Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

Creation Science.

Interesting. What is the problem with Creation Science in your estimation?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Shapiro believes in universal common descent via materialistic evolution. He is borderline for his heresy against neo-Darwinism but still maintains the core evolutionary faith so he is grudgingly tolerated.

I would agree, and he continually is ridiculed for his positions and labeled a creationist or an ID supporter.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Interesting, but he clearly has not been hounded out of science, he is a scientist who supports non-darwinian evolution, and continues working in the field of biology. Sorry but not exactly strong evidence, scientists do disagree amongst each other.

There are those who would like to see him out. The point however is that he is labeled something he isn't due to his views that go against the mainstream view.

 

[lifepsyop]

I would agree, and he continually is ridiculed for his positions and labeled a creationist or an ID supporter.

That's true. It just goes to show that straying just slightly from the central dogma will put you at risk. Lucky for Shapiro he is such an accomplished molecular biologist. If it was a young scientist just starting out he would have probably been fired by now for being a "closet creationist" or something. Lending comfort to the enemy is unacceptable and I'm sure they know intuitively to keep their mouths shut if they doubt neo-Darwinism and value their careers.

 

[RickG]

Interesting. What is the problem with Creation Science in your estimation?

I am most familiar with the geology side and related areas. There are a number of problems but the two that stick out most to me is: (1) very few have any training in the area(s) they write about, and those who do rarely criticize the area of the expertise they trained in; and (2) it is approached through "intellectual dishonesty", whether intentional or not. And so you will understand, "intellectual dishonesty" is the practice of presenting information that appears to support ones position, while ignoring everything that does not support their position. In other words, deliberate misrepresentation. And seriously, some are absolutely laughable; the "Lost Squadron" for example.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am most familiar with the geology side and related areas. There are a number of problems but the two that stick out most to me is: (1) very few have any training in the area(s) they write about, and those who do rarely criticize the area of the expertise they trained in; and (2) it is approached through "intellectual dishonesty", whether intentional or not. And so you will understand, "intellectual dishonesty" is the practice of presenting information that appears to support ones position, while ignoring everything that does not support their position. In other words, deliberate misrepresentation. And seriously, some are absolutely laughable; the "Lost Squadron" for example.

I am unaware of the "Lost Squadron" do you have examples for your view?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's true. It just goes to show that straying just slightly from the central dogma will put you at risk. Lucky for Shapiro he is such an accomplished molecular biologist. If it was a young scientist just starting out he would have probably been fired by now for being a "closet creationist" or something. Lending comfort to the enemy is unacceptable and I'm sure they know intuitively to keep their mouths shut if they doubt neo-Darwinism and value their careers.

I again agree.

 

[lifepsyop]

And so you will understand, "intellectual dishonesty" is the practice of presenting information that appears to support ones position, while ignoring everything that does not support their position.

I couldn't agree more.

This happens even more so when a certain group cannot admit their own philosophical assumptions, and have to keep convincing the public (and perhaps themselves) that their worldview is purely objective, disinterested and scientifically infallible. In this situation, being upfront and open about their theory's weaknesses is simply unacceptable and honesty is no longer affordable.

 

[RickG]

I am unaware of the "Lost Squadron" do you have examples for your view?

Here's a link to the Lost Squadron claim by creationist Carl Wieland.

http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

Carl Wieland is a medical doctor, which outlines one of the problems with creation science I previously described, he is completely out of his field of expertise. The study of ice cores and the information they provide is the field of "Glaciology" and "Paleoclimatology", and I guess you could throw "Geochemistry" in as well. Few people here realize that most of my posts here involve only areas of science in which I feel qualified to discuss; as the concentrated area of my graduate degree in Earth Science was Paleoclimatology, along with more than 25 years experience as a chemist in private industry. Thus, I rarely get involved in discussions concerning evolution from a biological point of view. The article I linked is not very long. Take a look at it and see if you are convinced that Wieland's approach is or is not a valid review of how ice core chronology doesn't work. I would really appreciate your opinion and questions.

 

[lifepsyop]

Here's a link to the Lost Squadron claim by creationist Carl Wieland.

http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

Carl Wieland is a medical doctor, which outlines one of the problems with creation science I previously described, he is completely out of his field of expertise. The study of ice cores and the information they provide is the field of "Glaciology" and "Paleoclimatology", and I guess you could throw "Geochemistry" in as well. Few people here realize that most of my posts here involve only areas of science in which I feel qualified to discuss; as the concentrated area of my graduate degree in Earth Science was Paleoclimatology, along with more than 25 years experience as a chemist in private industry. Thus, I rarely get involved in discussions concerning evolution from a biological point of view. The article I linked is not very long. Take a look at it and see if you are convinced that Wieland's approach is or is not a valid review of how ice core chronology doesn't work. I would really appreciate your opinion and questions.

Since it is your claimed field of expertise, I'm curious if you know how many times geologists have been wrong in their assumptions of how geologic formations must take extremely long periods of time to be formed?

 

[RickG]

Since it is your claimed field of expertise, I'm curious if you know how many times geologists have been wrong in their assumptions of how geologic formations must take extremely long periods of time to be formed?

During the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, there were a number of assumptions that were completely wrong or had the right idea but not an accurate description. As technology and methods advanced and information became more available, errors were recognized and corrected. One that stands out for me is a theory proposed by the namesake of my avatar, Meteorologist, Alfred Wegener; that is "Continental Drift". Wegener recognized that the general shapes of the continents seemed to come together forming a supercontinent. Not only that he recognized that the stragitraphy matched (connected), as well as fossil assemblages. What Wegener's theory was lacking was a mechanism for his continental drift, thus his theory had very little acceptance because of that. However, during WWII the U.S. Navy begin a project of mapping the bathymetry of the Atlantic Ocean as a tool for evaluating where German submarines may be. After WWII the project continued pretty much along the same line with respect to Russian submarines. As the bathymetry of the Atlantic became more prominent, scientists begin doing their own bathymetry mapping globally and taking core samples as well. In discovering the magnetic anomalies and their progressively older dates away from the oceanic ridges, it became more than obvious that that was the mechanism for the continental drift. What grew out of this was the abandonment of continental drift being replaced with the new theory of Plate Tectonics. Plate tectonics played a major roll in Master's Thesis on "The occurrence of ice ages and causes of continental glaciation", as geomagnetics showed where the continental positions and constructs were throughout geologic history. With this, what became obvious is that continental glaciation was a rarity, which was due in most part that there were no land masses over the polar regions much of the time. Ocean currents would also play a major roll. For me, this research was back in the mid 1970's, which at that time the "Snowball Earth" events were unknown.

As for your comment of geologists being wrong about about the time of how long it takes for geologic formations to form, could you be more specific? An example perhaps.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here's a link to the Lost Squadron claim by creationist Carl Wieland.

http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

Carl Wieland is a medical doctor, which outlines one of the problems with creation science I previously described, he is completely out of his field of expertise. The study of ice cores and the information they provide is the field of "Glaciology" and "Paleoclimatology", and I guess you could throw "Geochemistry" in as well. Few people here realize that most of my posts here involve only areas of science in which I feel qualified to discuss; as the concentrated area of my graduate degree in Earth Science was Paleoclimatology, along with more than 25 years experience as a chemist in private industry. Thus, I rarely get involved in discussions concerning evolution from a biological point of view. The article I linked is not very long. Take a look at it and see if you are convinced that Wieland's approach is or is not a valid review of how ice core chronology doesn't work. I would really appreciate your opinion and questions.

My opinion would be irrelevant as my knowledge exists in the biological areas and I have none in your area of expertise. That is why you won't see me discussing the Biblical flood for instance. So you could tell me what is wrong with this article and I would have no way of determining anything you would use to show it is incorrect. I would be interested to know your take on it as I would find it interesting but I would not be able to know the accuracy of any of it.

 

[RickG]

My opinion would be irrelevant as my knowledge exists in the biological areas and I have none in your area of expertise. That is why you won't see me discussing the Biblical flood for instance. So you could tell me what is wrong with this article and I would have no way of determining anything you would use to show it is incorrect. I would be interested to know your take on it as I would find it interesting but I would not be able to know the accuracy of any of it.

Thanks for the insight, I guess that why our paths don't cross that often. Besides Wieland being way out of his field, he absolutely doesn't even discuss ice core chronology, rather makes a few odd references, only one of which (isotope ratios) has anything to do with chronologies and he doesn't even discuss the basics of it. The whole idea is that the Lost Squadron is burred under some 250 ft of ice, thus if those planes are under 250 feet of ice in only 50 years, then the mere thickness of the Greenland ice cap negates an age of tens of thousands of years, much less millions of years.

Well, here's his problem and utter display of ignorance in the area, which unfortunately, little if any of his captive audience will ever fact check, even if they knew how. Where the planes were forced landed was on the southeastern coast of Greenland where the annual snow fall is more than 2 meters, (6 1/2 feet). It is also on an unstable glacier where no glaciologist would ever take core samples for that reason. Furthermore, the 250 ft is not solid ice, rather a full third of that is snow pack and fern. The depth or thickness of ice has absolutely nothing to do with ice core chronology, rather the annual layers which are quite easily identifiable through a number of independent methods. In fact, seasons are identifiable within annual layers and individual snowfalls throughout the year(s) do not show up as or are mistaken for annual layers. And the point I am making is that this kind of reasoning and literature by non-experts is a large bulk of the creation science literature.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because we have an entire branch of forensic science dedicated to determining time of death based upon bodily decay rates.

Where in those studies did they look at red blood cell preservation for the conditions that the dinosaur bone was found?

 

[Loudmouth]

I would agree, and he continually is ridiculed for his positions and labeled a creationist or an ID supporter.

Where?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's true. It just goes to show that straying just slightly from the central dogma will put you at risk. Lucky for Shapiro he is such an accomplished molecular biologist. If it was a young scientist just starting out he would have probably been fired by now for being a "closet creationist" or something. Lending comfort to the enemy is unacceptable and I'm sure they know intuitively to keep their mouths shut if they doubt neo-Darwinism and value their careers.

Shapiro strays away from the evidence, which is the problem. He has replaced science with salesmanship. He tries to make random mutations look like something else, but they aren't. One of the ways he does this is ignoring the neutral and detrimental mutations caused by a mechanism and only focusing on the beneficial mutations. Barbara Wright does this same thing, such as in this paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21821/

 

[Loudmouth]

Because the word of God says he's wrong. Humans and different kinds of animals were created separately. I think I'll trust the Creator over a bunch of quasi-pantheistic philosophers.

I wasn't aware that the humans who wrote the Bible were your Creator. Please, explain this.

 

[JacksBratt]

Evidence please?

I take it that you are, in fact, serious here. Well, here are some findings from a Christian web page:

by Jerry Bergman


Summary

The writer interviewed over 100 persons who were active in what is known as the creation-intelligent design movement. Most felt that the standard evolutionary paradigm of origins was inadequate and should be ‘balanced’ with alternative positions. The creationists interviewed differed considerably relative to their views of origins, and about half would be identified with the seven day literal 24-hour day non-gap universal Noachian deluge creationist position. Almost all felt that they had faced serious religious discrimination in their academic careers at least once or more often. The discrimination ranged from derogatory comments to denial of tenure or an earned degree. The writer also reviewed the literature and interviewed about a dozen academic deans and department chairs in the field of science. All, without exception, felt that openly holding a ‘scientific creation’ worldview would seriously impede or terminate an academic career. Many openly stated that they would not hire or support the candidacy of an out-of-the-closet scientific creationist for a tenured position in academia.

Yes, I know, it's a Christian web page. However, it is not invalid due to being Christian based. If it is, then you, in that act, prove the point in question. It is a new type of bigotry. Bigotry toward scientific people and observations that go against a previously determined paradigm. This kills the validity of anything scientific as it could be true or false, but as long as it fits previous agreed upon conclusions, it is presented as fact.

There is more:

hardy believers in creation … have been heaped with scorn and ridicule. Evolutionists dominated the field so securely that creationists were fired, denied tenure and denied advanced degrees with impunity in public schools and universities.’22

former Louisiana State Senator … said instances [of] … pro-creationism professors and teachers … being dismissed have begun to proliferate in the past ten years … highly-qualified educators denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against simply because they hold views or engage in activities which oppose the tenets of … [evolutionism].’28


‘… in hiring teachers, or in certifying them as competent … consideration of various factors is appropriate. Where religious beliefs can affect job performance, it is appropriate to inquire as to what such effects are likely to be. [And] … those … who call themselves “scientific creationists”, by that very self-designation and all that goes with it, demonstrate incompetence [and therefore should not be hired].’52

‘Creationists often complain that their theories and their colleagues are discriminated against … as a matter of fact, creationism should be discriminated against … no advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances. Moreover, if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed.’54

In discussing whether creationist students should be discriminated against, one well-known science educator approvingly quotes those who conclude that a professor should have the right

‘to fail any student in his class, no matter what the grade record indicates’,

and even advocates,

‘retracting grades and possibly even degrees, if [a person espouses creationism] … after passing the course or after graduating.’62

 

[Goonie]

I take it that you are, in fact, serious here. Well, here are some findings from a Christian web page:

by Jerry Bergman


Summary

The writer interviewed over 100 persons who were active in what is known as the creation-intelligent design movement. Most felt that the standard evolutionary paradigm of origins was inadequate and should be ‘balanced’ with alternative positions. The creationists interviewed differed considerably relative to their views of origins, and about half would be identified with the seven day literal 24-hour day non-gap universal Noachian deluge creationist position. Almost all felt that they had faced serious religious discrimination in their academic careers at least once or more often. The discrimination ranged from derogatory comments to denial of tenure or an earned degree. The writer also reviewed the literature and interviewed about a dozen academic deans and department chairs in the field of science. All, without exception, felt that openly holding a ‘scientific creation’ worldview would seriously impede or terminate an academic career. Many openly stated that they would not hire or support the candidacy of an out-of-the-closet scientific creationist for a tenured position in academia.

Yes, I know, it's a Christian web page. However, it is not invalid due to being Christian based. If it is, then you, in that act, prove the point in question. It is a new type of bigotry. Bigotry toward scientific people and observations that go against a previously determined paradigm. This kills the validity of anything scientific as it could be true or false, but as long as it fits previous agreed upon conclusions, it is presented as fact.

There is more:

hardy believers in creation … have been heaped with scorn and ridicule. Evolutionists dominated the field so securely that creationists were fired, denied tenure and denied advanced degrees with impunity in public schools and universities.’22

former Louisiana State Senator … said instances [of] … pro-creationism professors and teachers … being dismissed have begun to proliferate in the past ten years … highly-qualified educators denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against simply because they hold views or engage in activities which oppose the tenets of … [evolutionism].’28


‘… in hiring teachers, or in certifying them as competent … consideration of various factors is appropriate. Where religious beliefs can affect job performance, it is appropriate to inquire as to what such effects are likely to be. [And] … those … who call themselves “scientific creationists”, by that very self-designation and all that goes with it, demonstrate incompetence [and therefore should not be hired].’52

‘Creationists often complain that their theories and their colleagues are discriminated against … as a matter of fact, creationism should be discriminated against … no advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances. Moreover, if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed.’54

In discussing whether creationist students should be discriminated against, one well-known science educator approvingly quotes those who conclude that a professor should have the right

‘to fail any student in his class, no matter what the grade record indicates’,

and even advocates,

‘retracting grades and possibly even degrees, if [a person espouses creationism] … after passing the course or after graduating.’62

interesting, and thank you for answering, but not exactly unbiased. i think I will hold my fire for the moment got to eat dinner.

 

[The Cadet]

I take it that you are, in fact, serious here. Well, here are some findings from a Christian web page:

by Jerry Bergman


Summary

The writer interviewed over 100 persons who were active in what is known as the flat earth movement. Most felt that the standard spherical paradigm of geography was inadequate and should be ‘balanced’ with alternative positions. The flatters interviewed differed considerably relative to their views of shape, and about half would be identified with the flat accelerating disc position. Almost all felt that they had faced serious religious discrimination in their academic careers at least once or more often. The discrimination ranged from derogatory comments to denial of tenure or an earned degree. The writer also reviewed the literature and interviewed about a dozen academic deans and department chairs in the field of science. All, without exception, felt that openly holding a 'flat earth' worldview would seriously impede or terminate an academic career. Many openly stated that they would not hire or support the candidacy of an out-of-the-closet scientific flatter for a tenured position in academia.

And I'm honestly completely not bothered by that. Not one bit. I'm sorry, but if you're at least 150 years behind the times; if you're challenging one of the most robust theories in modern science and have failed to bring any real contradictory evidence to the table or an alternative model that actually qualifies as "science"; if it is blatantly obvious that most people involved have no interest in a good-faith debate (if there's one running thread throughout the whole debate, it's the degree to which flat-earthers are willing to misquote and distort their sources to gain a veneer of respectability)... Then you have no place in academia.

It is a new type of bigotry.

No, it isn't. If someone rejects the scientific paradigm in favor of an unscientific, completely evidence-free hypothesis on the basis of their religious beliefs, that's their right. What is not their right is to then go on to lead successful academic careers. Creationists get "discriminated against" in academia for the same reason that people in computer science who believe that "goto" is good programming convention get discriminated against - because they're wrong, dishonest, and not presenting anything that isn't PRATT.

Bigotry toward scientific people and observations that go against a previously determined paradigm. This kills the validity of anything scientific as it could be true or false, but as long as it fits previous agreed upon conclusions, it is presented as fact.

So should geology departments accept flat-earthers?

Seriously, this is not a difficult concept. You know that expression, "standing on the shoulders of giants"? At a certain point, we have to use existing research as a jumping-off-point, lest we spend our lives running in place. The theory of evolution has been around for 150 years, and so far, every single piece of evidence available has done nothing to shake its foundations. Young earth creationism, on the other hand, doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory! Neither does intelligent design, and Behe testified as much in court! It's not even that we have two competing hypotheses, it's that we have one idea, and a bunch of people who want to take it down and replace it with "God did it".

And let's be clear here. Teachers who believe things directly orthogonal to what the scientific evidence shows should not be teaching science classes. If my hypothetical child's biology teacher was a creationist, I would be writing a letter to the superintendent as soon as I found out, because it's like having an AIDS-denier teach sex ed or an illiterate teach classic literature: they're obviously incapable of considering the subject objectively, and they may be reflecting these views in their teaching. Understanding biology is hard enough without the teacher actively throwing a wrench in the proceedings.

And why, pray tell, should a professor whose stated beliefs essentially guarantee that he will produce nothing of value be considered for tenure? Given that YEC is a completely indefensible, unscientific hypothesis, one would expect that creationists publish extremely little of any value in the peer-reviewed literature; and, surprise surprise, this is exactly what we get.