World Population

[Job 33:6]

I don't think it is a conspiracy against anyone, but can you name anyone who "with respect to their young earth ideas" is regarded as a "credible scientist"? Scientific consensus is opposed to it, not a conspiracy, just a vast majority of opinion.

If Kurt wise actually had research, we could examine it here, on this forum. It could be critiqued elsewhere as well. But without publications, all we can do is simply watch his youtube videos.

With respect to his youtube videos, I would say that his ideas really do not make sense with respect to...logic. I've taken time to examine his statements on a technical level, and I just don't think they make sense. And I suspect that most other scientists agree that his ideas do not make sense as well.

With that said, while I agree that the majority of geologists would likely reject Kurt Wise's ideas, in my opinion, it is with good reason that his ideas are rejected (because they really don't make any sense). And it is with good reason that he isnt published.

I gave the simple example before in another discussion in which one of his videos was posted. Kurt Wise suggests that multiple giant waves formed the geologic record, and he specifically describes geologic megasequences in which he believes formations were coupled together during each successive "giant wave".

But in reality, structural features exist even within these geologic mega sequences, that could not be formed by an individual giant wave of water. Mr. Wise attempts to promote an idea of "multiple waves" to alleviate issues around a single flood depositing strata, but in reality, he still continues to ignore more technical details of the geologic column. But who would know that he ignores technical details aside from...scientists? And so he gets support from...well people who arent scientists, and people who are scientists tend to reject his ideas.

Below is a prior discussion (of many) held on such features.

Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

Kurt Wise's ideas do not make sense, nor do the words of those who attempt to support him here on these forums.

Which is why we see Noble Mouse saying things like " The statement that there should be vastly more is not mine, I am relaying what was conveyed in the video I linked from Kurt Wise, you'll have to take your issue up with him. ".

It is because he is incapable of making his own judgement and supporting his claims. Which is kind of fundamental to being a good scientist. And if it cant be justified, then it shouldnt be parroted as truth.

 

[sfs]

I believe what the Bible say because I believe the Bible is from God and is true.

Lots of people believe that the Bible is from God and is true without thinking that it teaches a young earth or special creation.

what interpretation of evidence could I show you where there is no interpretation you accept, except that which you have already decided is true?

You could offer an interpretation of the evidence that took seriously the entire body of evidence, that didn't engage in ad hoc hypotheses which are picked up and dropped, that doesn't cherry-pick data, and that in various other respects displays intellectual integrity. My field is genetics, and I've mostly looked at creationist claims about genetics, and they are uniformly bad. Not because they reach conclusions I don't like, but because they are badly argued, badly supported, and fundamentally dishonest. They're an embarrassment to the faith they claim to be supporting.

 

[RC Tent]

Very often they appeal both to their interpretation of the Bible and their own, almost uniformly poor, grasp of the scientific evidence.

It is a perspective on reality not based purely on science, unless they are denying that the Bible is included as a basis of their thinking, I don't know of any young earth arguments that don't cite the Bible. It is not a "poor grasp of scientific evidence" - it is a deliberate choice not to base all convictions that they hold on just what can be ascertained by science.

 

[sfs]

It is a perspective on reality not based purely on science, unless they are denying that the Bible is included as a basis of their thinking, I don't know of any young earth arguments that don't cite the Bible. It is not a "poor grasp of scientific evidence" - it is a deliberate choice not to base all convictions that they hold on just what can be ascertained by science.

Sorry, but it is a poor grasp of scientific evidence that I'm talking about. If somebody makes a faith-based argument, fine. I don't agree but I have no quarrel with them. I'm talking about arguments that are allegedly providing specifically scientific evidence against evolution or an old earth, and that are not based on the Bible. Those are the arguments that I'm saying almost uniformly display a poor grasp of the scientific evidence -- and there are lot of them. Arguments that mutations can't create genetic information, or that genomes are decaying, or that radiometric dating is all wrong, or that there are no transitional fossils.

 

[NobleMouse]

Lots of people believe that the Bible is from God and is true without thinking that it teaches a young earth or special creation.

I agree. But it does say in the Bible, "He came to his own and his own people did not receive him." so it seems that a majority opinion is not what determines truth. It didn't then and doesn't now.

You could offer an interpretation of the evidence that took seriously the entire body of evidence, that didn't engage in ad hoc hypotheses which are picked up and dropped, that doesn't cherry-pick data, and that in various other respects displays intellectual integrity. My field is genetics, and I've mostly looked at creationist claims about genetics, and they are uniformly bad. Not because they reach conclusions I don't like, but because they are badly argued, badly supported, and fundamentally dishonest. They're an embarrassment to the faith they claim to be supporting.

I know your field is in genetics and that you've written in articles in BioLogos as well. It would seem awkward to propose that creationist scientists, theologians, hebraists, lexicographers, etc... are all in dishonest collusion against the interpretations of evidence made within secular science; they they are all propagating a false doctrine so as to blind the eyes and hearts of believers all over the world... and that this deception traces it's roots to all the way back to the writing of the book of Genesis and the 10 commandments (written by the finger of God) where they falsely claimed God made all of creation in 6 days and rested on the 7th.

I don't think creationist scientists go about looking to be dishonest as claimed otherwise; but rather see the Bible as a "guide" when doing research and interpreting evidence (it's all the same evidence, the only difference is the interpretation of what it means). Knowing creationist scientists are aware of what the conventional understanding is, I believe they go the additional step to see what other plausible explanations may exist that also fits within what God's word says. Again, this is not to go so far as to be dishonest - or imagine things that are not really there, or imagine things aren't there that in fact really are... but see what else could have been the cause that produces the evidence seen. There are many well-supported theories that give a good explanation of the evidence (though I understand many disagree with them because the interpretation is different), even Gould had conceded to Wise that a number of the models Wise had developed, gave a better explanation of the evidence than that of the conventional evolutionary view.

Regardless of how deep you wish to traverse in the weeds of scientific theories and how "dishonest" you feel creationist scientists are, ultimately we know the Bible is true - it will stand when all else falls away. Nobody may ever solve the "how" from a purely scientific analysis of the data and evidence, but God did in fact create life on the days given and He did in fact destroy all flesh on land that was outside the ark. And without stretch of the imagination, these events can easily account for things like the fossil record and the present population of the world today, to name a few.

 

[RC Tent]

Arguments that mutations can't create genetic information, or that genomes are decaying, or that radiometric dating is all wrong, or that there are no transitional fossils.

I have never seen these arguments presented by people who do not refer to the Bible as their basis for truth. Since they cite the Bible, they are not basing their argument on exclusively scientific evidence, that is a faith based argument.

 

[NobleMouse]

Sorry, but it is a poor grasp of scientific evidence that I'm talking about. If somebody makes a faith-based argument, fine. I don't agree but I have no quarrel with them. I'm talking about arguments that are allegedly providing specifically scientific evidence against evolution or an old earth, and that are not based on the Bible. Those are the arguments that I'm saying almost uniformly display a poor grasp of the scientific evidence -- and there are lot of them. Arguments that mutations can't create genetic information, or that genomes are decaying, or that radiometric dating is all wrong, or that there are no transitional fossils.

Actually, Stephen Meyer with the ID movement and the research his teams have done (and others not with the ID movement... including some who are atheists and have no perceived religious agenda) would not agree with your assessment that mutations create meaningful/purposeful information producing new novel features, structures or "body plans". Rather, anything resembling such an effect is the result of pre-programmed information already contained in the DNA. Also, radiometric dating has been shown to be wrong, numerous times on rocks of known age. In fact, the Sr. Pastor at my church recently had kidney stones and we had one radiometrically dated, showing his birth record was wrong and that he was 220,000 years old (that's a joke... not about the stones, but being dated : )

Lastly, "transitional fossil" as a term only brings to light one's presuppositional belief that one life form morphs into another (given enough time + random mutations + natural selection) - though this has never been observed or reproduced in a laboratory to my knowledge. Being a geneticist, you'll be familiar with the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment - after 66,000 generations it can survive on citrate, but remains E. Coli... didn't become some other bacteria.

 

[Job 33:6]

I have never seen these arguments presented by people who do not refer to the Bible as their basis for truth. Since they cite the Bible, they are not basing their argument on exclusively scientific evidence, that is a faith based argument.

Young earthers typically do not source scripture when they suggest that tiktaalik is not a transitional fossil (as an example). Typically they say things like "well it has fins so it must just be a regular every-day fish". Its not like they open up to a passage in Luke in which there is a description of tiktaalik and how it is a fish.

Scripture might be where their faith resides, but many of their arguments are not actually tied to scripture, and they take on a pseudoscience tone.

 

[Job 33:6]

To follow up on my last post. This just in:

"Lastly, "transitional fossil" as a term only brings to light one's presuppositional belief that one life form morphs into another (given enough time + random mutations + natural selection) - though this has never been observed or reproduced in a laboratory to my knowledge. Being a geneticist, you'll be familiar with the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment - after 66,000 generations it can survive on citrate, but remains E. Coli... didn't become some other bacteria." ~ Noble Mouse

There is nothing scientific about this. Its just someone saying that in a 10 year experiment, bacteria has not sprouted legs and turned into a T-rex, therefore evolution is not true. lol But of course it is not based in science either, because nothing in science suggests that after 10 years, bacteria would become anything but bacteria (even if they go through tens of thousands of generations).

And yet, it takes the form of a scientific argument. Because it doesn't actually have any reference to scripture at all. But it does reference a scientific research paper that we have all read.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think thats the issue. A lot of young earthers are attempting to use science to argue in favor of their faith based ideas, but the science doesn't align with those ideas. Thus young earthers end up making illogical arguments such as the one above.

Often they really are attempting to make scientific arguments, but they do so in essentially dumbing down science and ignoring significant portions of it.

Its an attempt to make a scientific argument for their cause, but really it just doesnt make any sense. Why would bacteria be anything other than bacteria after 10 years?

 

[sfs]

I have never seen these arguments presented by people who do not refer to the Bible as their basis for truth. Since they cite the Bible, they are not basing their argument on exclusively scientific evidence, that is a faith based argument.

I just started looking at professional creation science articles at random. Here is one. Here is another. Do you seem them referring to the Bible as the basis of the arguments?

 

[Radagast]

There are many reasons why I don't believe in evolution, but the other night I was thinking about the size of the world's population and it seemed to me that if evolution were really true, there would have to be many more people in the world than there really are.

That doesn't follow. For most of history, disease and famine have kept the population fairly stable.

 

[NobleMouse]

To follow up on my last post. This just in:

"Lastly, "transitional fossil" as a term only brings to light one's presuppositional belief that one life form morphs into another (given enough time + random mutations + natural selection) - though this has never been observed or reproduced in a laboratory to my knowledge. Being a geneticist, you'll be familiar with the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment - after 66,000 generations it can survive on citrate, but remains E. Coli... didn't become some other bacteria." ~ Noble Mouse

There is nothing scientific about this. Its just someone saying that in a 10 year experiment, bacteria has not sprouted legs and turned into a T-rex, therefore evolution is not true. lol But of course it is not based in science either, because nothing in science suggests that after 10 years, bacteria would become anything but bacteria (even if they go through tens of thousands of generations).

And yet, it takes the form of a scientific argument. Because it doesn't actually have any reference to scripture at all. But it does reference a scientific research paper that we have all read.

How about showing an experiment where the assertion of thing one morphing into thing two (not just an adaptation of thing one) has been observed, thus proving that one life form could conceivably, for example, switch out scales for feathers, hollow out its bones, and develop the physiology and coordination to support flight - something observed (either observed out in nature, or reproduced in a lab). If you can't, then it's difficult to suggest dinosaurs evolved into birds as being somehow "scientific". You may have a technical rationale for why you believe it, but "technical" does not automatically mean true... especially since you can't demonstrate it. The E. Coli is a best case / optimal scenario to demonstrate this as the rate of reproducing a new generation is so short.

On the basis of scientific research, creationists, ID proponents, [some] atheists, etc... all find issue with the hypothesis of evolution, so you can't try to point 'ignorance' on just one group. Maybe somehow all these distinct groups are in dishonest collusion as well?

 

[Job 33:6]

"How about showing an experiment where the assertion of thing one morphing into thing two...The E. Coli is a best case / optimal scenario to demonstrate this as the rate of reproducing a new generation is so short."

How about you start by not making strawmen arguments.

I mean honestly. Do you actually think the evolution suggests that bacteria would become non-bacteria in a single decade?

Of course not. So why suggest such a thing? It's dishonest. And you're dishonest for continually making such ridiculous remarks. You have consistently demonstrated your dishonesty over the months that we have talked, and you just continue to wear it on your sleeve, without any remorse.

 

[RC Tent]

I just started looking at professional creation science articles at random. Here is one. Here is another. Do you seem them referring to the Bible as the basis of the arguments?

Yes, it is right there in the "Genesis verse by verse" section of their web site, proudly declaring their choice to use the Bible as they understand it, as their framework for truth. It is quite clear that their science related arguments have been affected by that standard.

It is also quite easy for anyone to find out that as a result of their inclusion of the Bible as they see fit, the conclusions they draw are not consistent with mainstream consensus science.

 

[RC Tent]

Scripture might be where their faith resides, but many of their arguments are not actually tied to scripture, and they take on a pseudoscience tone.

If some one's whole framework for reality is impacted by scripture, it is invalid to say that their arguments are not "tied to scripture", everything they believe will be impacted by it.

 

[sfs]

Yes, it is right there in the "Genesis verse by verse" section of their web site, proudly declaring their choice to use the Bible as they understand it, as their framework for truth. It is quite clear that their science related arguments have been affected by that standard.

Well, yeah, it's clear to me. But that's not what they say. They make the scientific arguments without reference to the Bible, which is what you said they don't do.

 

[sfs]

Yes, those precious few instances do exist. My point is about what is possible, not what is widely believed to be probable.

I'd still like to know which instances you have in mind.

 

[Job 33:6]

If some one's whole framework for reality is impacted by scripture, it is invalid to say that their arguments are not "tied to scripture", everything they believe will be impacted by it.

There is no question that scripture impacts their views. But does it make their arguments scriptural based?

To go back to the tiktaalik example. It is common that young earthers will suggest that tiktaalik was just a fish.

But if it has a flat head like an alligator (which no fish we know of, has) and if it has an unfused neck that could turn (which no fish we know of, has), among other features of land dwelling animals, that are not held by fish...

what does it mean when they still suggest that tiktaalik was just a fish?

why are they willing to forego what is physically real, when scripture really doesn't dwelve into the topic? In Genesis, we only have perhaps 1 or 2 versus, no more than a sentence long, mentioning the creation of land and sea dwelling animals.

How could aspects of physical reality (what we can see, touch, measure, examine, smell, taste etc.), be distorted, or go ignored, in favor of one or two exceptionally vague verses of scripture?

I've had young earthers on this forum, even go to the extent of saying things like "well the animals on the ark were all babies, so that they could fit". To the point that, not is physical reality distorted, but even assumptions are made about scripture, where scripture doesn't actually say anything about baby brachiosaurs on the ark.

Why are they unable to judge physical reality on its own merits (what physically is, is what it is)? And why are they so willing to take perceptions of scripture, beyond scripture itself (by suggesting things that scripture is vague about), to demonstrate claims of a distorted physical reality?

We all have faith here and trust in Christ and scripture. But most of us are able to differentiate between what is physically real, and what we imagine in our minds.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm quite skeptical that he does. He's never published the kind of calculation I'm talking about has he? (And no, he hasn't spent his life in this field -- he was educated in it, but hasn't been an active researcher since then.)

Wise actually says that there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", but says that he puts his belief in his understanding of scripture, which denies evolution. He's quite honest about this. He suggests that eventually, there might be scientific support for creationism.

He has my respect for his intellectual honesty.