Creation Science Evangelism

[Pete Harcoff]

OK Pete now that you have really depressed me....
Yikes 45% of Americans are YEC? (pulling hair)
I read and hear theings all the time on the dumbing down of America but this is really sad.

This belief really shows their true ignorance at the heart of the matter since their faith says God is eteranal. To accept logic and evidence is to reject faith- maybe so..maybe that is why so many have- SAD.

Well, it really is a case of ignorance more than anything. After all, for most people the age of the Earth or whether or not evolution is true just isn't important.

But unfortunately, many of these people who get involved with trying to push YEC in schools, for example, don't really understand that they are impeding science, not promoting it. The YEC debate, in scientific circles, has come and gone. It was shown to be wrong over 200 years ago, even before evolution appeared on the scene. But that news has apparently yet to reach some ears.

 

[LorentzHA]

Pete-True. I live in Texas and am more than familiar with willful ignorance of these types. It is AMAZING how people people would like factual information withheld from their children and a fairy tale taught instead. Ignorance begets ignorance. They will raise their children the same and so on and so on.

 

[john crawford]

Nothing in science can be proven. Heck, everything in life rests on certain philosophical beliefs about the very nature of existence. So technically, you can't prove anything.

As far as evolution only being a theory, that is all it will ever be. Just like the theory of gravity, theory of general relativity, germ theory, etc. Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

Would it be fair to posit that scientific theories are metaphysical phenomena?
(ie: They have no physical attributes and exist only in the spiritual world.)

 

[john crawford]

Anyone want to hear my general theory of Theosophy?

 

[john crawford]

What proof do you have that the Smithsonian killed Aboriginal people?

 

[john crawford]

The Hypothesis of Evolution better describes the scientific attempts to prove evolution. The word 'theory' is too vague, general and metaphyisical to be used by scientists.

 

[PhantomLlama]

Theory has a specific meaning in science, I believe. It is different from the common usage.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

You mean to say that you think a theory is a metaphysical phenomena? That seems wrong in every sense of the word.

A scientific theory is created after all the facts have been examined so it is based on the physical. The theory is just an explanation of those facts. Even if you meant that it's metaphysical since it's only a thought you are wrong since a theory can be observed. Ie objects fall down, creatures experience changes in their genomes, etc

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

John, learn what hypothesis and theory mean.

A hypothesis is what you think will happen before you attempt an experiment based upon previous knowledge of a subject.

Example: I think this ball is going to fall down when I drop it since stuff always falls down on earth.

A theory is what did happen, you just can't explain it 100% because there is still some missing info. If you could explain it 100% then it would be a law.

Example: Yup, the ball fell down at 9.8 meters per second until it reached it's terminal velocity and then remained at a constant speed due to friction with air molecules until impacting the earth. Gravity validated.


For evolution we have the fossil record, biogeography, genetics, biology, geology, chemistry, and probabbly more independent fields of science contributing evidence. Not only do they show the earth to be old but they show that species didn't always exist, they died out, and new ones appeared. Then you have the zillion natural catastrophes, that if condensed into a YEC time scale, would make the planet uninhabitable for modern plants and animals. Then you have genetics showing that the genomes are very flexible and it's possible to turn a wolf (apex predator) into a chihuahua(can fit in a tea cup and be eaten by house cats) thru thousands of years of breeding.

If you don't believe in evolution as a sound scientific theory then you most certainly shouldn't believe in gravity. There are still so many fundamental things that we don't understand about gravity.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The Hypothesis of Evolution better describes the scientific attempts to prove evolution.

There may be various (even competing) hypotheses within the theory of evolution, but the theory of evolution itself is beyond the hypothesis stage.

The word 'theory' is too vague, general and metaphyisical to be used by scientists.

Then you do not understand how the word "theory" is used by scientists. (Metaphysical?)

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Would it be fair to posit that scientific theories are metaphysical phenomena?
(ie: They have no physical attributes and exist only in the spiritual world.)

Er, what?

Are you trying to suggest that the theories themselves are metaphysical or that they describe metaphysical phenomena?

Not sure where you going with this...

 

[lucaspa]

Exactly. These five major beliefs are just that, beliefs. You cannot use science to prove them. That is why evolution is a THEORY.

Chris, those 5 statements are made by science, but science does NOT say they happen WITHOUT God!

That's the key. The belief Hovind is talking about there is atheism. Evolution, like all science, is agnostic.

"To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. " SJ Gould.

Evolution is a theory because that is what science does. It makes theories to explain data. Creation science is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Gap Theory is a theory. Cell theory is a theory.

Evolution is a valid theory because the data supports it. Creation science is a falsified theory because the data shows it to be wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

Wow, you Atheist need to learn how to LISTEN, almost all of Dr. Hovind's info is from OTHER people so why are you blaming him for atleast informing you?

Repeating the false witness of other people -- like Walt Brown -- as though it is true is still false witness. Hovind should have made the effort to check whether the people he is getting the info from have the correct info.

Also, when Hovind quotes genuine scientists, he often does so out-of-context to make them appear to be backing a position they don't. That's also false witness.

As for the Smithsonian killing [size=-1]Aboriginal people[/size] that is true.
Just like the Holocaust you can say it didn't happen but it did.

It didn't happen. The Smithsonian, as an institution, has never sent it's employees out to kill anyone.

 

[lucaspa]

I did some research into this and it appears might be some truth to the story (although it's obviously been tainted by bias). The only other material I could find, however, was an article on AIG: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/cen_v14n2p16.asp

Pete, the article is clear that the institutions never killed anyone. They just acquired the remains of individuals of different ethnic groups. The crime of grave-robbing is bad, but not nearly as bad as murder. To attempt to label grave-robbing as the murder of the individuals is a false witness by Hovind.

The first is the bit about "Darwinist views about the racial inferiority". The prevailing cutural mindset at the time was that Europeans were inherently superior to other civilizations. This view existed prior to anything Darwin wrote (Darwin merely echoed this mindset in some of his writings).

Yes. One of the most biting criticisms of natural selection came from Fleeming Jenkins and showed that natural selection would not work under the blended characteristics theory of inheritance. The argument, however, was completely steeped in racism.

Evolution actually dealt a bad blow to racism. Now, instead of all ethnic groups being separate creations, we all had a common ancestor. This bound all ethnic groups into one species, imstead of the separate species proposed by special creation.

As you point out, Europeans also equated technology with intelligence. So anyone not having their level of technology -- all aboriginal people -- were thought to be less intelligent.

Second, slaughter of other peoples on other lands is hardly unique in the 1800's. Just look at what the history of what the Europeans did the Natives on this continent.

And, if you look, most of that slaughter came about before Darwin published Origin in 1859. The slaughter of the South American Indians, which Darwin saw and protested during his voyage in the Beagle, was done by creationists. So was the slaughter of Maoris and the Australian aborigines.

I suspect that the British museums did engage in underhanded efforts to obtain specimens. In that case, it meant grave-robbing native burial sites. But stealing people already dead is a far cry from going out and killing them.

 

[lucaspa]

My question is what is it they they want to hear and emotionally invest in?[

Hovind and his followers have made the logical mistake of tying the untestable statements of ultimate meaning -- God exists and God created -- to the very testable statements of how God created. In their minds, if God didn't create by YEC, then God didn't create.

So, evolution threatens them directly.

What this man has to say does no prove a God, after-life or a heaven. There is no correlation between a young Earth - this "stuff" he peddles and logic.

Right. No logic. It's a terrible logical mistake by Hovind and YECs. THere is no logical tie to God creating by evolution and the existence of God, an after-life, or heaven. But Hovind has made the emotional connection even if it isn't logical.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Pete, the article is clear that the institutions never killed anyone. They just acquired the remains of individuals of different ethnic groups. The crime of grave-robbing is bad, but not nearly as bad as murder. To attempt to label grave-robbing as the murder of the individuals is a false witness by Hovind.

Yes, I understand that the institutions didn't systematically kill people for specimens. But note these parts in the article:

There is no doubt from written evidence that many of the 'fresh' specimens were obtained by simply going out and killing the Aboriginal people. The way in which the requests for specimens were announced was often a poorly disguised invitation to do just that. A death-bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland. in 1866,4 graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen.5

Edward Ramsay, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney for 20 years from 1874, was particularly heavily involved. Four weeks after he had requested skulls of Bungee (Russell River) blacks, a keen young science student sent him two, announcing that they, the last of their tribe, had just been shot.6 In the 1880s, Ramsay complained that laws recently passed in Queensland to stop Aborigines' being slaughtered were affecting his supply.

A German evolutionist, Amalie Dietrich (nicknamed the 'Angel of Black Death') came to Australia asking station owners for Aborigines to be shot for specimens, particularly skin for stuffing and mounting for her museum employers.7 Although evicted from at least one property, she shortly returned home with her specimens.

A New South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the slaughter by mounted police of a group of dozens of Aboriginal men, women and children.8 Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the 10 best skulls were packed off for overseas.

Now these are the only specific cases they list and the details are sketchy at best (and AIG has been guilty of leaving out inconvenient details), but the implication is there. I, for one, would like more details on these accounts.

 

[lucaspa]

The Hypothesis of Evolution better describes the scientific attempts to prove evolution. The word 'theory' is too vague, general and metaphyisical to be used by scientists.

Here we go again.

Hypotheses and theories are both statements about the physical world. There is no hard and fast line between the the two. Hypotheses tend to be specific statements about a narrrow part of the universe while theories tend to be more general statements.

For instance,
Hypothesis: fibroblast growth factor is a growth factor (causes cell division) in human skin fibroblasts.

Theory: fibroblast growth factor is a growth factor for fibroblasts from skin of all mammalian species.

You can see that the theory is broader than the hypotheses. The hypothesis has been tested and found to be supported. Thus we take the hypothesis as true. Now the hypothesis becomes part of the data supporting the theory.

"Evolution" actually includes at least 5 theories and thousands of hypotheses.

Two of the common theories within evolution are:
1. All species arise from one or a few common ancestors.
2. The designs in organisms come by natural selection.

A hypothesis in evolution is that the current species of Cerion (a snail) arose by hybridization of two previous species.

Nor are theories metaphysical constructs. They are imaginative constructs. That is, they arise from the human imagination and represent an imaginative leap. However, they are concrete statements about the physical universe. As such, theories are then tested against the physical universe to see if the statements are correct or false.

 

[lucaspa]

Yes, I understand that the institutions didn't systematically kill people for specimens. But note these parts in the article:

There is no doubt from written evidence that many of the 'fresh' specimens were obtained by simply going out and killing the Aboriginal people. The way in which the requests for specimens were announced was often a poorly disguised invitation to do just that. A death-bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland. in 1866,4 graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen.5

This is the only one of the list that may possibly be killing for the museum. Even here, the murder was not committed by the personnel of the museum.

Edward Ramsay, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney for 20 years from 1874, was particularly heavily involved. Four weeks after he had requested skulls of Bungee (Russell River) blacks, a keen young science student sent him two, announcing that they, the last of their tribe, had just been shot.6 In the 1880s, Ramsay complained that laws recently passed in Queensland to stop Aborigines' being slaughtered were affecting his supply.

Even here, there is no indication that the two people had been shot to provide the specimen. Yes, the "keen young science student" made sure the specimens were sent to the museum, but there is no hint in the text that the museum asked that the people be killed.

And yes, Ramsay can complain that the laws are affecting his supply without saying the laws are bad. We need context. Last April after a weekend of 9 motorcyclists who had multiple broken bones "complained" that the helmet law was making more work for them. In the past, these cyclists would have died due to head trauma and no one would have had to spend the immense time and money treating their other injuries. That "complaint", however, does NOT indicate that any of them want to repeal the helmet law.

A German evolutionist, Amalie Dietrich (nicknamed the 'Angel of Black Death') came to Australia asking station owners for Aborigines to be shot for specimens, particularly skin for stuffing and mounting for her museum employers.7 Although evicted from at least one property, she shortly returned home with her specimens.

Looking here, I find that all these refer back to the same article:

1. 'Darwin's Bodysnatchers', Creation 12(3):21, June-August 1990.
​

2. David Monaghan,'The body-snatchers', The Bulletin, November 12. 1991, pp. 30-38. (The article states that journalist Monaghan spent 18 months researching this subject in London, culminating in a television documentary called Darwin's Body-Snatchers, which was aired in Britain on October 8, 1990.)
​

I'm not sure what The Bulletin is, but I'm guessing it is a creationist publication. So what we have is one creationist publication quoting another as source? What was Monaghan's original source?

A New South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the slaughter by mounted police of a group of dozens of Aboriginal men, women and children.8 Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the 10 best skulls were packed off for overseas.

Again, it looks like the Aborigines were slaughtered for other reasons and only afterward were some specimens sent off as an afterthought.

 

[lucaspa]

It appears that AiG also quoted the article wrong.
Monaghan, David. "Angel of Black Death: The Body-Snatchers." The Bulletin, 12 Nov 1991: 30-38.

Altho I do have The Bulletin wrong. It is one of Australia's oldest daily papers.

The only other reference I can find to the article is:
"At the time Australia was colonised, the dominant theory in Western thought regarding the differences
between people of different regions centred on the notion that groups considered to be more ‘primitive’ would eventually pass through the various stages of development traced by the ‘superior’ Europeans or
Caucasians. An alternate view, widely held among some public policy makers in Australia, was that ‘primitive’ peoples such as Aboriginal Australians would eventually ‘die out’ and that it should be the aim of public policy to facilitate this process. 13 So pervasive was this view in some quarters that it helped fuel a rush by scientists in the late nineteenth century to collect skeletal and other anthropological remains to establish a record of what was predicted to be a ‘dying race’. 14"
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adb.nsf/files/Race%20for%20the%20Headlines%20-%20Chapter%202.pdf/$FILE/Race%20for%20the%20Headlines%20-%20Chapter%202.pdf

Only reference 14 is to the article. Doesn't imply that they went out to deliberately kill and exterminate the Aborigines. Just that the Aborigines were going to be exterminated anyway and they wanted a record. Kind of like documenting the carrier pidgeon before everyone killed it.

 

[the truth]

Wow, you Atheist need to learn how to LISTEN, almost all of Dr. Hovind's info is from OTHER people so why are you blaming him for atleast informing you?

"Eat the meat and spit out the bones"

As for the Smithsonian killing [size=-1]Aboriginal people[/size] that is true.
Just like the Holocaust you can say it didn't happen but it did.

Amen