Creation Evidence

[Baggins]

Gawron:

You still haven't explained why you think creationists need government or industry funding in order to carry out science?

The fact that they don't get government or industry funding doesn't mean that research is impossible for them to carry out.

Can you think what it is that does make it impossible for them to carry out scientific research?

 

[Gawron]

"You still haven't explained why you think creationists need government or industry funding in order to carry out science?"

I didn't know I needed to explain something I never said. However, if there is a creationist scientist out there seeking funding for research, why shouldn't he be considered along side the atheist scientist, or any other scientist?

"Can you think what it is that does make it impossible for them to carry out scientific research?"

I can think of how you would consider it impossible. But let me ask you this. Was Behe's hypothesis of irreducible complexity testable and falsifiable?

 

[AintNoMonkey]

I didn't know I needed to explain something I never said. However, if there is a creationist scientist out there seeking funding for research, why shouldn't he be considered along side the atheist scientist, or any other scientist?

Of course they should be. But they should be considered for funding based on the scientific merit of their proposal. If that merit is low, or non-existant, chances are they won't get funding because others have more workable proposals.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't know I needed to explain something I never said. However, if there is a creationist scientist out there seeking funding for research, why shouldn't he be considered along side the atheist scientist, or any other scientist?

The first thing that creationists need to do is actually submit a grant. They aren't doing that. Why? This requires creationists to construct a working hypothesis which is testable, methodologies that would test the hypothesis, preliminary data which supports their hypothesis, expected results from experiments, and new avenues of research that will be investigated if the results falsify the hypothesis. Creationists can't do this. Their creationist position is not scientific, is not amenable to experimentation, zero preliminary data, no testable hypotheses, and hardly a scientist among them that is willing to do the work.

I have written grants. My colleagues have reviewed grants. I have helped review grants. I know how the granting process works, and I know that creationists would fail spectacularly for one single reaso: creationism is unscientific.

I can think of how you would consider it impossible.

Show us how it is possible. What would a creationist grant look like? What are the specific hypotheses and experiments that would be used? What preliminary data would be used?

Was Behe's hypothesis of irreducible complexity testable and falsifiable?

No. He stated matter-of-factly that IC systems could not evolve. This is not a hypothesis, this is dogma.

 

[Tomk80]

Posted by Tomk80:

“That your quotes aren't relevant here.”

First, this isn’t even a complete sentence. But more importantly, it is simply denial. You can’t refute what was said, so simply resort to smug arrogance and deny it has any relevance. But then you actually go on to support my position:

Stating a fact is not smug arrogance. Your quotes simply did not support your position. They said nothing about contrary positions not getting funding, which was your claim. Rather, they stated that those who apply for funding need to convince those who give out the funds and that to do that you need to know the consensus. Neither of those points are shocking or unreasonable.

1. “Yes, your request for funding must appeal to the reviewers.”

2. “It will be harder and you will have to show that you understand the current consensus..”

Your point being?

But this statement caught my eye:

“Examples like epigenetics and endosymbiosis show that it is very much possible to get funding for research that rocks that boat.”

So the field of epigenetics, which has been “an accepted part of the theory of evolution” for more than 30 years, is research that ‘rocks that boat’? How, exactly?

It was when it was not "an accepted part of the theory of evolution". These kind of mechanisms were not thought to occur before they were researched. Similarly for endosymbiosis and prions. Now, after the people coming up with these ideas learned the consensus at that time, came up with new ideas that went beyond and against that consensus and applied for grants with the people who review those things, these have become accepted mechanisms.

“Your quotes do not support your position.”

You don’t even know what my position was.

Your claim was that researchers do not consider new ideas if they are dependent on those ideas for their funding. The above examples show that scientists have done that, subsequently applied for funding for their new ideas and have gotten their ideas accepted.

If I miss anything here regarding your 'position', you haven't been very clear on your position.

 

[Tomk80]

"You still haven't explained why you think creationists need government or industry funding in order to carry out science?"

I didn't know I needed to explain something I never said. However, if there is a creationist scientist out there seeking funding for research, why shouldn't he be considered along side the atheist scientist, or any other scientist?

Bolding mine.
Quit the dishonesty Gawron. Whenever a grant is reviewed the reviewers in question look at the scientific merit, not the (a)theism of the person applying for the grant.

 

[Baggins]

"You still haven't explained why you think creationists need government or industry funding in order to carry out science?"

I didn't know I needed to explain something I never said. However, if there is a creationist scientist out there seeking funding for research, why shouldn't he be considered along side the atheist scientist, or any other scientist?

Have you got any evidence that creationists have applied for government or industry funding and been turned down for reasons that aren't applied to tens of thousands of real scientists every year?

Or is this just another "hypothetical" rant.

Every year the majority of scientists have their requests for some funding turned down because the funding bodies, either industrial or governmental, don't think it is of any use or that it hasn't been thought through properly yet. Should creationists be exempt from this process of not throwing money away on pointless or poorly conceived research?

"Can you think what it is that does make it impossible for them to carry out scientific research?"

I can think of how you would consider it impossible. But let me ask you this. Was Behe's hypothesis of irreducible complexity testable and falsifiable?

It was neither properly testable nor falsifiable, it is, in essence, a god of the gaps argument. This is not explained yet therefore god whoops sorry I meant an unknown creator did it.

Every example of supposed IC has been shown to be wrong, and I fail to see how you can't yet explain this therefore god whoops sorry I meant an unknown creator did it can be called a scientific theory unless you postulate that natural entities did it in which case I'd like to see some evidence for the existence of this entities.

If you start from the basis that the bible is inerrant and anything that contradicts it is wrong then I think that would mean that you couldn't conduct science, also if you had the idea that god could step in at any moment to explain something you didn't have a model for then I think that would also invalidate you from doing science.

Creationists have, rarely, conducted science that has been peer reviewed and accepted. It was accepted when it was done properly without recourse to supernatural agencies and was then peer reviewed.

I ask you again, what is stopping Creationists from funding their own scientific research? They certainly have the money themselves, why rely on industry or Government to fund them? If there is research that is going unfunded why can't AIG or someone step in to fund it.

I'll tell you why; there are no creationist "scientists" out there whose important research is going unfunded to start with, and the bodies that could fund these mythical people are not interested in funding science of any sort, they are fighting a political a cultural battle. They have absolutely no interest in funding science, and even if they did have they'd have no one to spend the money on anyway.

 

[Tomk80]

No. He stated matter-of-factly that IC systems could not evolve. This is not a hypothesis, this is dogma.

Well, I would say that irreducible complexity as a proposal can be falsified. Not Behe's irreducible complexity, but we can look at homologous structures. Luckily, that has been done and the result is that we now know that there are possible pathways that can lead to the evolution of irreducible complexity.

We also know that Behe has always been to lazy to actually propose testable observations for this. But then I won't further elaborate on the amount of laziness I ascribe to Behe.

 

[Tomk80]

Every year the majority of scientists have their requests for some funding turned down because the funding bodies, either industrial or governmental, don't think it is of any use or that it hasn't been thought through properly yet. Should creationists be exempt from this process of not throwing money away on pointless or poorly conceived research?

Don't forget the expertise that needs to be present in the institution that applied. This goes partway in the Robert Higgs quote supplied by Gawron. We just lost a bid for grant of a couple of million dollars to perform a cohort study because another institution applied for the same grant. The other institution had way more experience on performing cohort studies than we do, so they got the grant and we didn't. But according to Gawron, this is wholly unfair and we should have been given the grant anyway.

 

[Loudmouth]

We just lost a bid for grant of a couple of million dollars to perform a cohort study because another institution applied for the same grant.

It would appear that creationists haven't reached this level yet. I have yet to hear of a creationist grant being rejected. Of course, this won't stop creationists from claiming that they have been discriminated against.

A while back I started a thread aksing creationists to construct a creationist/ID grant. None of the creationists really participitated. I doubt such a thread would be more successful now (but if a creationist/IDer wants to start one, go ahead). I would suspect that deep down creationists/IDers are not interested in doing science. They never have been.

 

[flatworm]

Gawron, I think it's telling how you exclude my actual argument from my quote. How can creationist scientists be living in fear of losing their funding, if there's a giant movement out there with deep pockets and the express purpose of promoting creationism? Why can't they tap into this source of funding?

 

[TeddyKGB]

“Would a geologist be qualified to criticize the Federal Reserve? Is a chemist qualified to dispute theological study? No?”

Why not? This is another debate tactic often employed by those on your side, insist that someone educated in one field is only qualified to comment on that particular field, and nothing else. What are you trying to imply, that a chemist with a PHD is too stupid to understand theology? A geologist doesn’t have the need for or ever use money, therefore he can’t comment on the Federal Reserve?

The PhD chemist presumably is capable of understanding theology; his expertise in chemistry, however, does not alone qualify him to speak authoritatively on unrelated disciplines.

And his expertise in chemistry is only as good as his publication history. Even a PhD chemist must follow the conventions outlined by the scientific consensus.

But what is funny is how you never apply this same restriction on yourselves. To wit:

Posted by TeddyKGB:

“It is my understanding that this is a load of horse manure.”

And because this is your understanding, it must be true.

Stop being a twit.

But this excerpt from the article you linked to I found interesting:

“Indeed, the global cooling trend of the 1950s and 1960s led to a minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s. All that was more or less normal scientific debate, although the cooling hysteria had certain striking analogues to the present warming hysteria including books such as The Genesis Strategy by Stephen Schneider and Climate Change and World Affairs by Crispin Tickell--both authors are prominent in support of the present concerns as well--"explaining'' the problem and promoting international regulation. There was also a book by the prominent science writer Lowell Ponte (The Cooling) that derided the skeptics and noted the importance of acting in the absence of firm, scientific foundation.”

OK, so, Higgs says this: “As recently as the mid-1970s, for example, a scientific consensus existed among climatologists and scientists in related fields that the earth was about to enter a new ice age.” Note that he didn’t state how many were in this scientific consensus, only that it existed. You then post an article which identifies part of the consensus, but insist this debunks the ‘horse manure’.

Didn't state how many were in the consensus? Wow. It's hard to believe you're going down that road. Is that really your response? That Higgs' alluded-to consensus is not the overwhelming majority we have come to associate with the word, but is instead some unspecified amount that may or may not indicate a majority at all?

You then say he didn’t do his homework. Aside from the fact that you have no way to prove this claim, maybe he did:

“In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.”
“Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause:”

“manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.”

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

This is actually a good article on the global warming issue.

How do you know? Because you agree with its conclusions?

But you take the same approach as realitycheck, dismiss the author for stating what you term as an ‘opinion piece’ with complete disregard for his qualifications to state that opinion.

Pal, you're trying to dig him out of a hole by suggesting that his "consensus" is something other than the thing we call a consensus. I don't know what his qualifications are but, as I have shown, he's wrong. And you're pathetic.

 

[Gawron]

I will address one response at a time this round.

“The PhD chemist presumably is capable of understanding theology..”

There is a ringing endorsement, or perhaps a grudging and qualified acknowledgement.

“And his expertise in chemistry is only as good as his publication history.”

If I recall correctly from reading one of your prior responses to another member, you teach earth science. Just curious, is your expertise only as good as your publication record? Of course, I understand the point you are trying to make. It works in much the same manner in the local historical circles, people are generally impressed more by what you have written rather than other credentials.

“Even a PhD chemist must follow the conventions outlined by the scientific consensus.”

Once again lets go back and look at the original exchange which prompted this discussion. Someone asked this question:

"WHEN WHEN WHEN has any true scientist refused to read, look at or consider a new idea?"

I replied:

“When his funding is dependent on him being part of the consensus.”

You may not have been directly addressing this aspect of the question, but your response brings to mind the additional question, what are the repercussions for a scientist who does not ‘follow the conventions outlined by the scientific consensus?’ Perhaps running the risk of not having his research funded? Seems to me you have helped verify my statement.


“Didn't state how many were in the consensus? Wow. It's hard to believe you're going down that road. Is that really your response?”

Yes, it is.

“That Higgs' alluded-to consensus is not the overwhelming majority we have come to associate with the word, but is instead some unspecified amount that may or may not indicate a majority at all?”

Higgs never used the word ‘majority,’ he stated that the consensus existed, and it did. From Science Magazine, December 10th, 1976:

“Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.”


“One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar's astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate.”

End Quote. And from Science News, March 1, 1975, in which was predicted “a full blown 10,000 year ice age.”

It seems the primary criticism leveled against the global cooling cries of the 1970’s stem from the fact that some of the articles promoting it were not ‘peer reviewed scientific publications,’ but rather tomes such as Time and Newsweek. Note that Science Magazine is on equal par with Nature, but the question not addressed in the denunciations is, where did Time and Newsweek get their information from? Hmmm…..

“How do you know? Because you agree with its conclusions?

Read my various posts on the global warming thread, then decide for yourself if I know anything about the subject.

“I don't know what his qualifications are but, as I have shown, he's wrong.”

This clearly illustrates that you did not read the article, as his qualifications were detailed in paragraph two. But I get it, he is wrong because you say he is. Other than to say this, your playground name calling I will ignore.

 

[RealityCheck]

You may not have been directly addressing this aspect of the question, but your response brings to mind the additional question, what are the repercussions for a scientist who does not ‘follow the conventions outlined by the scientific consensus?’ Perhaps running the risk of not having his research funded?

That depends on what you mean by not following conventions. If you mean "didn't conduct research according to scientific methodology" then yes - no funding for you.

If you mean that the scientist has proposed something that runs contrary to conventionally accepted theory, then that scientist had better have a damn good load of empirical evidence to back his/her proposal, otherwise yes - it's nothing more than a conjecture and idea, without any evidence to show its merit, and will not be funded. On the other hand, if there is evidence that suggests you are onto something, you can not only get funded, but eventually get your proposal accepted. Read this from this site: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/challenging

"
No one denies it is difficult to get a new scientific idea accepted, but that isn’t the same as claiming that the doors of science are slammed shut to those who challenge the status quo. When scientists question facets of existing theories or propose new ones, they present the best evidence available and make the strongest arguments they can to their colleagues. Colleagues in turn challenge that evidence and reasoning. The rigor of this process is what makes science such a powerful tool. Because scientists have to fight hard to get their ideas accepted, good ideas win out – when they are proven to be sound.

Barbara McClintock’s research on maize in the 1940s and 1950s showed that sequences of DNA called transposons can change positions within a chromosome, and in doing so, can regulate the expression of other genes. This discovery went against the accepted view that DNA was merely a static set of instructions, and the initial response to her research was so skeptical that, after several years of developing her ideas, she stopped publishing about them out of concern that she would alienate the scientific mainstream.
Unlike intelligent design proponents, however, she did not claim discrimination and attempt to circumvent the peer review process. Rather, she continued to research the evolution and genetics of maize. As new technology developed, other scientists verified her discoveries. McClintock was the recipient of many awards, including the National Medal of Science, the first MacArthur Foundation grant, and the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.

Lynn Margulis wrote a paper, “The Origin of Mitosing Eukaryotic Cells,” which argued that eukaryotic cells – those with a true nucleus – arose when cells with no nucleus symbiotically incorporated other such cells to make new cells that could perform more functions. The paper was rejected by many journals, and when eventually published by The Journal of Theoretical Biology it was highly criticized. Margulis spent decades defending her work, but scientists now accept her suggested mechanism through which organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts evolved. Her suggestions about other organelles have not stood up to experimental tests, and are not as widely accepted.
Margulis strongly opposes the idea, widely held within the scientific community, that the driving force in evolution is competition, and thinks cooperative and symbiotic relationships are underemphasized by many evolutionary scientists. Despite holding views different from many in the scientific community, because of her research, she is well respected, and has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences and awarded the National Medal of Science.

Prior to Barry Marshall’s discovery that peptic ulcers are caused by the bacteria Helicobacter pylori, the accepted explanation was that they were the result of stress, diet, and an excess of acid in the stomach. When Marshall presented his research, it was greeted with skepticism, and it took many years for his theories to become widely accepted. Although Marshall suggested that a conspiracy prevented acceptance of his work (in his case, pharmaceutical companies which stood to lose money on ulcer treatments), he did not respond by withdrawing from the scientific process, but by continuing to run experiments that would allow others to replicate his findings. Because he did so, scientists were able to evaluate his work and conduct their own experiments to test his proposals. Whether or not there was a pharmaceutical company conspiracy, scientists were willing to pursue Marshall’s idea and to publish results that supported it. In time, the community of science came to accept his results.. Marshall received many awards, including the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, and was made a Companion of the Order of Australia.
As Marshall himself observed, “Although people were skeptical, and they all went home with the aim of trying to prove me wrong, that’s how science moves forward. Someone has a hypothesis and you say, ‘Okay, if I can prove it wrong, I can publish a paper saying he’s wrong.’ Gradually, over the next few years, one by one, these people trying to prove me wrong fell by the wayside and actually converted over to my side.”

In 1982, Stanley Prusiner published an article on his research into scrapie – a disease in sheep related to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease – which argued that the infectious agent was not a virus but a protein, which Prusiner called a “prion”. Because no one had heard of a protein replicating without a nucleic acid like DNA or RNA, many virologists and scrapie researchers reacted to the article with incredulity. When the media picked up the story, “the personal attacks of the naysayers at times became very vicious,” according to Prusiner. However, his critics failed to find the nucleic acid they were sure existed, and less than two years later, Prusiner’s lab had isolated the protein. Subsequent research provided even more support for prions, and in 1997 Prusiner was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. "

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Funding for scientific research is tied to the nature of the material to be researched, as well as the scientist, and who 'peer reviews' their articles.

I read the quotes, but they don't address in particular what I posted about. Specifically, I was talking about commercialized biology.

Yes, people have individual biases, axes to grind, ulterior motives, blah blah blah. But at the end of the day, I'm talking about one thing: money.

Again, I bring up Florida as an example. They've pumped hundreds of millions into attracting biotech to the state (research labs, incubators for biotech start-ups, etc). They didn't do this because they want to maintain the status quo. They did this because they expect it will benefit the economy.

Another example is the company Evolutionary Genomics Inc. They are a biotech company that directly applies evolutionary theory in what they do (genomics research for medical and agricultural purposes). They recently secured undisclosed additional millions from a VC firm. Did the VC firm come along and say, "hey you guys are maintaining the status quo! have a few million, on us!" No, they did it because they expect the company to eventually turn a profit.

There is a lot of applied evolutionary science in commericial fields (mainly medical and agriculture). Those areas receive funding. That funding comes from sources that expect economic/financial results. Funding scientific research is not a black hole. At some point, money has to go the other way.

And especially when it comes to real businesses (again, there are private sector businesses that use evolutionary biology), maintaining the status quo is the worst thing you can do. Do that in business and you are toast.

Creationist ministries take in millions. But outside of merchandising, building tourist attractions or getting paid to preach, they haven't generated a single application of creationism as it is relevant to biology--let alone one with commericial application. And you wonder why they don't get funding?

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Pete Harcoff:

"And you wonder why they don't get funding?"

No, actualy, I don't. Creationism and/or creationist scientist were never a point I was attempting to address.

"I read the quotes, but they don't address in particular what I posted about. Specifically, I was talking about commercialized biology."

I may have to go back and re-read the earlier pages, but IIRC my single sentence which started this fire-storm wasn't in response to you. I don't mean anything by this other than I don't think I was responding to your post about commercialized biology. Nor did I say anything about maintaining the status quo. I was talking about consensus science, and where money is involved, how many are hesitant about breaking from the consensus.

By the way, do you post at ERV? Your name rings a bell.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Someone has a hypothesis and you say, ‘Okay, if I can prove it wrong, I can publish a paper saying he’s wrong.’

That actually raises an interesting point. If there was some "intellectual mafia" dedicated to maintaining their privileged position, it would actually make more sense for them to allow every challenger in looneyland to submit opposing viewpoints -- then they can all write rebuttals (which, of course, will be accepted by their mafia brethren). Papermilling FTW! Anyone in this world knows that getting your publication count up is critically important. So I wonder why they don't do that...?

 

[RealityCheck]

That actually raises an interesting point. If there was some "intellectual mafia" dedicated to maintaining their privileged position, it would actually make more sense for them to allow every challenger in looneyland to submit opposing viewpoints -- then they can all write rebuttals (which, of course, will be accepted by their mafia brethren). Papermilling FTW! Anyone in this world knows that getting your publication count up is critically important. So I wonder why they don't do that...?

Couldn't possibly be that "they" are actually intellectually and academically honest... that's, like, gotta be just as astronomically unlikely as two rocks smashing together and making space goo monkeys!

 

[Gawron]

Space Goo Monkeys....

I like that.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

pratt#1 evo does not equal abio

The theory of evolution at some juncture always requires spontaneous generation to occur.

pratt #2 define info

Additional genetic information is never gained in a DNA chain.

pratt # 3 define kind

The result, of course, is that 'all things reproduce according to their kind'.

pratt #4 formation of new species have been observed

Many kinds of animals have become extinct, we find their remains all the time. ( 99% of all species are now extinct ID??)...no new kinds of life arise from other kinds, or from non-living material.

pratt#1 again evo not abio

Consider this: people consider frogs becoming princes a fairy tale. But, if they tell you mankind came from a rock, it's evolution.