Happy Birthday, Charles
Apparently today is the 150th Anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. At the time, it was considered probably the most controversial book of all time, although, today, it is probably more boring than controversial and more of a scientific curiosity than a valid scientific treatise. Most of Darwin’s theory has been shown to be vastly more complicated and involved than he originally envisaged. Still, for a man with only Victorian tools at his disposal, Darwin’s observations (recorded in Voyage of the Beagle) were methodical and precise and his attempt to put his observations into a unified theory of species origination remain an impressive work, if not entertaining reading!
The most impressive thing about Darwin’s theory, however, is that it (and it’s more modern variants and updates) remains the only scientific theory of species origination. No one has come up with another (although some might say that current theories bear little resemblance to Darwin’s original). Note that I do not say that the theory of evolution is the only explanation of origins, only that it is the only naturalistic one and therefore the only explanation offered by science. There are plenty of other explanations of origins ranging from the absurd beliefs of primitives through to the elegant explanations of Intelligent Design, the respectable cousin of creationism.
Creationism: Simply too much heavy lifting by the first chapter of Genesis.
Bear in mind that I am a Christian. I am very happy to believe in a Creator God, but find reading highly technical happenings into the first part of an oral tradition to be a little hard to swallow. To me, it seems obvious that the first few chapters of Genesis provide an understanding of the spiritual and supernatural significance of our origins, rather than a technical explanation of them. This is in much the same way as Revelation provides an insight into the spiritual significance of history rather than the events of history. It is a book that says history is not predominantly about man, but predominantly about man’s restoration by Jesus Christ.
There. Now I’ve gone all Christian on you. Some of you atheists are going to miss the good part if you run away…
The problem with an argument like Intelligent Design, is not that it is poor reasoning. Nor is it that it’s proponents are stupid or don’t understand the principles of the scientific portions of their theory. The problem with ID (and creationism for that matter) is that it violates the principle supposition of science. That supposition is that there must be a naturalistic explanation for everything. Both creationism and ID invoke the input of the supernatural in some way, therefore neither can be considered science (note that this does not mean they are necessarily wrong). This is why it is perfectly acceptable to teach ID in schools – just not in science class.
I must emphasise here that this naturalistic bent of science is a presupposition only. Too many scientists treat this basic supposition as a truth, but presupposing that there is no supernatural explanation for anything does not prove that there is no supernatural explanation. Thus scientists who believe in only a naturalistic world are, in fact, exercising as much faith as a Christian who believes in God. Personally, I find the religion of science to be merciless and harsh and little to do with the reason one wishes to follow science – that of discovery of the natural world
Scientists hold to a naturalistic presupposition for the purpose of developing naturalistic explanations. If we did not apply this supposition to the natural world then, every time we came across something we could not immediately explain, we would be inclined to say “God did it” (or perhaps, more accurately, supernatural beings did it). Because the tenant of science is naturalism, we search for a naturalistic explanation and are usually eventually rewarded. This is not some absurd verification that God does not exist, merely that this particular process that we have explained does not require direct divine intervention. It is not a miracle.
Which brings me to the place where science and religion clash – miracles. We tend to use the word miracle vaguely to mean extraordinary co-incidences (which are, potentially, natural) but what the word really means is a supernatural occurrence. By definition, there can be no naturalistic explanation for a miracle. By definition, there is nothing science can say about a miracle. This, of course, does not stop people trying to find naturalistic explanations (because they are scientists and that is what scientists do). People of faith should be neither offended nor intimidated by this process. While some who subscribe to the religious school of science may indeed attempt to belittle or deride matters of faith, most scientists of my acquaintance seem perfectly happy to let the natural and the supernatural world coexist, even if they are only interested in the natural.
Ever since the publication of Darwin’s book, there has been a clash between the naturalistic explanation of origins and the supernatural one. I think that this clash mostly extends from the fundamental misunderstanding of the places of science and religion in this world. Science was never a tool to make religious observations, any more than religion can propose scientific theory. I am both a Christian and a scientist and happily move in both worlds, because I do not get them mixed (often). Seeing as scientists are supposed to keep an open mind and Christians are supposed to be accepting of their fellow man, I see no reason for the two groups to be at loggerheads.
As long as the extremists in each group get their rabies shots…
Related posts:
- Hothouse I like Global Warming. Without the Global Warming industry, newspapers would be...
- Politically Correct Funding I take a fairly open mind to alternative therapies. Although...
- Global Warping Now that our illustrious government has finally managed to pass,...
- Forever is a Long Time I see that the latest Global Whining Warming news is...
- Spam Journalism #66 Spam Journalism: The spurious use of sensational headlines to add...
Nov 25 09 7:06 am
Very good post MacDoctor, The word I use is “incommensurable”, the two are unable to be compared, it’s only when the rabid jump the fence that conflict occurs.
As I said to Stuart a couple of months ago: Incommensurable does not mean in conflict, in fact it means conflict shouldn’t really be possible because two things can’t be compared, in my opinion this is how you can have good scientists who are Christians, in their minds the two issues are separate. Conflict appears to happen between faith and science because theologists step into scientific territory and start arguing (usually poor quality) science, rather than sticking to their faith based beliefs, or scientists start arguing issues of faith that have nothing to do with science. But when this happens the conflict isn’t between faith and science per se, it’s between the individuals.
Nov 25 09 10:01 am
Ordinary sensible humans settled this argument centuries ago with their expression “God knows!” Its used by religionists and atheists equally to allow them to get on with life and let someone else figure out a rational explanation.
I quite like the “God of the Gaps” theory. It acknowledges that we don’t know everything, spurs us to fill the gap with knowledge and push the GOTG further out. Its a spur to knowledge and not the stagnation of fundamentalism prevalent in many religions like Global Warming. As anyone can now plainly see, the High Priests of AGW behave exactly like the so called fanatics of any religion with their repression and punishment of heretics and their cult like behavior.
JC
Nov 25 09 10:37 am
Yes great read, neat and tidy, no exclusions, friendly and balanced.
I enjoyed it, even thought about what was visible in your thoughts.
Not a glimpse of fraud, malice or stupidity. Global Warming eMails not even invented yet. Heh.
Nov 25 09 11:57 am
I am glad that you do not get them mixed (often). Seeing as scientists are supposed to keep an open mind and Christians are supposed to be accepting of their fellow man, I see no reason for the two groups to be at loggerheads. And that has been, in my experience, the usual situation for working scientists. I never experienced problems during my 40 year research career and I think this is because of the mental compartmentalisation that Andrew W referred to.
But, let’s face it – there are problems. Scientists do find themselves under attack form religiously motivated people who allow the compartments to be breached. Characteristically they are rejecting the scientific method and attempting to impose their own non-scientific theistic approach. That underlines the Wedge strategy and the Intelligent Design movement. One can also see this in anti-scientific attacks on climate change (sometimes), consciousness research, the science of morality, etc.
However, I think the most pernicious attacks are those made on the very basis of science itself. That’s why I am unhappy about your talk of
aturalistic propositions and science being restricted to
aturalistic explanations.\n
In my research career I never hear any colleague talk about naturalism, demand naturalistic explantations, etc., etc. as this would imply. They just put their heads down and got on with the job.
While one can talk about
aturalistic explanations etc. in the abstract, science just does not operate this way. It is not a bland list of procedures or an algorithmic approach. We don’t do science the way that some of these critics (and defenders) of science describe.
Science is in fact a very messy, anarchistic and creative enterprise. But an immensely rewarding and exhilarating one. Rather than a mechanical description of
aturalistic explanations I like Neil de Grasse Tyson’s description of the scientific method (see Do whatever it takes…):
“Do whatever it takes to not fool yourself when trying to understand the world around you.”
That is in fact how we go about research – so I see use of words like naturalism as being ideologically motivated either to attack or defend science. What they are really referring to is the requirement for evidence and checking against reality. It is this, rather than vague philosophical terms, which the Wedge strategy and ID people are fighting against.
Similarly I think lapsing into the use of words like supernatural tells us nothing except the willingness to eb unscientific about something. Yes scientists do have working assumptions that reality is logical and understandable. But we are always aware that the task in some cases may well be beyond us as individuals or as a species. Until that happens we plod on with our wonderful discoveries.
But it is arrogant to assume, beforehand, that any event is beyond rational understanding or investigation. That is claiming a knowledge that no-one has. When those sort of claims are made the claimant is advancing an ideological and usually anti-science position.
We have seen it all before with respect to scientific investigation of the solar system, life, of consciousnesses, of morality, or the origins of life and the universe. Some people assure us these are beyond our possibility of understanding. And they get offended when humanity ignores them, admits its ignorance, but declares it’s willingness to investigate and attempt an understanding.
So, yes, I agree that one should not break down that mental compartment, that one shouldn’t attempt to mix in religion withy science.
But let’s face it – it is happening. As a scientist I am happy to live and let live, have no interest in other’s religious beliefs as long as they don’t impinge on other’s rights, but I must oppose attempts (like the ID movement) to subvert science.
Nov 25 09 2:23 pm
Indeed Science and Faith need to be compartmentalized.
The mistake modern men make is to consider science is the Truth with a capital T.
Not so all science is are intellectual models of an underlying reality way beyond the ken of us mere mortals to grasp. And the usefulness of these constructs is entirely based upon their utility to us as human beings nothing more.
The most effective language for understanding our world and forcing it to conform to our desires is mathematics is it not?
For example what do you really know what an electron is apart from its mass, charge and how it behaves in well defined circumstances. And even semi contradictory mathematical descriptions of the electron need to be invoked depending upon the circumstance.
The deeper you dig the more you will discover that you know diddly.
It doesn’t matter – humanities collective knowledge and understanding of the electron and its behavior is enough to create the computer I am using to write this post. It works that is all that matters.
As for Darwin’s origin of the species and the development of that theory it is informed speculation. Ultimately unprovable, as is anything else. Does it give satisfactory explanation for the origin of the first Prokaryote Bacterium?
Will it ever be able to explain why that Bacterium happened or will that always be left to random circumstance?
Who knows and even if it does it doesn’t mean it necessarily happened that way.
Andrei´s last blog ..Fake Conference’s For Fake Climate Change
Nov 25 09 2:35 pm
Andrei obliges with an example of someone with a theology based view stepping into scientific territory with an argument based on poor quality science.
Nov 25 09 3:12 pm
Expand – please do
Andrei´s last blog ..Fox News on the Climate Change Email Scandal
Nov 25 09 4:38 pm
As MacDoc said: “The most impressive thing about Darwin’s theory, however, is that it (and it’s more modern variants and updates) remains the only scientific theory of species origination.”
I see your comment: “As for Darwin’s origin of the species and the development of that theory it is informed speculation. Ultimately unprovable, as is anything else.”
As an attempt to cast doubt on the only scientific theory going, you’re offering no scientific alternative, just casting doubt.
The counter example would be a scientist casting doubt on miracles, because they don’t fit with his naturalistic world view. I my view by doing so the scientist would be breaching your own affirmation that “Science and Faith need to be compartmentalized.”
Now, I could be wrong, perhaps you do have a scientific theory to challenge Darwinism(?) in which case I’d accept your motives aren’t theological.
Nov 25 09 8:04 pm
No not casting doubt – putting it into its place more like.
Consider Euclidean Geometry. For the longest of times it was felt to be Truth with a capital T. So much so that several times men nearly achieved intellectual greatness with by having the insight that is was just one of an infinite number of geometrys. And time after time they recoiled back from making this leap because Euclidean Geometry was Truth with a capital T. It took until the ninteenth century when two men almost simultaneously realized that Euclid’s geometry was the simplest of an infinite number of related geometrys
Euclidean geometry is still useful and the others are only used in special cases even though Euclidean Geometry is probably never fully realized in the real world.
Nor is Euclidean geometry of particular consequence to our blog host when confronted with a patient in a diabetic coma in fact it and all its siblings are irrelevant.
All scientific theories including Darwin are constructs of the human mind that we can use to manipulate the world in ways that are useful to us – they are tools in the same way a spanner is. They are tools that can provide insight into the world we live in as well but they cannot and do not provide the ultimate TRUTH.
And if you think about it just as we consider our ancestors views of the world naive, charmingly so in some cases and with repulsion in those cases where people were needlessly harmed by misguided belief systems so it will be with our descendants when they look back at us.
Andrei´s last blog ..ETS is passed into law [UPDATE 2]
Nov 25 09 8:33 pm
Ken:
I should point out that naturalism is the religious belief that nature is all there is. Naturalistic just means “pertaining to nature. I’m sure you are right that the average scientist does not actively think “is this a naturalistic explanation?” but that is only because the philosophy of science is assumed, being so ingrained. Unfortunately it is this “just like breathing” aspect of that principle presupposition that makes it easy for scientists and religionists alike to forget that it is an underlying assumption rather than an established truth.
Basically, if science sticks to facts and religion sticks to meaning, we will all be much happier!
Nov 25 09 9:48 pm
Macdoctor, you have avoided my point. We don’t think about words like naturalism because in the end they are irrelevant. What we are concerned about is evidence and validation against reality. Those people talking about naturalism are often hiding the fact that they want to removee these requirements from science. The want to use tecniques like “inference to the best explanation” to draw “scientific” conclusions without evidence or validation. “Naturalism” is a smokescreen.
This is clearly the approach of the Wedge strategy and the ID people
Nov 25 09 9:52 pm
Andrei, I really must object to your characterization of science as claiming Truths, with a capital T. We all know that religions will make such claims but certainly not science. You can be sure that when people claim to have the Truth (with a capital T) they certainly do not. Far from it.
In science we build knowledge which we understand to always be an imperfect reflection of reality. We understand our knowledge as always provisional. However, it is also usually the case that new knowledge incorporates the old knowledge usually as limiting cases.
We can understand scientifc knowledge as \true\ (with a small t) – but aspects of any knowledge will only be \relatively true\. Other aspects will be \concretely true.\
It is this very provisional nature of scientific knowledge which makes the scientific method so powerful in understanding reality- far better than anything based on \revelation\ obviously. Humanity surely appreciates that these days.
When people talk about science as claiming Truth (with a capital T) I see that as an unwarranted & sneering attack. To me it’s the same as claiming science is based on faith.
Strange, because these sort of attacks are usually made by people adhering to ideologies based on faith and claiming special access to Truth!
Perhaps they are diverting attention?
Nov 25 09 9:53 pm
“All scientific theories including Darwin are constructs of the human mind that we can use to manipulate the world in ways that are useful to us – they are tools in the same way a spanner is.”
I had a quick look for a definition of “scientific theory” on the web, your definition isn’t amongst them. “Manipulate the world” as in a spanner is used to manipulate an engine? No, scientific theories are useful in understanding the laws of nature, they aren’t used to modify or manipulate “the world” or those laws.
Where do you get your definition of scientific theory from? I’m sure I have come across similar definitions being used by Christian apologists.
Nov 25 09 9:54 pm
Sorry, Ken, I think I have misunderstood your point, rather than avoided it. I certainly disagree with any attempt to remove naturalistic enquiry from normal science. I note that these attempts are by no means always religious. Educationalists appear to have been attempting the removal of scientific enquiry for decades, substituting it for “discovery”.
Nov 25 09 9:57 pm
I have to agree with Andrew, here. If you want the facts and an understanding of how things work, then you need a scientist.
If you want to “manipulate the world”, you need an engineer.
Nov 25 09 10:04 pm
You are so right on the point that atheism is faith. Is was a strange moment for me when I realised that about myself.
I hope the other atheists do understand that too.
Nov 25 09 11:14 pm
Ken
In case you haven’t noticed our Parliament today passed under urgency no less a most reprehensible ACT based upon the pronouncements of SCIENCE presented as TRUTH with a capital T The fact that it is junk science is neither here nor there. Well it probably is given this quote also from your post
Otherwise your conception of the development of scientific theories matches mine pretty much.
Andrew W
The way I initially presented the idea was thus
And from Wikipedia we get
One of my professors once told me that the great scientists were those who were adept at identifying tractable problems they were capable of solving – makes sense to me.
And the truth is that many problems have no solution at all -there are many many unanswerable questions
Andrei´s last blog ..ETS is passed into law [UPDATE 2]
Nov 25 09 11:55 pm
A few quick comments:
[...] from the absurd beliefs of primitives through to the elegant explanations of Intelligent Design, the respectable cousin of creationism.
Talking about others as the “primitives” is bad taste to my mind. You might want to consider that to their eyes, and that of atheists, your own beliefs are equally absurd. If you want people to respect your beliefs, I think you’d do better if you showed respect of others’ beliefs, otherwise others will wonder why they should respect yours.
The belief systems of tribal groups are usually well-suited to their environment, as they talk about world around them giving, for example, an understanding of sorts of the forest around them.
I’m uncertain as to if you understand what ID really represents. (Excuse me if I’m just repeating what you already understand.)
If I had a parallel or analogy for ID, it would be with the anti-vaccine movement, which like the anti-evolution movement has long roots. Both have little “for” their position, but say an awful lot “against” what they treat as an enemy.
ID was not created because someone had a new idea, but as a false “scientific” facade to hide creationism behind to try avoid the legal rulings there (in the USA) that said that creationism could not be presented as “science”. It’s widely recognised that it’s the same thing as creationism, redressed, but particularly focused on being anti-evolution.
If you try look for an ID “theory” or “explanation”, I think you’ll find that they have none (beyond the creationist story), but they have an awful lot of “evolution must be wrong because X”.
Regards arguments about naturalism and science, I usually find it’s better thought of something that non-scientists (theologists mostly) impose on scientists, claiming “this is what they do”. Most scientists are more pragmatic and to be honest beyond most scientists don’t see philosophy to be as useful as theologians seem to think (beyond logic, that is, which is well regarded).
You can of course examine supernatural claims, people do. They’re just claims like any other in the end. Declarations that supernatural things lie outside science, are declarations by word definitions in essence, which is why most scientists can’t be bothered with them, being the pragmatic people they tend to be. They’d rather just get on with testing things.
if science sticks to facts and religion sticks to meaning
Science does look at meaning, I presume it’s just not the “meaning” that appeals to you
More seriously, compartmentalisation—like you’re asking for—really only works if you “overlook” the conflicts, like the one I just pointed out. That’s why it’s called compartmentalisation, isolating conflicting things. At least you recognise that you’re doing that, which I counts for something.
I hope you’re not saying science is (only) about “facts”! It’d be ironic to me if you were, as it’s something that scientists complain about with respect to poor science communication: the “factoid model” of science is just so inane.
Best of luck, but I think you might
Grant´s last blog ..150 years since the publication of On the origin of species today
Nov 26 09 11:28 am
Andrei – I repeat my claim: “When people talk about science as claiming Truth (with a capital T) I see that as an unwarranted & sneering attack. ”
And I think you are demonstrating this sneering attitude towards the scientific investigation of climate change in you description of the ETS legislation.
Also I think statements like “And the truth is that many problems have no solution at all -there are many many unanswerable questions” are extremely arrogant.
How could you possibly know beforehand that problems don’t have solutions?
What possible method do you have of determining that?
Surely the more scientific approach is to admit we don’t know, but in the interests of humanity we should investigate, find out?
Ken´s last blog ..Appropriate thanks
Nov 26 09 12:38 pm
Because they are easily framed.
We would all like to (or perhaps think we’d like to) live in a strictly deterministic universe. But we don’t. Where cause and effect can be identified we do it – if the effect is beneficial we amplify it, were it is negative we eliminate or at least try to reduce it to mitigate the undesirable effect.
Anyway consider this – someone this week is $6.5 million dollars richer after winning lotto. Why that individual or individuals and not someone else? The whole system from the purchase of the ticket through, the drawing of the balls to the cashing of the check is well described but there is no way of getting a handle on why a specific individual wins. For the winner there is an effect, presumably beneficial but no real factors other than the ticket purchase to explain it.
Now most natural events are more akin to that than the ones we have successfully described by science and enhanced and enriched our lives by so doing.
Strict determinism does not exist except in very restricted circumstances and for short times.
Andrei´s last blog ..Investigation into the IPCC over ClimateGate
Nov 26 09 1:33 pm
Andrei – “Because they are easily framed.” says exactly nothing. I maintain it is still arrgoant.
Your arguments about determinism are a diversion. Everyday you use technology resulting from scientific knowledge which is not deterministic. yet it is extremely accurate and predictive. We have discovered an amazing amount about the world using methods based on that knowledge and technology.
Your example of the lottery is, on the surface, trivial. Under analysis, though, one could produce some very accurate laws and technology based on such lotteries.
So, I repeat – it is arrogant to claim knowledge beforehand that “problems don’t have solutions.”
And WTF has this got to do with the fact that humanity this week has been celebrating the initial publication of one of the most important books of all time – “On the Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin?
Ken´s last blog ..“Climategate” – the smoking gun?
Nov 26 09 6:06 pm
So, I repeat – it is arrogant to claim knowledge beforehand that “problems don’t have solutions.”
Do you understand Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and understand their implications?
All I am trying to communicate is that all Scientific Theories are imperfect models of an underlying reality we cannot really get. This includes Darwin’s theory of Evolution as well as Einsteins Theory of Relativity and everything else beside.
Even if you explain some past event using either of them it does not mean it actually happened that way – it means it could have happened that way. You cannot do any better than that nobody can.
Andrei´s last blog ..National Is In Disarray Over the ETS – A Question For Rodney Hide
Nov 26 09 7:11 pm
Andrei, you continue to avoid my point. You are just not in a position to “know” if a problem has or hasn’t a solution. It is arrogant to claim that you are.
Similarly it is arrogant and dogmatic to deny our ability to form pictures of reality which get closer and closer to correctly describing this reality.
That’s why it is silly to talk about “Darwin’s theory of evoltion”. Modern evolutionary science has come a long way since Darwin’s groundbreaking and historic work. It is now supported by do many trends of converging evidence we can be sure that it us closer to an accurate description if reality than it was 250 years ago.
You may wish, for ideological reasons, to deny this dialectical relationship between knowledge and reality but that doesn’t change the facts, and one fact is that despite your dogmatism about our scientific understanding I bet you still use the resulting technology in a way that indicates a trust in that knowledge.
Nov 28 09 7:57 pm
Creationism: Simply too much heavy lifting by the first chapter of Genesis.
Genesis is scientifically accurate without being scientifically descriptive in the empirical sense, e.g. it uses a lot of phenomenological descriptions, as we do when we say that ‘the sun is rising’ . The ‘heavy lifting’ is done by scientists who find that true science (demonstratable and repeatable) confirms the Genesis account whilst giving no support to evolution. E.g., changes in organisms that the media tout as ‘evolution’ in fact involve either loss of or no change in genetic data: no evolutionist has been able to demonstrate or prove that organisms gain new genetic data as required by the evolutionary hypothesis (some gain new data by transfer, but that is not what the evolutionary hypothesis requires, which is the presence of new data that did not previously exist).
In short, the evolutionary hypothesis requires a gain in genetic data but we only see losses of genetic data.
Furthermore, anyone who rejects the accuracy of Genesis is saying that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, for he quoted from Genesis.
I suggest that you read these articles:
http://creation.com/nz-baptist-theistic-evolutionists
http://creation.com/superbugs-not-super-after-all
http://creation.com/methuselah-and-the-ark-dirt-and-supergerms
A quote from one of the above articles says it better than I can:
Evolution is basically the belief that everything has made itself—that natural processes (over millions of years, without miraculous, divine input of intelligence) have created an increasingly complex array of creatures. According to evolution, there was once a time when none of the creatures in the world had lungs. This means that there was no genetic information (the ‘blueprint’ for living things, carried on the molecule DNA) for lungs—anywhere. Then, at a later time, ‘lung information’ arose and was added to the world, but no ‘feather information’ as yet—feathers evolved later.
In other words, for every feature which arises by evolution, there would need to be new genetic information added to the total information in the biosphere (i.e., all the information in all creatures on earth). Some features could be lost subsequently, of course, so there will not always be a gain, but if microbes turned into magpies, maple trees and musicians, there must have been a massive net increase in information. This is not just any jumble of chemical sequences, but meaningful information, since it codes for complex structures which have purposeful functions.
So if new information, new functional complexity, can be shown to be arising by itself where previously there was none, this would give some credibility to the idea of molecules-to-man evolution, although it would not strictly prove that it had occurred. However, it can be shown that in every situation where populations of living things change, they do so without increase (and often with a decrease) of information. Thus, it is completely illegitimate for anyone to claim that such changes show ‘evolution happening’.
Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• Please leave Mike Pero alone
Nov 29 09 4:16 pm
Kiwi Polemicist – what a load of crap. Creationist crap – but still crap.
Ken´s last blog ..Richard Dawkins in Auckland next March
Nov 29 09 11:02 pm
Actually, Ken, some creationist stuff is truly impressive. It is still not science of course, but still impressive. I had no idea you could read so much into “and the earth was formless and void and darkness was on the face of the deep…”
Captcha: Scoffs Priest
(it’s like it knows! – creepy)
Nov 30 09 7:19 am
It is still not science of course
With all due respect, that is a gross misrepresentation.
Creationist scientists do top quality peer-reviewed science, but of course magazines such as Science and Nature won’t publish it because only one view is acceptable to them. Science/the growth of knowledge does not flourish when people have closed minds.
Some people do hang too much on Genesis, but true ( ie demonstratable and repeatable) science supports the Genesis account and disproves evolutionary theory. The natural processes that we see at work today, eg fossilisation and terraforming during natural disasters, show that millions of years are not required.
http://creation.com/creation-scientists
http://creation.com/tarawera-s-night-of-terror
Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• Please leave Mike Pero alone
Nov 30 09 11:43 am
Macdocter – impressive because of it’s audacity?
I agree – no way is it science, but interesting that they try to claim it is. Obviously science has more authority than religion when it comes to describing reality.
Kiwi Polemicist. I don’t know if you are serious in you claims or just another example of Poe’s law.
However, if you are my comment is that you have successfully immunized yourself to be protected from truth, from reality. You are living in an ideological ghetto – common for creationists and apologist – where everything gets manipulated to build an internally consistent (but unreal) internal igloo where you can survive with your biases intact.
Nothing I say will get through because of the mental gymnastics you have trained for.
Ken´s last blog ..Climate change deniers live in glass buildings
Nov 30 09 8:17 pm
Proudly uttered by a true believer in the Global Warming Cult blissfully unaware that he could be describing his belief system.
Andrei´s last blog ..The Human Genome and Climate Change: Twins Separated At Birth?
Nov 30 09 10:30 pm
Andrei: very well put.
Ken: Nothing I say will get through because of the mental gymnastics you have trained for.
Unlike most evolutionists I am willing to consider the arguments put forward by those who hold the opposite view.
***************************************************
I have here a 5th form science book which shows 4 pictures that they claim show how fossils of fish form.
I quote:
1) Marine animals die and settle on the ocean floor
2) Sediment starts to cover the remains. Soft parts usually decay before the animal is completely covered
3) Remains become completely covered by sediement, preventing further decay
4) Steps 1,2,3 are repeated. Lower sediments compact to form rock. The bottom layer contains the oldest fossils.
Bullshit
When fish die they float for a while before sinking. Usually they’re completely consumed long before they reach the ocean floor.
The process described above is however conceivable. But if it did actually occur surely we would see millions of fish skeletons lying on the ocean floor waiting to be turned into fossils, and we would be able to continually observe fish being turned into fossils. To the best of my knowledge neither of these things have been observed.
This is the sort of tripe that children are fed at school: the fish fable is a fiction invented in order to dress up a theory as a fact. If you don’t want your children to grow up reading fables in science class then don’t send them to a school that uses a state curriculum.
http://christianclassicalliberalist.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/a-biblical-perspective-on-home-schooling-and-state-schooling/
Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• Please leave Mike Pero alone
Nov 30 09 10:55 pm
Actually you have just demonstrated an unwillingness to consider evolutionary science. A grasping at straws to avoid the truth. As I said you have created sn ideological ghetto with it’s own immune system. Seems to me that home schooling is just another feature of this ghetto.
Dec 1 09 5:45 am
I’d be interested in your explaination of the fossil record KP, remember, google is your friend.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Fossilization
From KP’s link, requires no translation:
3) Children will follow the path that is shown to them.
Train up a child in the way he should go,
Even when he is old he will not depart from it.
[Prov 22:6 NASB]
Dec 1 09 7:38 am
you have created sn ideological ghetto
State schools are excellent examples of ideological ghettos, as are evolutionary magazines such as National Geographic, Nature and Science.
Andrew, there is not enough room here to explain the fossil record, except to say that a great many fossils cannot be explained by the slow-and-gradual evolutionary model and are explained by the sudden-catastrophic-flood model. Eg http://creation.com/hundreds-of-jellyfish-fossils
Quote from the above:
But the long-age uniformitarian idea that the fossils are formed by sediments slowly covering up dead animals does not describe how these jellyfish fossils could have been preserved.
http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers
Evolution is a religion and and few of its adherents are willing to change their views so I am probably wasting my breath here. If you don’t believe that evolution is a religion read this quote from an evolutionist:
http://creation.com/michael-ruse-evolution-is-a-religion
Before you accuse me of being unwilling to change my views, bear in mind that I was raised a leftist, went to the Right, and am now a classical liberalist. The change took less than ten years. I quote from the cover of Deborah Coddington’s Liberty Belle:
Few people, in just a decade, move from a position on the political left, through to new right, then off the political spectrum altogether to passionately advocating individual liberty
Sadly Coddington has since suffered a brain seizure and gone Left again, but my point remains.
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/deborah-coddington-has-lost-the-plot/
Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• Please leave Mike Pero alone
Dec 1 09 9:50 am
Andrew – what particularly do you want for me. I am not an expert in that area so I don’t think I can add anything beyond the normal scientific description of the process or the nature of the record. I do know it’s changing (becoming richer) all the time as many more fossils are discovered. The intermediate forms between land animals and whales, and between fish and tetrapods are areas where many discoveries have been made in recent years.
Ken´s last blog ..Peer review – an emotional roller coaster
Dec 1 09 10:08 am
Andrei, you don’t get it, do you? I actually don’t “believe” in global warming. As a scientists I will accept facts and draw m=y own conclusion – or trust those of experts when I don’t have the expertise. As this is not “belief” I can easily alter my conclusions as new data come in. All this is normal experience for an active scientists.
The unfortunate thing about “belief’ is that it usually comes with emotional and ideological commitments. This means that facts get cherry picked, selected and distorted to fit in to the preconceived belief. Exactly the opposite to science – more like religion.
I think the current attacks against NIWA are part of an essentially dogmatic religious approach. They certainly aren’t science.
And this also goes for the current attacks on Darin and evolutionary science.
Ken´s last blog ..Peer review – an emotional roller coaster
Dec 1 09 10:49 am
Darin = Darwin
Ken´s last blog ..Peer review – an emotional roller coaster
Dec 1 09 11:12 am
Sorry, KP = Kiwi Polemicist
Dec 1 09 7:37 pm
Kiwi Polemicist, Regarding your first link, the fossils in question are dated at 500 MY BP, presumably you dismiss this dating as I would assume that it doesn’t fit with your creationist beliefs.
It’s suggested that the 7 layers of fossilisation occurred over a million years, I guess that doesn’t fit with one great flood so the writter of the article dismisses this also.
I haven’t read the paper referred to in the article but a couple of things that occurred to me are, assuming the other claims made are correct, there are things called submarine avalanches, these can occur repeatedly (over periods of millions of years) at the same location (Hawaii has had some and will have more). While a swarm of jellyfish caught in the avalanche would be chewed up and not fit the find as described, jellyfish killed by the clouds of sediment released, which could settle over a huge area, perhaps would.
Sorry, but I’m not interested in trawling through all the Q&A of your second link, if there’s something profound there let me know.
I don’t know enough of the background to your third link to comment (is it quote mining?), and as it’s just one mans opinion it doesn’t bother me.
I agree with your comments about Coddington’s changeable political beliefs, and you probably realise that in terms of economic and political views, there’s not much distance between you and I.
On the topic of AGW I’m sympathetic (if that’s the right word)towards an ETS (don’t like this one though) because not externalising costs ie. user pays, fits with my economic views.
I didn’t see your above comment earlier – perhaps the links resulted in it being held up for moderation?
Dec 1 09 10:42 pm
People who argue that claims of a 4.6 billion year old Earth is wrong, don’t really (or don’t want to)understand how the sciences are all connected, and how they support each other, not out of some sort of human motivation of loyalty, but through the strength and demands of the scientific method.
One of the books on my shelf is Darwin, A Life In Science by John Gribbin and Michael White, the book describes the conflict that occurred between Geology and Evolution by natural selection on the one hand, and Physics on the other, I’ve found an outline of that dispute here:
http://bearcastle.com/blog/?p=1417
What It illustrates is that when you dispute the age of the Earth, you’re actually challenging many different scientific disciplines, disciplines that have in the past been in dispute but that have, through the advancement of science, reached agreement.