Annoying Claims!

[Vance]

Here is an article I wrote on that topic for anyone interested:

http://submerging.reclaimingthemind...-evolution-the-danger-of-misplaced-dogmatism/

 

[Mallon]

True. But at least creation scientists are trying to break it through. I am one of them.

Best of luck. May the best, most coherent argument win.
(Out of curiosity, are you doing YEC science in your lab?)

 

[shernren]

That is one of the questions I am struggling with too (despite my skullheadedness ).

Interestingly, I was talking with one of my evolution professors a few days ago. He pointed out that only 20 years ago, creationists would even deny microevolution. Today, even creationists agree that microevolution is an undeniable fact. So, why the change? Why argue it in the first place?

Good point shernren. I wish somebody had the answers.

Chaoschristian coined a term that is very helpful to use, especially in this kind of context: "Neo-creationism". It is important to isolate the subset of beliefs that distinguish fundamentalist, scientific creationism from the more general Christian belief of a sovereign creator God. By some atheist definitions of "creationism", notably Dawkins', both you and I as well as outspoken TEs like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins would be considered creationists as well.

Succinctly, neo-creationists hold that how God created is as much a centerpoint of faith as belief that God created. This abridged version of their beliefs is so compressed that it is almost immediately unhelpful; but it is a good starting point.

My personal conceptualization of their beliefs is that they are attempts to extend Christianity in such a way that the application of modernist scientific standards can support (that extension of) Christianity to the same level of rigor with which it supports other scientific facts.

Here are some books that might be helpful on the subject of creationism's history:

• The Creationists, by Ronald L. Numbers. The authoritative treatment of the history of neo-creationism.
• The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, by Mark Noll. More on fundamentalism in general, but a good chapter on creationism.
• God's Last Words: Reading the Bible from the Reformation to Fundamentalism, by David S. Katz. This receives mixed recommendations from me: it is extremely detailed, but is thoroughly humanistic, and doesn't have much that is specific about fundamentalism, even though it gives interesting insights on Bible-reading in general. More of a starting point and anecdotes to mull over than anything deal-clinching.
• Galileo, Bellarmine and the Bible, by Richard J. Blackwell. It has nothing directly to do with creationism, but as a balanced, accurate work on the parallel phenomenon of geocentrism and Galileo, it offers extra depth to any discussion of Scriptural interpretation and its relation to science.

 

[juvenissun]

Best of luck. May the best, most coherent argument win.
(Out of curiosity, are you doing YEC science in your lab?)

If one is serious about this, there is no such thing called YEC science, or TE science. It is just science.

For example, if I can give evidences or an alternative model to suggest that a cave "of Miocene age" (dated by whatever method) could be made within 20,000 years, then the YE idea could be better than the OE idea. The key is that one can do YE science perfectly in this secular world without flashing the YEC flag. And, believe me, the chance of challenging the OE idea is almost EVERYWHERE. Radiometric dating is definitely not the only thing people can argue about (frankly, attack the established dating system directly is quite difficult to me, who knows little about physics).

 

[Mallon]

If one is serious about this, there is no such thing called YEC science, or TE science. It is just science.

I guess that depends. If you take the same approach to science as AiG, framing your conclusions within a particular YEC interpretation of the Bible, I would have to brand that "YEC science" (if I were to consider it a science at all -- I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt).
Regardless, my question was: Does your lab produce anything in the way of positive evidence for a young earth? And if so, where can I read about your research?

 

[juvenissun]

I guess that depends. If you take the same approach to science as AiG, framing your conclusions within a particular YEC interpretation of the Bible, I would have to brand that "YEC science" (if I were to consider it a science at all -- I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt).
Regardless, my question was: Does your lab produce anything in the way of positive evidence for a young earth? And if so, where can I read about your research?

An honest answer is no.

However, what kind of "evidence" could be used to demo a young earth? It could be none, and yet it could be many. The none means no direct evidence (I don't feel good on that). The many refers to negative evidence. If I can demo that the current model of a feature could be replaced by one which uses a significantly shorter period of time, then it is a success. The key is, of course, to focus on the mechanism of the interested process.

Of course, all these works mentioned nothing related to views of any religion. No one can see a trace of YEC in my work. So, even I don't have to worry about tenure and promotion, but for the safety on the continuation of my research support, I would have to disappoint you. It wouldn't do you any good anyway.

 

[Mallon]

An honest answer is no.

Didn't think so. Thanks for your honest answer.

 

[Scotishfury09]

No one can see a trace of YEC in my work.

Do you study anything 4000+ years old?

 

[anonymous1515]

An honest answer is no.

However, what kind of "evidence" could be used to demo a young earth? It could be none, and yet it could be many. The none means no direct evidence (I don't feel good on that). The many refers to negative evidence. If I can demo that the current model of a feature could be replaced by one which uses a significantly shorter period of time, then it is a success. The key is, of course, to focus on the mechanism of the interested process.

Of course, all these works mentioned nothing related to views of any religion. No one can see a trace of YEC in my work. So, even I don't have to worry about tenure and promotion, but for the safety on the continuation of my research support, I would have to disappoint you. It wouldn't do you any good anyway.

It is unfortunate that you should have to continue your research into YEC in "secret." If your science really IS science, then it should be treated as such. As a scientist, if convincing evidence for a young earth surfaced, I would be more than willing to change my mind on the issue.

However, I also believe that it is a fruitless endeavour to continue to SEARCH for evidence of a young earth if it is not there. If people (not taxpayers though) were willing to provide funding for honest scientific research into YEC, then I would support it.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you study anything 4000+ years old?

According to the accepted time scale, no.

But, I suspect (never got time to work on any), some geomorphological features, associated with some tectonic processes, could be fit into that time scale. For example, some landforms to the west of the Rocky Mountain are said to take millions of years to develop. I suspect there could be an alternative model which would take much shorter time.

 

[juvenissun]

It is unfortunate that you should have to continue your research into YEC in "secret." If your science really IS science, then it should be treated as such. As a scientist, if convincing evidence for a young earth surfaced, I would be more than willing to change my mind on the issue.

However, I also believe that it is a fruitless endeavour to continue to SEARCH for evidence of a young earth if it is not there. If people (not taxpayers though) were willing to provide funding for honest scientific research into YEC, then I would support it.

No, I don't think I am doing anything in secret. YEC or TE or other tags are only used in politics and in conversation. In science, one couldn't care less about them. If a process said to take 10 million years to happen and is now suggested only take 2 million years, It is a YE model right there. However, no one would say you are a YEC because of that result. And I do not have to stick to a 6000-year old earth to be a YEC.

The good news for YEC scientist is that this kind of research is very workable and the topic is endless at this time when computer modeling becomes a very popular tool. Many many old (and new) data can be re-used and re-interpreted.

So, in the field of YE science research (not in education), financial support is not a problem. The faith of a person, and the goal of research are critical problems.

 

[Vance]

According to the accepted time scale, no.

But, I suspect (never got time to work on any), some geomorphological features, associated with some tectonic processes, could be fit into that time scale. For example, some landforms to the west of the Rocky Mountain are said to take millions of years to develop. I suspect there could be an alternative model which would take much shorter time.

Well, sure, you can create an "alternative model" for anything. And this is what "creation science" so often does, and then all of them jump on board, but without any real regard to the WEIGHT of the evidence and where that is pointing, or the LIKELIHOOD of that alternative model, which is invariably minuscule at best (and usually entirely falsified).

It really just becomes a process of apologetics, not science. They start with a conclusion based ENTIRELY on their particular reading of Scripture, then go out and look for an "angle" that could work with that conclusion. These are models which would never be reached from the evidence alone.

 

[anonymous1515]

Well, sure, you can create an "alternative model" for anything. And this is what "creation science" so often does, and then all of them jump on board, but without any real regard to the WEIGHT of the evidence and where that is pointing, or the LIKELIHOOD of that alternative model, which is invariably minuscule at best (and usually entirely falsified).

It really just becomes a process of apologetics, not science. They start with a conclusion based ENTIRELY on their particular reading of Scripture, then go out and look for an "angle" that could work with that conclusion. These are models which would never be reached from the evidence alone.

I agree with you to some degree. Every scientist is subjective in a certain way; we all do science with certain background assumptions that may sway our opinions in one way or the other. The issue with "creationist" science is that the bias seems to be quite heavy. Creation scientists are LOOKING for any evidence that would verify the biblical story of genesis. An objective view of the evidence (insofar as we CAN be objective) should not be influenced by what the bible says, simply because it says it.

If there are 10,000 independent models that postulate an old earth, while 1 or 2 postulate a young earth, I am not convinced that we should accept the 2 young earth models simply because the bible also says there is a young earth.

 

[Vance]

I agree with you to some degree. Every scientist is subjective in a certain way; we all do science with certain background assumptions that may sway our opinions in one way or the other. The issue with "creationist" science is that the bias seems to be quite heavy. Creation scientists are LOOKING for any evidence that would verify the biblical story of genesis. An objective view of the evidence (insofar as we CAN be objective) should not be influenced by what the bible says, simply because it says it.

Right, the creationists presumptions are based entirely on theological positions they want to uphold, whereas those from the scientific community as a whole are based on things already supported by evidence. It builds up from things already observed, so it is evidence driven, not theology driven. Further, the scientific community is made up of people of such diverse philosophical and theological backgrounds that no particular one can end up dictating outcomes. If something doesn't hold up to the evidence objectively, a significant part of the community will rise up and say so. This has not happened at all with evolution (since the ID movement is not, in the least, a "significant" part of the community).

 

[gluadys]

**Disclaimer**
Here comes a mini-rant...

One of the most annoying claims that I come across when I debate creationism goes something like this:

"Evolution is just a THEORY. It's not a FACT."

The second claim that frustrates me is the following (and I don't mean to assert that all creationists believe this) :

"The chances of life arising on earth through random chance (i.e. abiogenesis) are almost zero. Hence, evolution does not exist."

I realize that both of these statements would ONLY be made by the most simplistic and misinformed creationists. But I still find that a surprising number of fundamentalists actually make these claims.

Does this annoy anyone else?

The claim I find most annoying (and it is made by virtually all creationists) is "I believe in microevolution, but macroevolution has no basis in fact" or some variation of the same.

My thesis is that they really do "believe" in microevolution, so much so that they never take time to learn about it. Having been re-assured that microevolution is ok, it seems they think they do not need to actually know anything about it.

If ever one takes time to go beyond "believing" in microevolution and actually try to understand it, the impossibility of separating microevolution and macroevolution becomes obvious.