium-argon branching ratio and decay constants are poorly known. This is simply untrue — a bald lie; it’s known to better than a percent. He mentions a disagreement of 15% with respect to uranium-238’s decay rate, for example, when this value is known to better than a tenth of one percent.
* He states that argon can move in and out of rocks easily. While it’s true that argon can easily accumulate on the outside of minerals (through a process called adsorption), it’s not at all likely for it to move into their tight internal structures. Geologists are aware of this, and take pains to remove any surface argon before analysis.
* He worries that water may have gone through a mineral sample and that a geologist would never know it. This is simply laughable. Extensive testing is done before dating is even attempted to determine the extent of weathering or metamporphic heating. Geologists know the laws of chemistry well, and know what to look for. If the isotopes were affected by water, the chemistry of the rock itself would be affected as well.
* He expresses some concern that as molten rock moves along, it will pick up impurities that will throw off the results. So are geologists. They are so good at identifying these impurities under the microscope that sometimes, they choose to date the impurities rather than the cooled rock itself. (Interestingly, Steve Austin — a creationist — is rather poor at identifying them, as evidenced by his reports on the Grand Canyon and Mt. St. Helens.)
* His claims that different radiometric methods giving widely differing ages in pre-Cambrian rock are simply false.
* Corrections for atmospheric argon are well-known, easily performed, and very accurate. Plaisted need not worry about this as a possible source of error. (This also does nothing to address the ages of lunar rocks and meteorites.)
* I don’t know why he insists that atmospheric argon would tend to concentrate near the ground, especially since there’s wind.
* If (40)Argon is only produced by radioactive decay (which it is) and the Earth is only 6000 years old, why is there so stinking much of it? (His suggestion that it could have been formed by stars is not borne out by experiment.)
* Again, he treats Woodmorappe’s paper as legitimate. And Gentry’s halos, which have been long debunked as evidence for rapid creation.
Any one of these is enough to cast his thesis into doubt (that radioactive decay rates are not trustworthy), especially since no experiments are performed to show why the things that he argues should be taken seriously.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:39 am
here is the thing, he states that the process is flawed, you state that it is not, this however is not proof then eitherway, have have done a lot of reading (more than usuall) in the last day, but these answers just dont exist, because everyone is “right”.
MattFunke:”He speculates that decay rates might have been faster in the past. However, as I pointed out earlier, this is mere speculation.”
just taking this statement, it may be speculation, but decay rates are afected (as far as i know) by al sorts of items, like the earths gravitational field, cosmic radiation, etc,,, and as far as i know everyone agree’s that the magnitic field is weakining, that there was more cosmic radiation in the past, there are a lot of factors that make sense that the decay rates could have been affected by these items. so i am not saying that what he is saying is absolutly true, what i am saying is that it could be, there is reasonable doubt, for a scientist to dissmis it is un scientific, and just turns into a finger pointing exercise.
MattFunke:”He states that argon can move in and out of rocks easily.”
this as far as i understand is correct, but how do the remove the excess argon without contaminating the dating method used? a link on this would be usefull.
MattFunke:”He worries that water may have gone through a mineral sample and that a geologist would never know it. ”
now here i have to agree with him, how would they know it, lets take a rock that is 1000 years old, how sure can we be that the rock did not get affected by rain, a local flood, etc, now go back lets say just 10000 years that means a lot of rocks have to at some point undergone weathering of some kind, in a rock running under distilled water for just 4 hours removed 80% of the potassium in it, four hours is not alot of weathering, but it will greatly effect the dating, now if you want to look at an old earth theory then you would need to assume that every single rock has been weathered greatly at some point in time (4.5 Billion years is a long time, and conditions on the planet were rough, it is speculated that the spin of the earth was greater and the moon much closer, with huricane winds as the norm, that is a lot of weathering) so my question here is how can anyone look at a sample of rock and say that there was no weathering at all? there has to have been.
MattFunke:”If (40)Argon is only produced by radioactive decay (which it is)”
is argon also not released when there is a volcanic eruption?
MattFunke:”Again, he treats Woodmorappe’s paper as legitimate. And Gentry’s halos, which have been long debunked as evidence for rapid creation.”
even a fool can say something that is correct once in a while, he is as far as i can see just using the portions that he feels fit.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:18 am
Faust, are you familiar with the concept of sticking fingers in ears?
What do you mean, you ‘can’t hear me’?
May 15th, 2008 at 5:23 am
decay rates are afected (as far as i know) by al sorts of items, like the earths gravitational field, cosmic radiation, etc,
No, they are not.
At the nuclear scale, the earth’s gravity is essentially 0. I’ll let you do the math: The mass of a proton is: 1.67262158 × 10^-27 kg, the mass of the earth is 5.9742 × 10^24 kg. The gravitational constant is: 6.67300 × 10-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. The radius of the earth is: 6378100 m. The formula for gravitational force is (g * M1 * M2) / (r^2).
It would be possible for a cosmic ray to fission a nucleus if the highly unlikely event of a cosmic ray striking a nucleus occurred. However, that doesn’t happen often, and fission by cosmic ray isn’t really decay in the sense we’re discussing.
There are three primary modes of decay for atoms: alpha, beta, and gamma.
In alpha emission, the nucleus fires off an alpha particle (helium nucleus) losing two atomic numbers. U-238 decays into Th-234 by this method. The rate is governed by make-up of the large nucleus itself.
In beta emission, a neutron decays into a proton via the weak nuclear force. This has the effect of firing off a beta particle (electron) and an electron neutrino. A related decay (positron emission) works similarly (a proton decays into a neutrino via the weak force and emits a positron and an electron anti-neutrino). Again, the rates at which this can happen are well known. Gravity and the earth’s magnetism don’t matter at the scale of the W bosons that mediate this decay. An atom decaying by beta emission gains an atomic number (Cs-137 decays to Ba-137 and a beta). An atom decaying by positron emission loses an atomic number (Na-22 decays to Ne-22 and a positron).
Alpha and Beta decay can leave the new nucleus in an energy state that is not stable. To shed excess energy, the nucleus can move to the lower state and release a gamma photon. Again, the mechanism of this is well known.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Faust: decay rates are afected (as far as i know) by al sorts of items, like the earths gravitational field, cosmic radiation, etc,,,
But that’s the thing. Decay rates are not affected by Earth’s gravitational field. (Lunar decay rates and meteorite decay rates are identical, remember?) And if decay rates were changed by cosmic ray bombardment in the past, we should see tremendous changes in all other chemical reactions around the same and location. There are plenty of rocks there. We don’t see it.
Faust: so i am not saying that what he is saying is absolutly true, what i am saying is that it could be,
But that’s the thing. It couldn’t. In order for his suggestions to be true, other things would have to be true as well. They are not. Therefore, his scenario could not have taken place.
It’s like a forensic scientist investigating an arson scene and saying, “Obviously, gasoline was used as an accelerant”, when there is no evidence whatsoever that gasoline was used(*). When confronted about it, the scientist replies, “Well, there was a fire, wasn’t there? You don’t know! There’s reasonable doubt!”
Should the forensic scientists proclamation of gasoline be taken seriously? Why or why not?
(*) We can tell when gasoline was used to set or accelerate a fire; there are telltale burn marks, spread patterns, temperature indications, and so on that are proof positive of gasoline. Moreover, we’ve never seen a situation where gasoline was known to be an accelerant, yet these signs did not show up. If these signs do not exist, there is no reason at all to assume gasoline played any part.
Faust: there is reasonable doubt, for a scientist to dissmis it is un scientific,
Scientists dismiss these ideas because the scenarios presented are impossible. There is no “reasonable doubt” here. We’ve never seen a cosmic ray flood that does not profoundly influence the chemical reactions in the vicinity, and Plaisted offers no explanation as to why we don’t see it in this case so that an experiment can be set up to test his scenario.
His “explanation” is a just-so story. A handwaving exercise. And science doesn’t even study that sort of thing; it relegates it to the “fiction” section of the library.
Faust: MattFunke:”He states that argon can move in and out of rocks easily.”
this as far as i understand is correct, but how do the remove the excess argon without contaminating the dating method used?
That’s what I’m saying. It’s not correct. Argon cannot move into the tight internal structure of a rock easily at all.
It can adsorb onto the surface, but geologists know this and test the rock’s interior.
Faust: how sure can we be that the rock did not get affected by rain, a local flood, etc,
Extremely sure. Samples have been subjected to water immersion, humidity all across the range, pressure from vacuum to thousands of atmospheres, and temperature from near absolute zero to thousands of kelvins, and many other environmental pressures, and none of these factors has influenced decay rates in the slightest.
For us to take the idea that a flood would change decay rates seriously, an experiment needs to be devised that shows which flood-like circumstances would change the decay rate.
No one’s stopping these experiment from being performed. Until and unless someone can show experimental evidence that some scenario likely in a flood can alter decay rates, we have no reason to assume that any flood has altered decay rates.
Faust: in a rock running under distilled water for just 4 hours removed 80% of the potassium in it, four hours is not alot of weathering, but it will greatly effect the dating,
I don’t have the figures in front of me, so I don’t know whether your numbers are right (how often does distilled liquid water come up in nature?!). Regardless, we can tell just by looking at the rock where weathering has taken place, and how much. We can see where the surface has been worn away and where the chemistry has been altered.
Faust: if you want to look at an old earth theory then you would need to assume that every single rock has been weathered greatly at some point in time
We can tell how much weathering there was by looking. There’s no quick assumption here, or any attempt to calculate how much weathering there ought to be.
Faust: is argon also not released when there is a volcanic eruption?
Released, yes. Manufactured through radioactive decay, no. And even Plaisted admits that radioactive decay is the only way to get (40)Argon.
Six thousand years is not enough time for all the (40)Argon we see to have been manufactured.
Faust: MattFunke:”Again, he treats Woodmorappe’s paper as legitimate. And Gentry’s halos, which have been long debunked as evidence for rapid creation.”
even a fool can say something that is correct once in a while, he is as far as i can see just using the portions that he feels fit.
But that’s what I’m saying. His quotes from Woodmorappe’s paper do not fit; he uses precisely those portions that have been debunked for decades (the first link below treats the subject in depth). Gentry’s halos are not proof of rapid creation, yet he treats them as if they are (see the second link below). He is using the points that support his thesis, even though those points have long ago been shown to be invalid.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html
May 15th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Faust: so i am not saying that what he is saying is absolutly true, what i am saying is that it could be, there is reasonable doubt, for a scientist to dissmis it is un scientific,
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of how science is done.
“Reasonable doubt” is a legal term, not a scientific one.
The default scientific position is No. Not Yes. Not even Maybe. It’s No.
Until you can show me that some idea you’ve cooked up might just be possible, I have no reason to accept it. Until then, the answer is No.
Since the laws of the Universe aren’t written down anywhere, and since the only way we have to determine them is to perform tests, it’s the only logical position we can take.
Accepting a scenario because of “reasonable doubt” is what’s unscientific.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:43 am
MattFunke:”It’s like a forensic scientist investigating an arson scene and saying, “Obviously, gasoline was used as an accelerant”, when there is no evidence whatsoever that gasoline was used(*). When confronted about it, the scientist replies, “Well, there was a fire, wasn’t there? You don’t know! There’s reasonable doubt!””
Bad Example, i happen to know a little about the subject, when you start a normal (just papers as the accelerant) fire it burns sparatically, not evenly, the temp is also much lower temp.
a fire stated with gasoline, first the room will fill with petrol vapors, this ignights and thus the spread is fairly even (everything burns), the temp is much higher, however the major tell tale sign of a gasoline fire (even to the extend of where it started) is the calcium build up on the wall or ceiling and also the shape of the calcium is a telltale sign, the reason for this is this is where the fire starts is the highest temp.
now how do they know this for a fact, simple the burn down a building and take messurements of the temp, as well as watch how the fire spreads, and also the aftermath, i.e. they are observing from begining to end, they can run this 100 times and recieve the same result, there is not a single question mark over what is observed. unfortunatly dating well if you had a rock with absolute known age of 100 million years, and you dated it and the date reflected 100million years then you could say with absolute certanty that the dating technique is correct.
MattFunke:”We can tell how much weathering there was by looking. There’s no quick assumption here, or any attempt to calculate how much weathering there ought to be.”
But for a billion year old earth, that is a lot of weathering, i would assume the same even if the earth was only 100000 years old, and that would mean that every sample could be contaminated, every rock is weathered, been in contact with water, rain heat, extreeme heat, radiation, subject to cracks, there is no doubt about that, so that nothing we are looking at could possably be reliable in that regard?
May 15th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Faust: Bad Example, i happen to know a little about the subject, when you start a normal (just papers as the accelerant) fire it burns sparatically, not evenly, the temp is also much lower temp.
a fire stated with gasoline, first the room will fill with petrol vapors, this ignights and thus the spread is fairly even (everything burns), the temp is much higher, however the major tell tale sign of a gasoline fire (even to the extend of where it started) is the calcium build up on the wall or ceiling and also the shape of the calcium is a telltale sign, the reason for this is this is where the fire starts is the highest temp.
now how do they know this for a fact, simple the burn down a building and take messurements of the temp, as well as watch how the fire spreads, and also the aftermath, i.e. they are observing from begining to end, they can run this 100 times and recieve the same result, there is not a single question mark over what is observed.
THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I’M SAYING! We have observed what happens when a fire is accelerated with gasoline. We know the signs of the side effects of a gasoline fire. If the signs are completely missing, there is no reason to assume that the fire was accelerated with gasoline.
With respect to Plaisted’s scenario, we have observed what happens to things bombarded with subatomic particles over and over. The chemicals in rock do not show the signs of the side effects of heavy subatomic particle bombardment. The signs are completely missing. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that these rocks experienced heavy subatomic particle bombardment.
Faust: if you had a rock with absolute known age of 100 million years, and you dated it and the date reflected 100million years then you could say with absolute certanty that the dating technique is correct.
We can also say it with certainty when there is nothing that we can see that would throw our results off. It’s extremely rare for a cause to have only one effect (in this case, throwing a radiometric clock out of whack and nothing else), and we know how to test for the side effects that we know about.
If you can show experimentally that there is something we have not taken into account that would throw off our results, you (or anyone else) are completely free to do so. That’s how science learns.
If you’re waving your hands and announcing without experimental evidence that there must be something we have failed to account for because we don’t know about it, that’s speculation. It is most definitely not science.
Faust: But for a billion year old earth, that is a lot of weathering,
Irrelevant. We can tell how much weathering there is by looking, without having to know how old the rock is.
Faust: i would assume the same even if the earth was only 100000 years old, and that would mean that every sample could be contaminated, every rock is weathered, been in contact with water, rain heat, extreeme heat, radiation, subject to cracks,
Irrelevant. We can see evidence of all of these things by looking at the rock itself, because we know the laws of chemistry and how rocks react to weathering through experiment and direct observation — regardless of how old the rock is.
No matter whether the rock is old and has undergone light weathering, or whether the rock is young and has undergone heavy weathering, or any scenario in between, we can determine how much weathering the rock has undergone by looking at the rock; we can be completely ignorant of its age and still determine this.
Faust: nothing we are looking at could possably be reliable in that regard?
Only to you, perhaps, if you cannot determine the amount of weathering a rock has undergone by looking, or who refuses to look at the fact that the side effects of unusual scenarios are completely missing.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
My apologies, I was distracted when I put the gravity thing up and I didn’t finish. As I was saying, on the nuclear level, gravity doesn’t matter. If you do that math, you will find that a proton in a nucleus feels a force of gravity equal to 1.64 * 10^-26 Newtons. If you were to consider, say, a U-238 nucleus, the total force of gravity on that nucleus would be approximately 238 times greater, or 3.90 * 10^-24 Newtons.
The electrostatic repulsion between two protons, however, is another matter completely. That can be calculated by the formula (k * q1 * q2)/r^2. The charge of a proton is 1.602 * 10^-19 C, the radius of a proton is 8.25 * 10^-16 m, and k is 8.988 * 10^9 (N m^2 / C^2). If you multiply that all out, you get a force equal to 338.9 N
That last number is huge. 338.9 N is the same force you must exert to lift a 72 lb barbell in the gym… and it’s being applied to two protons. It is a force that is 100000000000000000000000000 greater than the force of gravity on those protons. In fact, in a U-238 atom, there are 92 protons, so the electric force trying to repel any given proton is 91 times bigger still. Hence, it’s fair to say that gravity does’t matter for anything in nuclear decay.
Overcoming that huge electric repulsion force is the strong nuclear force. As you can imagine, it is strong indeed. However, the strong nuclear force only operates over short distances, after which if falls off rapidly and the electromagnetic force takes over. Unfortunately, I don’t have nice numbers for calculating the strong force handy. Wikipedia has a nice article on the strong force:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
In any case, it is the strong and weak forces that matter for radioactive decay, not gravity, and not electric.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:57 am
MattFunke you are missing my point completely, i have read that article on the subject as well as many others (not all on creatinist websites)
Pailey says that the method is wrong and from a logical point of view he makes perfect sense, however he does not provide evidence, you are saying he is wrong and from a logical point of view you make perfect sense as well.
my point is this both arguements cannot make perfect sense if one has to be wrong.
you are saying that we can tell if the rocks are contaminated, he is saying that scientists over look certain facts (in a nutshell), now unless i have a complete understanding of the subject (which let me tell you has increases 7 fold already) i cannot dissagree with either point of view and have to base my assumptions on what i feel is most logical, you are not explaining how they test for contamination, and how that test is accurate, just that they do and that it is accurate based on what you are telling me, now the wrong thing for me to do would be to just take your word for it.
what i am saying is that i can say for a certanty that all dating methods have there flaws, (i found a site that lists about 30 different dating methods, some of these agree with a young earth and some with an old earth) and that is a fact, now if these dating methods have messures in place to correct these flaws, then for me to make a decission i need to know what these corrective methods are and how they work and what there flaws are and if those in turn effect the dating methods.
Evolving Squid thanks mate, some of that does go way over my head, but it is none the less good reading matterial.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:24 am
>>>”i cannot dissagree with either point of view and have to base my assumptions on what i feel is most logical, you are not explaining how they test for contamination, and how that test is accurate, just that they do and that it is accurate based on what you are telling me, now the wrong thing for me to do would be to just take your word for it.”
So you think that both opinions are valid because you (admittedly) don’t understand the science, despite the fact that you’ve admitted that your creo “scientist” offers no evidence (and from what I can tell no scientific alternatives) and also the fact that he’s already been shown to be unqualified in the relevant areas?
May 16th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Faust: Pailey says that the method is wrong and from a logical point of view he makes perfect sense, however he does not provide evidence, you are saying he is wrong and from a logical point of view you make perfect sense as well.
my point is this both arguements cannot make perfect sense if one has to be wrong.
Oh, okay. I’m sorry. I think I see what you’re getting at.
You’re right that you shouldn’t just be taking our word for it. After all, part of the power of science is that it has been able to show us things that “common sense” would never have been able to come up with. The fact that spacetime is curved, or that electrons make quantized jumps in their orbital shells, are ideas that are amazingly counterintuitive — yet experimentation and patience have revealed that these things are true, as difficult as they might be to imagine. If you’re going to take something as “scientific”, you shouldn’t be listening to what makes good horse sense; you should be listening to what we have experimental evidence for.
It pays to remember this along the way with respect to the scientific community: Prestige does not come from agreeing with what has been laid down before by other people. Prestige comes from finding evidence that someone else’s practices were questionable and that their conclusions are therefore suspect, or from finding solid experimental evidence that what people have been saying so far is completely wrong. Scientists dream of being able to overturn some major scientific principle with an experiment, since it would guarantee instant fame. (In our contexts thus far, anyone able to show that radiometric dating is unreliable or that evolution is false would doubtless gain a Nobel Prize.)
Here are some links that might help you out with respect to ways that geologists attempt to avoid error in their radiometric dating techniques (I have a feeling that WordPress will complain; it doesn’t like it when five or more URLs are embedded in a message).
First, some evidence that radiometric dating is reliable based on independent tests of age. Here are some sites that point out consistent radiometric ages with different isotopes in a single sample, itself a powerful indication that radiometric dating is reliable:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/crater_chain.html
Here’s a site that shows radiometric dates being consistent with directly measured rates of tectonic movement:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html
Radioactive dating consistent with stratigraphy:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/confirm.html
Radioactive dating consistent with Malinkovitch cycles:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eos96336.html
How to change nuclear decay rates (anyone who argues that a decay rate has changed has to show that certain things have happened):
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html
Since I don’t know how deep the material you’ve read is, I’ve included some basic stuff to get things moving in the right direction:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
http://www.jwoolfden.com/rad_dat.html
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm
http://geoweb.tamu.edu/courses/geol101/grossman/Absolute.time.pp.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
Now for some detail on the method of radioactive dating:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo656/656notes.html
(That last link will give you a 273-page book on geochemistry as it relates to radiometric dating, if you download everything there.)
This includes a discussion on how good samples are found and how potential errors are corrected for with respect to carbon-14 dating:
http://www.c14dating.com/
The technical journal Radiocarbon, which will show you all kinds of actual-in-the-field measurements, corrections, and so on. It’s a down-and-dirty way to see how they do what they do, and what kinds of measures they take to attempt to avoid error or “unjustified assumption” accusations from their colleagues:
http://www.radiocarbon.org/
(The “Information and Links” section will show you actual laboratories and software.)
Getting deeper than this requires getting books and the periodical literature in the field. Here are some titles to look for:
The Age of the Earth, G. Brent Dalrymple
This is actually well-written for the non-specialist. Don’t expect it to be easy going, though. It shows how we know that the endlessly repeated creationist criticisms against radiometric dating (including those mentioned by Plaisted) are false.
Principles of Isotope Geology, Gunter Faure
This is about as technical about the geology and physics of radiometric dating as it’s possible to get.
Radiogenic Isotope Geology, Alan P. Dickin
Also quite technical. Gives quite a bit of detail on dating methods.
Radioactive and Stable Isotope Geology, Hans-Gunter Attendorn and R.N.C. Bowen
In addition to the usual treatment of radiometric dating methods and isotope geochemistry, there’s a decent treatment of isotopic analysis and climate.
Nuclear Methods of Dating, Etienne Roth et al.
Doesn’t deal as much with geochemistry, but after the first chapter, goes into amazing detail on the possibilities, limitations, analytical techniques, and preferred applications. This ought to show you just how careful geologists are to make sure their sample is worth using for determining radiometric age.
Since Plaisted was so down on postassium-argon and argon-argon dating, I have to incude the bible of argon-argon dating:
Geochronology and Thermochronology by the 40Ar/39Ar Method, Ian MacDougall and T. Mark Harrison
Finally, some lighter stuff. What would have actually happened if decay rates had been faster in the past?:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm
Some of the instances that creationists use (e.g., “A fresh Hawaiian lava flow was dated at 22 million years old!”) are nothing more than urban legend:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html
When the issue of “contamination” comes up generally, it pays to remember that radiometric ages have worked consistently across the Solar System. Any explanation that attempts to contrive how Earth’s rocks were contaminated has to explain how all of those rocks were contaminated, too. “It had something to do with a global flood” doesn’t wash, if you’ll pardon the pun. It also would have to explain how this thing that accelerated radioactive decay didn’t alter the chemistry of the rest of the rock. Finally, one must remember that the precision of these measurements only within a percent or so; if a given dating method can only determine an age within, say, 30 million years (good enough when you’re talking about the possibility of something being billions of years old), then something brand-new could well appear to be 30 million years old! Those three principles will guide you through most of the criticisms against radiometric dating.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Darth Robo:”So you think that both opinions are valid because you (admittedly) don’t understand the science, despite the fact that you’ve admitted that your creo “scientist” offers no evidence (and from what I can tell no scientific alternatives) and also the fact that he’s already been shown to be unqualified in the relevant areas?”
that is such a typical statement, what i said is that with out being an expert in all these subjects there is no way for me to tell you the truth, I.E. i could explain something to you twice, one being non truth however you would not know the difference, i could explain exactly how your CPU works, you would never be able to prove me wrong. so for that example the world was divided on exactly how your CPU Works, you may have not studied it and therefore be totally reliant on the experts and your own logical brain (if you have one).
May 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
MattFunke, thanks i really appreciate what you have put into this and i must say that you (and the squid) have been so far not what i have encounted in other discussions with “evolutionists”, as for the litrature being technical, i think that is really what is needed, laymans terms dont really go in depth and leave someone in the position that i am currently sitting in.
anyway it is 8:00 PM here currently and i have a weekend ahead of me, have a great weekend and i am sure we will chat again soon.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Faust: i could explain something to you twice, one being non truth however you would not know the difference, i could explain exactly how your CPU works, you would never be able to prove me wrong.
Well, to be fair, he would if he had a solid grasp of logic. He’d be able to look at explanation A and explanation B and determine that they each predict different things about the state of the CPU.
If he were really clever, he could come up with an experiment that would show which of those different models of CPU operation was more likely. (”If explanation A is true, I should see X when I do Y. If explanation B is true, I should see Z when I do Y.” Of course, if neither X nor Z is visible when Y is done, he will need to seek out a different explanation altogether.)
Of course, if he sees X, he will not be able to see the difference between that and all other operational explanations that would show X when Y is performed. Hence the need for more experimentation as new explanations pop up.
In the case of our geology discussion, we can say, for example, “If decay rates were substantially faster in the past, I should be able to see the results in the rest of the chemistry in the rock.” The fact that we do not see these results in the rest of the chemistry of the rock indicates that different decay rates is not responsible for the current state of the rock.
Does that prove, then, that the rock must be old? Well, no. But of all the things we’ve been able to think up so far, “old age” is the only one that still fits the facts of what we observe.
As I’ve mentioned before, you can continue to insist that something will be found someday that will account for our observations and still permit the rocks to be young. But until you can come up with an experiment to determine which model is correct, perform it, and inform us of the results, this is mere speculation.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I’d like to offer a virtual beer to both Evolving Squid and Matt Funke for explaining the science far better than I ever could.
But Faust, (adding to Matt Funke’s points about the different CPU states) as for your example of the 2 different explanations of how a CPU works: You give me 2 explanations of how a CPU works, one explanation is from a computer scientist, the other is from a geologist (who is trying to tie his explanation with biblical scripture). My gut feeling here, even if I couldn’t distinguish the usefulness of either of their explanations, would be to go for the computer scientist, as 1: he is is not trying to fit his explanation towards a preconceived notion, and 2: he is trained to know what he’s talking about.
Now, as to the age of the earth, we are giving you geologists and astrophysicists for an old Earth, while you are giving us a computer scientist (who is trying to fit his explanations to concur with a literal interpretation of biblical scripture) arguing for a young Earth. Do you see what I’m getting at here?
Anyway, back to my vodka - cheers everybody!
May 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am
MattFunke:”Well, to be fair, he would if he had a solid grasp of logic. He’d be able to look at explanation A and explanation B and determine that they each predict different things about the state of the CPU.
If he were really clever, he could come up with an experiment that would show which of those different models of CPU operation was more likely. (”If explanation A is true, I should see X when I do Y. If explanation B is true, I should see Z when I do Y.” Of course, if neither X nor Z is visible when Y is done, he will need to seek out a different explanation altogether.)”
This is something that i do know a lot about it is what i have studied and unfortunatly my career choice (IT and electronics), now lets assume that this was a slightly obscure subject, then trust me i could tell you any thing, and unless you have studied the subject or have the equipment, there is no way you would know the truth, an example is when i was very young 13 (i am currently 33, just to put into perspective) i did a project at school with a strobe lite, it used a capacitor, now at that time i had no idea what a capacitor was or how it worked, the one used was like i round tube about 4 cm long and 2 cm in Diameter, i had no clue how this worked, so i came up with how i thought it worked and it sounded logical, i explained to everyone that inside this tube was a motor that would spin, and with each cycle would make contact with the terminals and the strobe would pulse, at that point in time no one had computers (a calculator was a big step, and electronics were not as widly used as the are today) the thing is not did only i believe it, but everyone did, the parents, the teachers, everyone, i now know that a capacitor stores a charge of electrical current (sort of like a battery) and the discharges, and i could go very in depth on how and why, but the point is if i have to travel back in time (before the internet and readily available amounts of info) and tell both sides of that same story i would have a large amount of people believing what i say without question just logical thought, now sure i could cut the capacitor up and verify, but move that onto a CPU that even if i cut it up i would not be able to see how it works. so at the end of the day it is not just about intelligence and logical thinking, it is about having the access to the right tools, and having a wealth of information that is at your fingertips that is also reliable and correct.
Darth:”My gut feeling here, even if I couldn’t distinguish the usefulness of either of their explanations, would be to go for the computer scientist, as 1: he is is not trying to fit his explanation towards a preconceived notion, and 2: he is trained to know what he’s talking about. ”
but that is what i am trying to say, it could be two scientists, just stating a different opinion, there is no way to logically come to an answer (remember some of these creationists have as many science degrees as the next) so at the end of the day both make sense.
PS i agree with the virtual beer, these guys have been very patient and are explaining things very well.
Cheers.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:03 am
Faust: This is something that i do know a lot about it is what i have studied and unfortunatly my career choice (IT and electronics),
Good for you. My degree is in electrical engineering, digital electronics (BSEE). Bring it on.
Faust: now lets assume that this was a slightly obscure subject, then trust me i could tell you any thing, and unless you have studied the subject or have the equipment, there is no way you would know the truth,
If I had some way to measure the device in a pertinent fashion, I could deduce what the implications of your predictions are and, if I am clever in the way I deduce the implications and measure the device, determine if what you say is false.
If I had no way to measure things or even test the logical implications of your explanation, then there’d be no point in accepting or denying your explanation. The smart thing to do would be to be skeptical. This scenario is roughly equivalent to attempts to explain how the Sun shone before we had discovered thermonuclear chemistry. All the best science could do is explain what it wasn’t — it sure wasn’t a conventional chemical fire, for example. It had to be skeptical about explanations that were given until experimental data could be acquired that would absolutely eliminate certain explanations.
The degree to which I can determine whether what you tell me is true depends on the number and kinds of tests I can perform. I may never be absolutely certain, but I could gain increasing confidence in the explanation you give me.
Science works like this. We’re pretty sure that gravity exists, for example, since we’ve run all sorts of tests along many independent lines of inquiry and gravity still seems to be the best explanation of the phenomena we see. There’s plenty of debate about the details, but the idea of gravity itself has been so thoroughly tested that it will not be moved easily.
It’s the same way with evolution. It’s been tested so many times along so many independent lines of inquiry that the existence of evolution is not really doubted. There’s debate about the details, sure, but the basic concepts — e.g., natural selection, common descent — are well established and are not going to move easily.
Likewise the considerable age of the Earth. We’ve concentrated quite a bit on radiometric dating, but there are many other indications of the Earth’s age and history that all agree (not only with the date of formation, but with things that happened along the way). The idea that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old is thoroughly tested and well established, and it isn’t going to change quickly.
Faust: the thing is not did only i believe it, but everyone did, the parents, the teachers, everyone,
All you’ve shown is that they didn’t do their homework. We have the ability to determine how capacitors work, using more than one kind of instrument.
Science is not swayed by argument. As I’ve pointed out, there are many ideas that science has shown us are true that are powerfully counterintuitive and very difficult even to imagine (though the mathematical modeling is straightforward enough). It is swayed by experimental evidence. The days of thinking up some way for the Universe to work and then trying to prove that your pretty ideas are true went away with Aristotle. The only thing you can do is try to prove your pretty ideas false; otherwise, you only have varying degrees of certainty about your concepts of the way things work.
Faust: so at the end of the day it is not just about intelligence and logical thinking, it is about having the access to the right tools, and having a wealth of information that is at your fingertips that is also reliable and correct.
Agreed. I trust you’ll also see that it’s far easier to prove something false than true.
Something we’ve never seen before could controvert the idea of an old Earth or of evolution tomorrow. Something we’ve never seen before could controvert any scientific principle. Until then, all we have is what’s left after we’ve established what’s false.
Faust: but that is what i am trying to say, it could be two scientists, just stating a different opinion, there is no way to logically come to an answer (remember some of these creationists have as many science degrees as the next) so at the end of the day both make sense.
Um, perhaps, if both explanations fit the facts. What I’ve been trying to point out is that the “explanations” for why radiometric dating might be unreliable (for example) don’t fit the facts. In fact, there is no explanation that has yet come up that explains it other than old age (unless you bring in supernatural stuff, and science doesn’t deal with that; if you want to invoke the supernatural, you can make up anything you want).
Could something come up tomorrow that fits the facts and explains what we see nicely? Sure, it’s possible. But as more and more evidence comes in along different lines of inquiry that all agree with each other, it gets increasingly silly to insist that this is the case.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:06 am
MattFunke:”Good for you. My degree is in electrical engineering, digital electronics (BSEE). Bring it on.”
Mmmm, a higher degree than mine, still i was not boasting my intelligence, just stating that i am well versed on the subject.
MattFunke:”If I had no way to measure things or even test the logical implications of your explanation, then there’d be no point in accepting or denying your explanation. The smart thing to do would be to be skeptical.”
Yes being skeptical can be healthy, but here is my point in all this (other that the fact that it is a fairly well known subject and no doubt as to how a cpu works, considering everyone agrees on it, there are no grey areas) but we know that a CPU is just transistors configured into logic gates switching on and off giving you your ones and zeros, but how would your average man on the street argue differently, a scary fact is i interview technicains who have had “years of experiance” and even diploma’s who have no clue (and not just the electronic’s of a computer), now take this back 20 years, i could i could say just about anything (can thing of a fake way that sounds logical) but as long as it sounds logical, it will be believed, even by some that are intelligent, why, because they would lack the resources to find out for them selves, just like i lack the resources to physically go into radiometric dating.
MattFunke:”Agreed. I trust you’ll also see that it’s far easier to prove something false than true.”
i agree 100%
anyway this has been a great discussion that i have enjoyed, and i need to just carry on trying to find the truth is all, you have been a great help though.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Faust: it is a fairly well known subject and no doubt as to how a cpu works, considering everyone agrees on it,
We have to be careful there, too. Science doesn’t work through consensus. But I think I understand your point.
Faust: we know that a CPU is just transistors configured into logic gates switching on and off giving you your ones and zeros, but how would your average man on the street argue differently,
Ours is a peculiar society. We depend on a certain level of technological prowess, but most people are terribly ignorant of the tools they use on a daily basis. “I just turn the key and it goes” has become a cliche for expressing this kind of ignorant(*) dependence on a car; in the same way, many who use computers have no idea how they actually function, especially now that we live in an era where using Windows is as deep as most people ever need to go.
It’s a good thing that science isn’t determined by debate. General ignorance about science is so profound, however, that most people I talk to think that logical arguments are all there is to it, and expect that the winner of a debate has “proven” his case “scientifically”.
We need much better science education in this country, but I don’t have the first clue as to how to go about getting it.
(*) I don’t mean this as a personal insult to them. There are some people who are otherwise very intelligent who just don’t have any knowledge connected to the functionality of the machines and tools they use. Even those with a certain amount of knowledge may find out that their knowledge is terribly specialized.
Faust: now take this back 20 years, i could i could say just about anything (can thing of a fake way that sounds logical) but as long as it sounds logical, it will be believed, even by some that are intelligent,
Twenty years? Doubtful. I’ve been programming for longer than that. Computers back then worked according to the same general theories we use now (they’re still von Neumann machines). We even had integrated circuits, disk drives, optical drives, and monitors.
The point is, though, that whether or not a given explanation sounds logical or is believed by intelligent people has zero impact on whether or not that explanation is scientific. For that matter, so does the correctness of an explanation. Newtonian mechanics are scientific, even though they are certainly not correct.
ID is not scientific for reasons that have already been outlined (it’s not observable, repeatable, or falsifiable), but it also lacks something else that’s important in scientific theory: predictive power. A scientific explanation ought to give us the ability not only to understand what we see, but to predict what no one has yet seen. ID’s answer to complex biological structures is to stop at admitting ignorance — something with zero predictive power. Evolutionary biology’s answer is to try to determine how it happened, and to show what this understanding predicts. If the predictions are false, then a new theory is needed. If the predictions are true, then more predictions and experiments are needed.
Faust: i need to just carry on trying to find the truth is all,
A little secret: being comfortable with science requires being comfortable with uncertainty.