Atheists prove their smarts by censoring opponents and hiding racist letters.
“Looking at the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world,” wrote Charles Darwin in 1881.1 Here are three more untruths:
1. Darwin’s disciples say: “Early efforts to thwart Darwin were pretty crude. Tennessee famously banned the teaching of evolution and convicted school-teacher John Scopes of violating that ban in the ‘monkey trial’ of 1925.” – Claudia Wallis, reporter, TIME.2
I’m not sure where Claudia Wallis buys her history books from. Needless to say, TIME is spotlighting Tennessee’s “pretty crude” history and burying Darwin’s “lower race” theories because . . .? If this were a line from Jay Leno’s show, it might be amusing.
And how did those long-tempered atheists treat their Christians? The Russian State Commission (headed by Alexander Yakovlev) reveals that in the 1920s and 1930s:
Most priests [approximately two hundred thousand] were shot or hanged, although other methods used by the Communist death squads included crucifying pastors on their church doors [or] leaving them to freeze to death after being stripped and soaked in water during winter.
Charming. For decades, Russia’s godless dictatorship silenced millions and famously banned Christ’s teachings. They were even crucifying believers to doors. No wonder those folks in Tennessee came to question the wisdom of atheists.
Perhaps, Christians were just following God without embarrassing monkeys. I don’t know. John Scopes, the teacher, however, was just lucky he was not a Southern Baptist living in Red Moscow – and it helps to see Tennessee as a “crucifixion-free” zone.
2. Darwin’s disciples say: “It [Bush’s view on intelligent design] sends a signal to other countries because they’re rushing to gain scientific and technological leadership and we’re getting distracted with a pseudoscientific issue . . . If I were China I’d be happy.” – Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), Arlington, Virginia.3
Isn’t questioning the evolutionary theory of evolution progressive? Not anymore. In Wheeler’s books, “they’re” all just hanging onto Bush’s iniquitous words. Seriously. I wonder what Arlington’s intellects think about Islam’s young-Earth creationists and their distractive voices.
Mysteriously, atheistic teachers were never “distracted” by Mao’s killing fields. Or Stalin’s holiday camps in Serbia. Yet, talking about intelligent design, we’re informed, sends a “signal” to Red China. It might even distract scientists from trafficking in human parts. Tissues, anyone?
That said, the National Science Teachers Association’s conundrum runs deep. No doubt, those “other countries” across Africa are really “rushing to gain scientific and technological leadership” after memorizing Bush’s homilies. I can hear the savages. The NSTA members must stop those Africans getting ahead of themselves now! What gives them the right to “gain scientific and technological leadership?”
3. Darwin’s disciples say: “Our own bodies are riddled with quirks that no competent engineer would have planned but that disclose a history of trial-and-error tinkering: a retina installed backward, a seminal duct hooks over the ureter like a garden hose sagged on a tree, goose bumps that uselessly try to warm us by fluffing up long-gone fur.” – Steve Pinker, Psychology Professor, Harvard University.4
The glass is half empty. Pinker jabbers about “a retina installed backward” whereas the Christian sees God’s handiwork in her daughter’s eyes. Pinker – not an optimist, I’m sure – whines about goose bumps because, in his view, they serve no earthly purpose. Pinker loathes creation.
Yet, Leonardo da Vinci, a committed creationist, thought that humans were spiritual beings. He gave us “The Last Supper.” Pinker gives me wind. The erudite Professor cannot explain the purpose of “goose bumps” so the Almighty doesn’t exist.
In the Biblical worldview, however, God states that humans are wonderfully imperfect, but that we will be perfected in the next life. Thus, Pinker’s “clever argument” is not going to convince theologians in hurry. Or Africa. (Hey Harry, is a Harvard goof misquoting God again?)
Even so, the American Psychological Association likens those pesky bumps to “warning signs.” They can, according to the APA, alert us to our fellowman’s anger. Possibly – and I hate to sound controversial – they tell us that a crying baby is cold and needs a blanket.
In essence, a Harvard professor feels that he has “purposeless” bumps on his backside, and I have to reject God? A few decades ago, some Ivy League stars also ridiculed the Bible’s “purposeless” anti-marriage verses until – oops! – the AIDS bomb exploded in San Francisco’s dirty bathhouses (for some odd reason).
Honestly, if a baby’s face is the sign of an incompetent engineer, then give me more God. The Church of Darwin’s scribes have emphasized the so-called negatives: goose bumps, “apelike” aboriginals, Tennessee’s bible-believing Christians, Red China’s happiness. You get the picture. The Apostle Paul, on the other side, offered hope to the “useless eaters” around two thousand years ago. His famous letter to the Galatians (3:28) states: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ.”
Endnotes
1. Letters from Charles Darwin to W. Graham, 3rd July, 1881.
2. "The Evolution Wars," by Claudia Wallis, TIME Magazine, August 15, 2005, pages 54-59.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
mountain man…
sweeping generalizations and stereotypes? like what? i know quite a bit about religious people. i’ve grown up in the bible belt and am in fact a religious person myself…
i do indeed object to those who say “religious person” yet in fact mean “christian” or “my religion” which they equate with “the only true religion”.
exemplifies the very traits i attribute to religionists? because i want my science to be science and my religion to be religion?
i indeed love my christian and islamic fundamentalist brothers and sisters, but in that they do ever try to enforce their beliefs on me, screeching martyrdom when opposed, am i supposed to not oppose them? absurd.
to oppose their attempts to forcefully proselytize is…to persecute them? really?
well, thats the way they work…force their religion then screech persecution when opposed. fine…i’m persecuting by refusing to fold!
Case in point. Thanks, ibbleblibble.
har har har…
happy halloween, mountain man!
Ibbleblibble:
Pardon my (accurate) stereotype; From the perspective of a Darwiniac Fundamentalist sanctimonious Barking Moonbat, what is your personal (short meta-version) of…Where did we come from (e.g. origins…)? Why are we here (e.g. soul…)? Where are we going (e.g. fertilizer…)? This would help greatly in recovering what little sense might be salvaged from your bloviations.
Just an aside; I used to try to engage in polite debate, but gave it up as an effort in futility. Now I enjoy Ann Coulter’s view of dishing it back while oooing and ahhhing at the eye popping, vein bulging, spittle spraying, aneurysm causing outrage from folks who can’t take it. It’s just like lighting off bottle rockets. MK
“Some attempt to argue that they don’t need God to have morality.
They can live a moral life even though they don’t believe in a divine
being. But no one argues that an atheist can’t behave in a way one might
call moral. The question is, Why ought he? Trappist monk Thomas Merton
put it this way: “In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave?
Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions
I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your
imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on
me in the name of nothing?”
A moral atheist is like someone who sits down to dinner who
doesn’t believe in farmers, ranchers, fishermen, or cooks. She believes
the food just appears, with no explanation and no sufficient cause. This
is silly. Either her meal is an illusion or someone provided it. In the
same way, if morals exist, as we have argued, then some cause adequate to
explain the effect must account for them. God is the most reasonable
solution.” “Relativism, Feet firmly planted in mid-air”, Beckwith and Koukl
The basic dilemma here is why “ought” we to behave in any particular
manner rather than another? All arguments for cultural, philosophical,
sociological, anthropological, evolutionary, or communitarian moral
behavior rest in the end, on mere opinion. A more inadequate bulwark to
safeguard your life or liberty behind can hardly be imagined. Dirt Roads Scholar
“In the beginning were the particles and the impersonal laws of
physics. And the particles somehow became complex living stuff. And the
stuff imagined God; But then discovered evolution.” Phillip Johnson,
“The Right Questions”
Carl:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58426
michael
you believe we shaved apes can understand everything in a logical rational way? if so, good for you.
you are wrong.
how could i explain the color blue to one born without ocular nerves?
in terms of morality there are many speculations as to why an atheist can be moral…because you dont understand it cannot be so?
really? no pride here, eh…
perhaps you over impute your own motivation. very few people make it to the highest levels of morality, “god” or not.
where do we come from? why are we here? where are we going?
does christianity answer these questions, and if so how do you or anyone else know?
i’m a bad buddhist (rinzai zen mainly) with gnostic leanings…so those questions dont really interest me too much. but mental masturbation is fun.
i like chocolate cake. i might say chocolate cake makes me happy, but that would be wrong. if i ate two pieces of chocolate cake, would i be twice as happy as if i ate one? if i ate 50 pieces, not only would i not be 50 times happier, i would in fact be far more miserable. chocolate cake is not, therefore, a source of happiness. everything of this world is like this.
there. i hope that was sufficiently moonbatty to satisfy your preconceptions of one who believes differently than you. happy halloween!
fbaginski: Chaos wouldn’t be chaos if it couldn’t sometimes produce order. Indeed, sometimes chaos has to be ‘ordered’ to prevent the production of order: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/07/order_from_chaos_using_graphs_1.php
Mr. Ingles,
Nice theory. I am not sure if I can describe to you the holes in this logic if you can’t see them already.
Maybe a picture will help. Draw a box. Add colored dots to the box. But you can’t use any energy to add the colored dots. Pretty frustrating isn’t it. This is heat death.
While the universe is running down there is a flow of energy from concentrated places to areas where there is low energy. In this environment we exist because we tap into the flow in a variety of ways. Take away the flow and all life and most things we enjoy go away. To start the cycle energy from out side the heat dead area (the universe)must separate or concentrate the energy of the system(the universe). Your graphs are cute but require outside intervention. Far from proving anything they provide at best an interesting mind game over a couple of beers. However, if you do find a way to break the laws of thermodynamics let me know. I am always looking for new cutting edge science.
Maybe another example is in order.
A guy went into his office to start his day. He found that all of the air in the office had collected in one corner of the room. His blood boiled due to the low pressure in the rest of the room. He died.
In this case the air ordered itself into a corner. If you expect me to believe this theory then I must believe this story could be true as well. Sorry, I can’t accept the theory.
The problem is, fbaginski, that if your understanding of thermodynamics were correct, the formation of snowflakes – ordered, symmetrical shapes – would not be possible. Oh, but that comes from energy flow, you say? …then how is evolution forbidden? It’s not a ‘chance’ process, though chance plays a part – in the same way that it’s not chance that snowflakes form, though the exact shape they take is influenced by chance.
As I’ve always acknowledged, we don’t know what happened before the ‘big bang’. But we’ve got a fairly solid picture about what happened afterward, particularly in our corner of the universe. You are free to believe that a conscious entity organized the effects of the big bang to give rise to stars and so forth – that can’t be disproven. But given stars, and Earth, and life (I don’t claim at all that abiogenesis is a solved problem), evolution is inevitable, and the evidence supports it.
I recognize you don’t accept that evidence having ‘chucked most of modern science’, in your words. That, there, is more skepticism than I can muster.
Raymond Ingles:
“Before” the big bang? Did time exist before the big bang?
sedonaman – We don’t even know what happened at the big bang – our models break down a few femtoseconds (or something like that) after the bang. We aren’t sure what happened before that. It’ll take reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics to push further back than that.
Considering our species’ poor track record at guessing about things far removed from our experience and the environment we evolved in, I strongly suspect the answer – if we get to it – won’t look anything like all the various theories (religious or otherwise) that have been put forth so far.
Raymond Ingles:
OK, here’s an easier one: If there was only one body in the universe, would time exist?
Ingles,
As heat energy flows from water it will freeze at some point. The formation of a crystal structure is not a purposeful design. It is a phase state of this particular matter. The term order changes from street language to it’s use in entropy. A better term would be design from a cause. So when matter collects to form a sun this is design. The cause from an astrophysics point of view is a nonsymetrical explosion of the big bang. The cause of this nonuniform explosion is not known. The best theory for the explosion I have heard deals with gravity being repulsive in the big crunch. Science deals with cause and effect. The cause for the universe is unknown to science.
When dust collects to form life this is design. The reason this happens is a theory which is a thought. A thought on it’s own is outside of entropy. Life is a collection of information and systems which cannot be reconciled with information theory or entropy. Darwin’s small steps cannot be used to create the multiple nucleotide changes needed for most systems in life. You could of course prove me wrong. Post all of the steps from any life form to any other life form. Use the simplist life. And of course each step must improve the first lifeform as it changes into the new life form. If you can’t show this then natural selection is nonfunctional on a single nucleotide mutation level. Of course this is impossible to do. Faced with this impossible task the Darwinist of the world unite and point to life and say it must have happened. I point to life and say God created it. Neither side has any proof so it falls to belief. I have made my choice, it looks like you have made yours as well.
Fbaginski wrote : “The formation of a crystal structure is not a purposeful design. … So when matter collects to form a sun this is design.” How can you say that? The only difference is scale.
You later wrote: “I point to life and say God created it.” That’s the classic “Goddidit” response of creationists: “At my level of knowledge, with my level of technology, I can’t figure out how it works – so Goddidit.”
A hundred years ago or a thousand years ago or ten thousand years ago, there were a lot more miracles – because we didn’t understand anything about physics or chemistry or astronomy or geology or biology and “Goddidit” was, in our species’ ignorance, the only possible answer to a host of questions. Now we know how rainbows work – they aren’t miracles. Now we know how stars work – they aren’t miracles. Now we know (or at least some of us know) that the earth goes around the sun, not that the sun goes around the earth – that’s not a miracle.
The religious apologists who bleat about the “Church of Darwin” want to put the genie back into the bottle and give up looking for answers and retreat back to the Dark Ages of scientific / technological ignorance – because they’re more comfortable with miracles.
Fbaginski, in your universe your creator endowed you with a brain and intelligence – why do you want to stop using it and give up and say “Goddidit”?
fbaginski, I have to say it appears that you are using some very interesting definitions of ‘design’ here. First, you say, “As heat energy flows from water it will freeze at some point. The formation of a crystal structure is not a purposeful design.” And then you say, “…when matter collects to form a sun this is design.”
When enough matter collects into one place, gravity will compress it, and heat and pressure will induce nuclear fusion at some point. It’s not ‘design’ any more than the formation of snowflakes is design. Sure, there were asymmetries and fluctuations in the big bang, but it’s not a complete mystery. At a quantum scale, which the big bang appears to have been at the start, random fluctuations appear to be inevitable. Of course not everything’s clear about what happened then (as I’ve repeated ad nauseam) but the picture doesn’t quite fit the frame you seem to have picked out.
e=mc^2, or written another way, m=e/c^2. Where did the e come from?
Moving on, fbaginski, you claim that “Life is a collection of information and systems which cannot be reconciled with information theory or entropy.” Oddly enough, both of those are used in biology pretty extensively. But your main issue appears to be: “Post all of the steps from any life form to any other life form. Use the simplist life. And of course each step must improve the first lifeform as it changes into the new life form. If you can’t show this then natural selection is nonfunctional on a single nucleotide mutation level.”
It’s fascinating that the burden of proof is so high there. The proponents of ‘design’ don’t seem to feel the need to meet that level of evidence. If they personally can’t understand it, well, it must have been designed. Fortunately, we do have good evidence in some specific cases at that level, e.g. here: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050126
Most traits are the function of multiple genes rather than a single one, but natural selection – real-worl differential survival – can and does sort out those combinations quite well. That’s why it’s used for some problems in computer science, after all. And I’d like to note that not all mutations in a sequence strictly have to be positive. They can’t be instantly lethal, of course, but study – and computer simulations like Avida – show that occasional ‘steps backward’ can make other, beneficial adaptations possible later.
And, leaving aside all of that, even if natural selection somehow turned out to be the wrong explanation for how evolution happened, we’d still know that something like the current model of biology had actually happened, quite incompatibly with a literal reading of Genesis. As I’ve noted before, organisms can be classified into a remarkably strict hierarchy (no lizards with fur or nipples, for example) – the exact same kind of hierarchy we find with, say, literary works that have been copied with occasional mistakes. Common descent is argued for strongly by this measure, because common descent is the only mechanism that produces such nested hierarchies. And then, when you look at the DNA level, even with introns and non-functional DNA, it also forms a nested hierarchy – and it’s the same hierarchy we find with morphology. It didn’t have to be that way, but it is. Life itself argues for common descent.
Ingles,
The aphid mutation that allows for northern aphids to reproduce more than southern nonmutated aphids is exactly what I asked for. Now take a close cousin of the aphid and find the difference in DNA and track back all of the changes from one species to another. I know that science can’t do this. You probably feel that one day the information will be available. I can understand that. Where we differ is that most of the system changes between one species and another require huge (100 nucleotide or more) steps in the DNA at one time. These are the systems that don’t break down, the ones the ID people talk about. Now I know we have little data so it is not cut and dry for either side of this debate. But we do know that it took trillions of malaria’s to produce a two nucleotide mutation that rendered a drug useless. So for multiple nucleotide steps to occur the population has to be huge or vast amounts of time must go by for the mutation to show up. In either case the numbers don’t add up to support evolution.
As for common decent the evidence seems pretty good. But the assumption under this is that evolution happened. Take away evolution and you end up with a common designer. I can point to common parts in a toyota and buick and realize that they share a common design thread. The shared mistakes in DNA makes a good case for common decent but I will wait until we know more about the whole purpose of DNA before I will hang my hat on this theory. To me this is the same as the single nucleotide mutation data. We know so little.
It comes down to the steps needed in the evolutionary process. If the step is too great (irreducible complexity) then the mechanism can’t make the change. The ID people show the steps they think the Darwinian mechanism can’t bridge. The Darwinist say we just don’t know enough to see the smaller steps. Without the data we are stopped.
Fbaganski, saying “Without the data we are stopped.” is the coward’s way out. Science keeps looking; creationists will just say “Goddidit – we can stop looking now.”
Paul 69,
Actually the data so far does not support evolution. The single and double nucleotide changes are rare and require huge populations. The malaria mutation for a double nucleotide change took 1 X 10 to the 20th malaria’s to show a mutation which would negate a malaria drug. A three nucleotide change would require 1 x 10 to the 40th malaria’s. This means that any change that required three or more nucleotide changes at once is beyond the mechanics of evolution. At a trillion malaria’s a day it would take 2.739 x 10 to the 23rd years to have enough chances to produce the mutation at a three nucleotide level. This is not some wild guess, this comes from known rates of growth and populations of malaria today.
Fbaginski wrote: “This is not some wild guess, this comes from known rates of growth and populations of malaria today.” Unfortunately, that’s not true. It is an offhand guesstimate from a creationism apologist in his latest uniformly-badly-reviewed book, who made a sloppy interpretation of a footnote in a research paper he read. See http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/science-versus-2.html for details.
When are you creationists going to learn that just because, in your ignorance (and I really do mean that in the nice way – perhaps I should say “innocence”), something that you read that sounds vaguely “sciency” or “mathy” may not be at all scientifically or mathematically valid? Read the Panda’s Thumb article and let me know.
fbaginski,
You’re wasting your time. PaulBurnett is so convinced of his rightness and searing intellect, nothing you can say will break through his smug superiority.
You have to remember that just to question evolution in any way automatically places you in the “ignorant religious kook” category. It’s a simple and easy way to dismiss you while avoiding cognitive dissonance.
Go find someone to debate who is actually willing to treat you as an equal.
To paraphrase: Never in the history of academics has so much faith been placed in so few data points as that in evolution.
For Sedonaman, Mountain Man and Fbaginski: Are you planning on watching the upcoming NOVA program, “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” on November 13? The press release is available at
http://pressroom.wgbh.org/assets/txt/nova_11.13.07_release_1678.pdf – you might learn something.
Or do you automatically discredit it because it’s from the “Church of Darwin”?
Sedonaman, do you have any idea of how many “data points” creationism has, compared to evolution?
PaulBurnett:
I probably will not watch it. I use to watch PBS exclusively, but have since concluded that it stands for “Pure B. S.” as a result of their Islamic-sanitized “documentary”, “Empire of Faith”, and their heavy Left-leaning news reporting.
My “data points” comment was not a defense of creationism but a criticism of the theory of evolution which is based on an archaeological record so scant that I believe it is impossible at this time to “connect the dots”, so to speak. Any other academic discipline would require much more rigorous proof than that supplied by the few existing data points of evolution. Why can’t people accept that if evolution is a fact, God used it as a tool of creation?
Well, PaulBurnett,
Let’s see how dispassionate and objective the creators of the show are: “We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools.” “Vulcan Productions has long been committed to the subject of evolution and its teaching,” remarked Vulcan Productions Executive Producer, Richard Hutton.
The producers are “committed to the subject of evolution.” Yes, PaulBurnett, we are certainly going to obtain a balanced treatment of both sides of the issue, aren’t we?
I will guarantee that we will NEVER see a show that critically evaluates the problems with macro-evolutionary theory, whether on PBS or on any of the “big three” dinosaur media.
PaulBurnett errs in so many ways that I’m not sure where to begin. Perhaps his most fundamental error is in insisting that “evolutionists have more ‘data points’ than creationists.”
This is absurd on its face, and it is such statements that undermine his credibility here.
Both camps have exactly the same data. The difference is not in the type of data or the amount of data, because it is precisely the same data. We both have the same geologic record. We both have the same DNA strands to examine. We both have the same populations of species with which to compute probabilities and time frames involved for random mutation and natural selection to “do its work.” We both have the same nucleotides to study. We both have the same body of fossil evidence to interpret.
The difference is not in the data or the volume thereof. The difference is in how we interpret that data. For every data point you can provide, there are always competing explanations offered by the two competing models. It is the models that differ, not the data.
This is not just semantics. It is an important distinction.
PaulBurnett,
Are you honestly so naive as to think that PUBLIC broadcasting is going to present a balanced perspective on this topic? Have you ever heard of the ACLU? Are you unfamiliar with their rabid fascination with enforcing the so called “separation of church and state” and the inability to treat intelligent design as anything but religion?
By your own words you have repeatedly told us in your postings that intelligent design is simply a euphamism for religious indoctrination and should be banned from public schools not because it is bad science, but because it is religious instruction and not science at all.
You know as well as I do that anything favorable to a creationist worldview will never see the light of day on a government-funded medium like PBS. Just not gonna happen. It’s about as likely as finding a nativity scene in the PBS lobby.
Sedonaman paraphrased: “Never in the history of academics has so much faith been placed in so few data points as that in evolution.”
And I responded: “Sedonaman, do you have any idea of how many “data points” creationism has, compared to evolution? ”
Then Steve Sabin responded perhaps my “most fundamental error is in insisting that “evolutionists have more ‘data points’ than creationists.””
That’s not what I said (see above). Steve is right: “Both camps have exactly the same data.” That’s what I was leading up to.
The problem is in interpretation of the data. Actual scientists want to keep looking for more data, while creationists will just say “Goddidit – we can stop looking.” (Except for Michael Behe, who will keep quote-mining actual scientists’ research, as is his wont.)
Mountain Man 72,
I will never be treated like an equal by someone who has faith in evolution. If someone thinks a monkey is a distant cousin it would be very hard for me to change that world view. With an evolutionary belief comes the belief we are still evolving. By simple logic, one expands into subdivisions the human races into those more evolved than others. Once they get to this point they lose any connection to basic human rights. This falls from logic as well since we are just animals in their eyes. If one truly believes that morals are a creation of man then they evolve as well. This allows for mob rule and leads to the fruits of that environment. The slippery slope that Darwin created has not advanced science one bit. I have seen many people of faith place blinders on. They are so controlled by their tunnel vision. This applies to blind faith in scripture and blind faith in some science.
Scripture is not an easy thing to know the full meaning of any verse. Many times a verse will have multiple meanings and will only be unlocked by another verse. All of this is with human eyes and logic that can be so wrong. I tend to get a general feeling for the meaning and accept that most knowledge in scripture is beyond me. I do talk about scripture alot but always add that one should read it for themself. I also add that this is how I see it and it may not be right.
I am finishing up Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” in it he says that anyone who does not believe in evolution is mentally ill. He says many more things about people of faith that are pretty revealing about his character. Although I don’t like to read this trash he is one of the atheist activist that is forming the arguments for his side. I need to be aware of this material so I can prepare for future debates on this topic. The mindless masses who follow this guy and others like him are the useless eaters who will become cannon fodder in the next war.
Steve Sabin opined that I have “repeatedly told” you that intelligent design creationism “should be banned from public schools not because it is bad science, but because it is religious instruction and not science at all.” The last part is certainly true, but I’m quite certain I would never have used the term “bad science” to describe something that is not science at all.
Intelligent design creationism is a pseudoscience, a “theory or speculation having the trappings of science, and presented as science, but not generally accepted as valid by the scientific community. The stated reasons for rejection usually relate to lack of observability, failure to follow the scientific method, be falsifiable, apparently lack of objectivity, or unwillingness to allow neutral outsiders to observe, test, or replicate findings.” (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pseudoscience )
So does this mean you’re not going to watch the NOVA special?
It’s worth noting, again, that the model provided by standard geology is correct enough for people to bet tens of billions of dollars on, and win. The model provided by young-Earth creationism… not so much.
And once you grant the validity of those multiple interlocking and mutually-confirming dating methods… evolution falls out naturally, as we see changes in life over time. (Again… we never find fossil pollen in layers where the corresponding plant doesn’t exist, even when those layers are a few centimeters apart.) One could presumably argue about whether natural selection is a sufficient explanation for these changes, but you have to grant that they happened, and that natural selection has an impact. (Even Behe grants that.)
Evolution takes the overlapping nested hierarchies of morphology and genetics, and makes predictions. For example, evolution predicted the range where and when fossil intermediates between cetaceans (like whales) and ungulates (like cows) would be… and they were found. Creationism doesn’t – can’t – make predictions like that. Every new species uncovered is a complete surprise to a creationist.
Raymond,
The finding of oil and gas has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Nothing. It involves seismic data and then downhole measurements using sophisticated sensors. We can call the strata anything we want and postulate how many millions of years old they are. But the reality is that finding oil is primarily an empirically driven exercise.
So kindly stop opining about how O&G exploration is all about “applied evolutionary theory.”
It isn’t. And I should know. I work in that business.
I took up your challenge of contacting a working geologist. Care to guess what the first words out of his mouth were?
“Evolutionary theory has yet to contribute so much as one barrell of oil or one cubic foot of gas.”
Frankly, my discipline (electrical engineering) has done far more to help with the finding of oil than Darwin could ever hope to contribute. It was electrical engineers who developed spectrum analyzers, fast Fourier transforms, digital computers, nuclear sensors, and downhole tool steering devices.
These are the workhorses of contemporary O&G exploration.
No, PaulBurnett, I’m not going to watch it. Why would that be hard to understand? The producers have a foregone conclusion and an agenda.
But of course, that is typical PBS fare. And typical for evolution apologists.
And by the way, if both sides are working from the same dataset, but simply are interpreting the data differently, we have left the realm of science and entered speculation, assumption, and extrapolation. We are left with worldview interpretations of what might have happened. That’s not science.
Fbaginski wrote “The mindless masses who follow this guy (Richard Dawkins) and others like him are the useless eaters who will become cannon fodder in the next war.”
Is that a threat or a promise? Do you have more information on the upcoming Christian Reconstructionist / Theocratic Dominionist rebellion against the people and Constitution of the United States? Please tell us what else you know about this “next war.”
Raymond,
Actually, pollen spores do not always stay in the same strata as their corresponding plant.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html#Spores
(I don’t usually like to just fire URLs back and forth as proof of anything, by this is a particularly well-written and meticulously documented essay with nearly 100 references cited in the bibliography.)
Flood geology provides a better model to explain what we actually observe in the fossil record, not just regarding pollen, but regarding all other aspects including foliage, vertabrates, and invertabrates. Evolutionary geology assumes that strata correspond to when certain life forms inhabited the planet chronologically. Flood geology assumes that strata corresponds to where certain life forms inhabited the planet and how they would have responded to a cataclysmic event – fleeing, herding, seeking high ground, deluged by mud and water, etc. We would expect to see With a flood model, one would not expect a perfectly uniform layering in every location, because chaotic processes were in action. And of course, this is exactly what we observe with polystrate fossils and huge variations in the so-called geologic column from one location to the next – missing layers, reversed layers, bisected layers, etc.
The fossil record is not the slam dunk for evolution that you so ardently wish it to be. In fact, it presents far more problems for evolution than it solves. Not the least of which is, “How do we explain massive fossil deposits of billions upon billions of animals and plants without catastrophic events such as floods, mudslides, volcanic eruptions, etc. that would cause mass exterminations and rapid burial?” A global deluge accounts for this quite well. Indeed, it predicts it.
Burnett,
The war of ideas has been going on for some time now. To capture the minds and souls of the population has been the goal of many ideas since the beginning of the world. The ideas in the Old and New Testament have been with us for 3500 years. The idea of evolution is slightly over 100 years old. As ideas go it is young and time will tell if it will pass the test of time. You appear to be a true believer in your cause. Have you considered what is the end game of Darwin’s dangerous idea? Just how does the world look to you with everyone believing in science and the Word suppressed? Since most things in science are theories who will decide what is truth? What is truth?
I think that if the world lost scripture and no one knew the Biblical past it would resurface within a few years. Not the detail but the belief in God. Maybe not in you but I seek my creator and science does not supply a path to that understanding. If the world was science 100% the new idea would be God and the creation. It would sweep aside known science and create a spiritual space to ponder the real important questions of the universe. One has to wonder if in that world you would be an early believer in the new idea.
Mr. Sabin, I didn’t say that finding oil depended on evolution; I said it depended on standard geology, i.e. the model of the Earth as ~4.5 billion years old. I never once claimed that finding oil depended on “applied evolutionary theory.” (I’d be very interested if you can point to an example of me using those words.) You can even look back at a previous discussion where this came up: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/24/the-frightening-specter-of-intelligent-design/
(Interestingly enough, in that previous conversation you didn’t state that you worked in the O&G industry; indeed, you specifically claimed a “lack of much knowledge regarding the topic”.)
There, and here, I used oil exploration to argue for an Earth drastically older than 6,000 years, not for evolution directly. What does your ‘working geologist’ have to say about that? You might also have him address this link: http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/94/940804Arc4170.html
However – as I stated here, and this is a direct quote: “…once you grant the validity of those multiple interlocking and mutually-confirming dating methods… evolution falls out naturally, as we see changes in life over time.”
Mr. Sabin, that’s an interesting link about pollen – I’ve actually learned something new, and I thank you. I’ll have to do more investigation about the topic. However, I’d still like to point out some complicating factors:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d0d4eea061fe1d04
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/sorfos.htm
Standard geology does not propose a “perfectly uniform layering in every location”, and definitely assumes that things like “floods, mudslides, volcanic eruptions” and so forth happened, often on scales far beyond what happens today. Look up the Deccan Traps sometime. What it doesn’t assume is that they all happened at the same time. They couldn’t have, anyway – look up what the Karoo formation would imply about population density if all the fossils in it lived at the same time.
Mr. Ingles,
You are still persisting in the error that creationists believe in a young earth. A few do, but it is not the predominant position.
Quoth Mountain Man: “You are still persisting in the error that creationists believe in a young earth. A few do, but it is not the predominant position.
Sorry, but Discovery Institute spokesman Del Ratzsch disagrees: “Although not part of ‘official’ IDM [Intelligent Design movement] doctrine, some among academic ID advocates, and the overwhelming bulk of lay ID advocates, accept a ‘young-earth’ version of creationism.” (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/design2.htm)
My recollection is also that the great majority of creationists are Young Earth Creationists. Mountain Man, do you have a literature citation saying otherwise?
Raymond,
I should not have put the words “applied evolutionary theory” in quotes. I knew that you had not penned those words. It was meant to denote skepticism, not to suggest attribution. My bad.
But I do stand by the assertion that standard geology and evolution are inextricably joined at the hip. The standard geology model posits that:
- Uniformatarian deposition is largely responsible for the earth’s sedimentary layers, laid down over hundreds of millions of years (but with some acknowledgement of “episodic” cataclysmic events to describe what could not have occurred over millions of years – such as mammoths frozen whole and dinosaurs locked in tooth-to-tooth combat)
- Hydrocarbon deposits are the result of organic decay
- Only certains types of life are found in certain strata, and these strata correspond to evolutionary ages or epochs. If this is doubted, consider the nomenclature assigned to the strata – straight from the pages of the evolution textbook: “Jurrasic” “Devonian” etc.
Evolution is inextricably linked to the standard geologic model of not just an earth that is billions of years old, but of life that is approaching a billion years old on earth as well.
What I strenuously object to is your repeated insistence that standard geology somehow yields predictions about hydrocarbon deposits that are entirely different than flood geology when it comes to where oil and gas will be found (rather than when they were created) and that this is responsible for billions of dollars in revenues. The burden of proof rests with you to substantiate this assertion. And Glenn Morton does not constitute “proof.”
As I pointed out, oil exploration is an empirically driven exercise. Magnetometers, gravitometers, surface topology, seismic data, and then downhole data from nuclear sensors, accelerometers, hygrometers, and other sensors are the primary tools of oil and gas exploration and exist quite independently of whether one subscribes to standard geology or flood geology. Indeed, if they did not, then they would never work in those instances in which deposits were the result of cataclysmic events, and even standard geologists are increasingly admitting that only “episodic” catastrophes can explain certain geological features.
Actually, Mountain Man, I never claimed anything – either way – about what the ‘predominant position’ about the age of the Earth is among creationists. However, Mr. Sabin, fbaginski, and others have discussed the age of the Earth here, and I can’t see why it would be a problem to respond to them.
Raymond,
My point was not that I personally work as an exploration geologist or in an operating energy company. My point was that I work for a company that makes the sensing equipment for downhole exploration and also the vibration measurement technology used in seismic measurement and seismic signal processing. As I began asking around to the people that actually use this equipment during the time elapsed since my previous comments, I was given an education of sorts. So, the two comments I made are not mutually exclusive.
I will look into the references you posted regarding Karoo. Give me a few days.
As always, thank you for keeping the tone here civil.
I googled “Karoo Population Density” and the URL below was the first hit that dealt with the topic at hand (as opposed to current human population densities in Karoo). As it turned out, it was also a creationist reference.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/area/magazines/TJ/TJv14n2_KarooNon.pdf
Briefly, Woodmanthorpe shows that:
1. The figure of 800 billion vertabrates was postulated by evolutionists, not creationists. The number of buried reptiles is no-doubt large, but probably not the nearly 1 trillion figure that is normally suggested. If the figure is dismissed as “impossibly large,” blame uniformitarianists like Newell who is responsible for the estimate.
2. Even if the number 800 billion were correct (which is unlikely) it is not patently impossible to have that many reptiles alive simultaneously.
My earlier point remains. Namely, that uniformitarianism and “standard geology” cannot easily account for things like the Karoo deposit. Flood geology provides a far more elegant explanation.
Finally, I’m curious. Since you concede that catastrophes happened in the past on a much larger scale than we observe today, by what mechanisms have natural catastophes been altered such that they are more subdued today than in the past? What predicts that volcanic eruptions, floods, and other mechanims would have been larger in scale and more violent and sustained millions of years ago? This is not at all self-evident to me.
Mr. Ingles,
I’ll let them speak for themselves. But you said, “There, and here, I used oil exploration to argue for an Earth drastically older than 6,000 years, not for evolution directly.” Please point out anyone in any thread on IC who has made the direct statement that the earth is not older than 6,000 years.
PaulBurnett finally responds to me. “…some among academic ID advocates…” Consistent with my remark, isn’t it? As far as “…overwhelming bulk of lay ID advocates…,” let Del Ratzsch defend HIS statement with data. Strike that. You cite your data, and forget about Del Ratzsch.
Mountain Man wrote: “You cite your data, and forget about Del Ratzsch.”
You shouldn’t forget about Del – he’s on _your_ side. He’s got a Ph.D. in philosophy and specializes in the philosophy of science. See http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Del_Ratzsch and more particularly http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org (which has his name as the leading META keyword).
PaulBurnett,
You made the assertion. Back it up.
Sorry for the delay responding; one of our kids brought home a delightful new germ from school that’s been jumping around our family for the past few days.
As you say, Mr. Sabin, “Evolution is inextricably linked to the standard geologic model of not just an earth that is billions of years old, but of life that is approaching a billion years old on earth as well.” In this, we are in violent agreement – that’s what I’ve been saying. (Mountain Man, this is also why most anti-evolutionists also dispute the standard geological model, attempting to deny the large number of mutually-supporting dating methods… though most don’t go as far as fbaginski and “lead me to toss most of science”.)
Now, leaving aside Glen Morton (though I do wonder why ‘someone trained in young-Earth geology who became convinced of an ancient Earth from looking at the data in his job as a seismic analyst for a petroleum company’ would not be relevant here), how about this? http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/feats/2007/location_location.html
“The Persian Gulf is the largest cluster with over 200 of the 932 giants the group has identified so far. The Persian Gulf is a long lived passive margin of the former Tethyan ocean that collided with Eurasia in the Cenozoic. Its long lived history means the rock layering has superimposed or ‘stacked’ intervals of both high quality source and reservoir rocks. If the oil misses one reservoir on its migration upward there is an overlying reservoir to sop it up. Evaporites provide seals or ‘caulking’ that prevent the hydrocarbons from escaping to the surface… The more restricted the rift during its early lacustrine or submarine history the better for forming large areas of high quality, black, smelly, organic-rich source rocks needed to create large volumes of oil and gas. For example, failed rifts that crack the edge of a continent but don’t succeed in full ocean opening are prime real estate for concentrating the high quality source rocks needed for a giant cluster. Examples are the North Sea, the Western Siberian basin and Bass Strait separating Tasmania and Australia. One of the worst places to find giants is a strike slip margin where complex and ongoing structural history can disrupt reservoirs. Another poor setting for giants are subduction zones where reservoir sandstones are choked with clay minerals and therefore have limited reservoir potential for holding large oil and gas deposits… Mann’s analysis shows that collisional settings are less important in forming giant fields than researchers previously thought. Assigning tectonic settings to all 932 known giants is challenging since individual basins typically undergo many different tectonic phases often separated by tens to hundreds of millions of years. However, subsurface data are improving and scientists now have a much better idea of what these phases were and what their relative importance was on hydrocarbons… The value of such a compilation is to show how common patterns start to emerge in basins that share common tectonic environments: even though those environments are separated by thousands of kilometers or tens of millions of years. What appears initially as a hopelessly tangled geologic history starts to become simpler and more understandable once you fully mine the regional geologic databases and reconstruct the basin at the time of the giants’ formation.”
Mr. Sabin – you state that “Even if the number 800 billion were correct (which is unlikely) it is not patently impossible to have that many reptiles alive simultaneously.” Reading that article, I don’t see any concrete points of dispute with Broom’s estimate, which he himself characterized as “very conservative”. I don’t see any justification in that paper for spreading out the fossils there across “10 million square kilometers” – about 20 times the actual size of the formation.
But, leaving that aside… you yourself claimed the existence of “massive fossil deposits [note plural here] of billions upon billions of animals and plants”. How well would Woodmarappe’s argument hold up if all of these deposits were laid down at the same time? What kind of population density would that imply ‘pre-Flood’?