Giant’s Causeway
Jerry Coyne has been busy with professional responsibilities lately, and has not been doing a lot of (what shall we call it?) web-siting, but he did connect to a radio call-in show that Richard Dawkins did for the BBC. It has to do with evolution and creationism, and more particularly with the decision of Britain’s National Trust to include creationist nonsense in its account of the Giant’s Causeway (picture to the left). Here is a description of the phenomenon:
This natural scenery consists of 40,000 basalt columns [off the northeast coast of Ireland] that were formed when lava cooled fast 60 million years ago. This is now a World Heritage Site that was discovered in 1693. Since then, it leaves the visitors stunned.The place is so great, that it is said to be formed by “supernatural forces”. Legend says that it was believed that two giants, one Irish and one Scottish, always at odds, threw stones together without ceasing. This led to the formation of a field of stones on the sea.
Of course, creationists claim that this rock formation is no more than 6,000 years old, agreeing with James Ussher (1581-1656), onetime Primate of All Ireland, who calculated the age of the earth, based on biblical chronology. That’s why many King James (Authorized Version) Bibles still include, on the first page, the date 4004 BC. That we have other ways of estimating the age of the earth does not weigh with creationists, who insist that the Bible, God’s Holy Word, no less, can contain no shadow of error, and therefore 6,000 years, more or less, it will have to be, no matter what scientists have proved.
I took the liberty of cutting down the sixteen minute clip down to a minute and a few seconds.
I’ve whittled the talk back programme with Richard Dawkins down to this short clip to emphasise what this post is about. It’s about betrayal and misrepresentation. Here we are told by a creationist housewife — as she describes herself — defending her belief that the Giant’s Causeway is only as old as the Bible says it is, a claim which assumes, of course, that there is a definite chronology in the Bible which can be used to date the age of the earth, and that this chronology, such as it is, supersedes all other forms of chronology, because the Bible is, after all, the inerrant word of God. In response to Richard Dawkins claim that reputable scientists all agree that the earth is billions of years old, our doughty housewife responds with: “That’s a blatant lie,” And then she lists four “scientists” who accept the creationist dating of the age of the earth (and she might well have named more, because, if you google these names, you end up on sites with many more). However, here are Mrs. White’s four “reputable” scientists:
Andy MacIntosh is a Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds. He is a young earth creationist, and is on the Board of Directors of the creationist organisation Truth in Science, which describes itself (misleadingly) in this way:
- Truth in Science is an organisation that focuses purely on science and lets the scientific evidence speak for itself.
- We accept the Royal Society Motto: Nullius in verba* ‘Take the word of no-one’ and follow where the evidence leads.
- We highlight the scientific evidence which is contrary to the Neo-Darwinian paradigm, and expose the ideological bias which hides or ignores such evidence.
- We believe genuine education in schools and colleges will alert students to all the available evidence and ideas, so that they, in turn, can interpret the evidence for themselves and draw rational conclusions.
- We aim to promote and stimulate open discussion and allow people to come to informed conclusions.
Andy MacIntosh is a co-author of a paper (published by Creation Ministries International) entitled Flood Models: the need for an integrate approach, which begins with the following words in its executive summary:
Any scientific understanding of the Biblical Flood must address the hydrology and sedimentation that occurred during the Flood and in subsequent years as the Earth settled down. A number of scientific models previously proposed for the Flood are summarised and assessed.
Edgar Andrews is the “distinguished” author of Who Made God?, as his website tells us, where we are also told that “Professor Edgar H. Andrews (BSc, PhD, DSc, FInstP, FIMMM, CEng, CPhys.) is Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London and an international expert on the science of large molecules.” He has actually been involved in a debate with Richard Dawkins. In this segment you can hear him claim against Richard Dawkins that there are scientific reasons for doubting radiometric dating of the earth — and you can also hear Dawkins’ frustration at the kind of empty denial that Andrews’ assumptions dictate.
Steve Lloyd, who ”worked in scientific research for eight years before entering pastoral ministry,” is a part-time lecturer with Biblical Creation Ministries — but note the switch from scientific research to “pastoral ministry.” Lloyd has a doctorate from Cambridge in materials science, and is featured on bethinking.org, a Christian apologetics website, which plays the science and religion compatibility game. He calls himself a “young fossil creationist.” He is the pastor of Hope Church in Gravesend. He thinks “Floodist” rather than “Creationist” might be a more appropriate title, since everything in his view centres around this great catastrophe. He’s a young fossil creationist mainly because he thinks that animal suffering is a problem, and that a good God couldn’t have created a world billions of years old with the amount of suffering that that would entail.
Paul Garner — who blogs on The New Creationism, and is a “researcher and lecturer with Biblical Creation Ministries,” where we are told that Garner “has a degree in Environmental Sciences (Geology/Biology) and is a Fellow of the Geological Society.” You can read some of his “scientific” papers here.
The whole thing is quite bizarre. Here are highly trained and accredited scientists who are actually betraying science in order to uphold the biblical story of creation. And they come in all sorts of shapes and sizes: young earth creationists, young fossil creationists, old earth creationists, Floodists, etc., bringing their expertise to bear on something completely unscientific, so that people like Mrs. White, who thinks of herself as an intelligent, thoughtful person, can claim to be using the latest scientific knowledge to underwrite her biblical beliefs.
But what none of these duplicitous, double-dealing scientists tell their willing acolytes is that what they are doing is, in fact, an abandonment of the scientific method. One of them, the Canadian trained astronomer Hugh Ross, who speaks on bethinking.org, an old earth creationist, claims that the scientific method comes straight from the Bible itself. These men (why is it almost always men, I wonder?) know well enough what science is in their own fields, but when it comes to talking about areas where science impinges on their religious beliefs, they simply toss the scientific method overboard, and try their best to accommodate their religion to the things that they know scientifically, and the result is simply a betrayal of reason and science, even when they most appear to be upholding values of truth and reason. Look at the Truth in Science programme, even going to the extent of including the Royal Society’s motto, Nullius in verba, to back up their betrayal, a betrayal which is also a betrayal of the people who trust them. In many cases they speak from secure academic positions, and use those positions to uphold things that are simply false, and can be shown to be so — a treasonous betrayal of the scientific method, and their ethical responsibilities as scientists.
Yet these men, or at least some of them, teach science at reputable universities, while they moonlight as science denialists. There is something very troubling about this. Of course, academic freedom is important, because it permits the exploration of subjects and ideas which may be true, and should not be suppressed simply because others in the scientific guild disagree. However, when scientists base their apparently scientific reasoning on ridiculous, unscientific notions such as they plenary inspiration of scripture, it should be possible for the guild to make it very clear, so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of people like Mrs. White, that in so far as they defend their religious beliefs using supposedly scientific evidence, they are departing in an unacceptable way from the disciplines which lend credence to their voices amongst the scientifically illiterate. Dawkins, in the talk show clipped at the beginning, calls these people nut-cases, and later takes it back, using the term ‘ignorant’ instead. And of course the truth is that simple people like Mrs. White are not nut cases. They are religious believers who are being gulled into believing that their beliefs are reasonably grounded in the scientific evidence. The absurdity of that claim was made very clear in the Dover trial, where Michael Behe made an ass of himself, and Steve Fuller came across, despite his position at a British University, as a scientifically illiterate fool. These are the nut cases, and appropriately so called.
It is curious, however, that, while courts, such as the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, have been able to rule so decisively in favour of evolution and against intelligent design in secular education, scientific associations do not seem so capable of policing their own members, and let their names and titles stand in misleading contexts — such as the statement that Steve Lloyd was for four years a Royal Society University Research Fellow. This may be true, but there should be protocols for the contexts in which such claims can be made. The Royal Society should not allow its name to be tarnished by having former research fellows use Royal Society credentials to scam ordinary people like Mrs. White. A.C. Grayling strongly objected, with good reason, to the use of Royal Society premises for the promotion of John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale’s book Questions of Truth. As he wrote in the New Humanist:
Polkinghorne dishonours the Royal Society by exploiting his Fellowship to publicise this weak, casuistical and tendentious pamphlet on its precincts, and the Royal Society does itself no favours by allowing Polkinghorne to do it. The Royal Society should insist that, as it is the country’s one principal institution that exists to serve science, and as there are hundreds of other places where theology and religion are the staple and main point, there will be no more special pleading for and insinuation of religion by religious apologists within its doors.
It seems to me that universities and other institutions where science is valued should have some control over the use of the academic standing and credentials of their employees, and should be able to place limits on their use – or rather misuse, such as when they are used to promote religious apologetics. Professors may be nut cases, as Dawkins says, when it comes to their religious lives, but they should not be able to rely on their academic positions, degrees, awards and membership of scientific societies and associations to support their religious claims, especially when those claims are based on no more than cut and paste attempts to squeeze science into Bible shaped boxes. It is this kind of duplicity which is illustrated by the National Trust’s inclusion of creationism in part of its exhibit in the new visitor’s centre at the Giant’s Causeway, stating (according to a Guardian article) that
[t]his debate continues today for some people, who have an understanding of the formation of the earth which is different from that of current mainstream science.
The use of the qualified term “mainstream science” suggests — and creationists welcomed the implication – that there is a genuine scientific controversy here, when there is not. It is to be regretted that the National Trust, if it wanted to include the creationism aspect, did not state outright that there is simply no scientific basis for the claim that the causeway is only 6,000 years old, instead of temporising, as it did, by using ambiguous language.
“if it wanted to include the creationism aspect, did not state outright that there is simply no scientific basis for the claim that the causeway is only 6,000 years old…”
Yes, but I don’t know why they bothered to add anything about creationism. They should have just ignored it based on the fact that it is NOT science. It is religion.
Here is the Lehigh University Biology Department’s Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”
As you say Eric, more science departments should issue these statements about their faculty members views when those members use their department standing to give legitimacy to those views. I do think that his department is mistaken in saying ” intelligent design has no basis in science;” scientific questions can come from any where and it is how we formulate them into testable hypotheses and challenge their validity that they become part of science. I think the caveat “intelligent design [ as currently formulated] has no basis in science….”
Rickflick. Well, precisely, but to introduce it with ambiguous words which leave room for creationists to entertain their folly, is far worse. If they felt they need to mention creationism, it should be in terms of a now foolish debate, in the light of scientific discoveries. I guess my point is that the science establishment seems to have so little control over the use that is made of science, especially the use that is made of it to deceive others. This is seen also in its failure to address directly things like homeopathy, naturopathy, and other nonsense “sciences”. I was at a garage the other day waiting for my car, and on the TV in the waiting area there was a programme on the local cable network featuring naturopaths recommending various naturopathic remedies for various ailments. There have always been “snake oil” salesmen, but the ease with which people dress nonsense up in scientific robes is dsturbing, especially when professors and other accredited scientists lend their credence to it.
Michael, precisely. Excellent statement from LeHigh University. This is a kind of control which scientific associations should be able to exert as well. The Royal Society could reasonably claim that the opinions of certain members were against the consensus of the membership as a whole, and cannot be accepted without more definitive proof than has so far been provided — or something to that general effect. So that Andy MacIntosh would have to qualify his own standing when he spoke out on creationist matters. I think of my own brother who publishes books on New Age religious subjects, always using his PhD to lend credence to claims which his subject (English and Commonwealth Literature) does not qualify him to make.
The level of delusion amongst creationists boggles the mind, but it does highlight the power of religion over rational thought.
I listened to the whole 16 minute clip and made a few notes.
My favourite part is the statement by Dawkins, “The dating of the rock is absolutely rock solid.” Of course, the callers missed that because they were too busy arguing for acceptance of all points of view regardless of how crazy those points of view are.
Mrs. White has certainly achieved her 15 minutes of fame. Her insistence that she is a “thinking housewife” would have been funny if it were not for her implication that most housewives don’t think.
The most annoying caller was David?, who kept insisting that “everybody has a pint of view” as if any and all points of view, regardless of how batty they are, deserve consideration. David? had the nerve to say that Dawkins gets “agitated” and “disrespectful” whenever the age of the earth is challenged. The use of the word “disrespectful” is supposed to be a conversation stopper.
These “Creationist nut-cases” don’t deserve respect.
“everybody has a pint of view” Maybe he had had a pint or two…..
Thanks Michael Fugate, I missed that; however, I could claim that the misspelling was a Freudian slip
I am baffled that any scientist could take the ridiculous fairy story that is Noah’s flood seriously. Surely any scientifically educated person is at least vaguely aware of the hydraulic cycle. Water evaporates from the surface of the sea, falls as rain, often over land, and then flows back into the sea. No matter how hard it rains, the water is not going to get any deeper, it causes localised floods because the water takes time to get away but there is a finite amount of water involved. It is not physically possible for the amount of water to increase until it covers the highest mountain and then decrease back to its original level.
If the Bible really is literally true, maybe these so called scientists can supply a theory to explain how donkeys can speak.
Veronica, just the other day I converted deep theological conviction into deep theological convection which Steve Oberski pointed out conjures up interesting images….
Eric, yes just because someone is a reputable scientist doesn’t mean they always do reputable science. This is certainly Behe’s case when promoting intelligent design. The problem is most people wouldn’t know reputable science if it bit them on the ass. It is much easier to look at a degree which is why quacks are quick to tack on letters after their names. A good case in point is the US House of Representatives voted to stop funding political science research through the NSF and others jumped on this to defund all of the social sciences.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wilson-social-sciences-20120712,0,4672619.story
Veronica, I agree that Mrs. White — the thoughful housewife — yes, it is a bit of a joke — but still — isn’t to be taken too seriously, but it strikes me that, despite what may be wilful self-deception on her part, the scientific establishment has some responsibility to police its members, and when “experts” use their expertise, their membership in scientific organisations, their professorships,, their degrees, etc. to pull the wool over people’s eyes, there should be some way of making it clear that this is not “fair” use, and they should be disciplined for an irregular use of their credentials. A.C. Grayling was right. The Royal Society should have had nothing whatever to do with the appearance of promoting a work of religious apologetics, and if it does have something to do with it, then ordinary people like Mrs. White can scarcely be faulted for holding that reputable scientists hold the religious vews that she does.
Of course, there are problems here, because, for example, someone like John Polkiinghorne is plausibly worse than some of the rabid fundamentalists, because he suggests and intimates, without being specific, to make it seem reasonable, whereas they state their position outright. It’s perhpas a bit quixotic to think there could be any control, but it still seems that something might be done to make it less easy for people to deceive in this way.
Stonyground, the Flood story is quite clearly, in its context, an act of uncreation. Water, which had been put in its place so that dry land could appear, is spouting out of the ground, from the water that was placed “above the heavens (presumably that is why the sky is blue), etc., and everything was in process of returning to the chaos from whence it came. This is important, for those who take it “scientifically” are completely misreading the source. There could have been no flood of the type recorded, and so-called scientists who think there was, as you say, are idiots.
Sounds so simple. Science to the rescue again! If only everyone was rational. Clearly not everyone is rational. The truth is we are ensconced on this Earth, in this life, with a myriad of irrational human beings. “I’m surrounded by idiots”. Resistance, it seems, is useless…
Eric,
Just a simple question here. Do you consider Immanuel Velikovsky an “idiot”?
Bob Wheeler
“The late Stephen Jay Gould . . . offered a synopsis of the mainstream response to Velikovsky, writing, “Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan — although, to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong …” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky
Religion attacks science politically, by pretending to be scientific. While religion can’t win against reason and science, it certainly can win through political force, and is doing so. It’s better organized politically because it’s authoritarian, and has a better social structure, grass roots activism and funding.
Authoritarian political atheism and liberal/anarchist political atheism are now clashing together which will likely lead to the breakup of the atheist movement. Atheism can’t win politically because it’s not an ideology or philosophy, it will only disintegrate based on political sentiments.
Bob, I’m not sure of your motivation for asking the question. However, for what it’s worth, I have never read anything by Velikovsky, though aware of him on the fringes of things many years ago. Nothing that he wrote had the remotest interest for me, and generally, it seems to me to be pointless to try to square ancient myths with cosmic events. But, my question remains, what was your purpose in asking the question?
Brilliantly written and contains a line I shall delight in stealing and using to death:
“attempts to squeeze science into Bible shaped boxes”
Sheer genius. Thank you.
Velikovsky thought he could explain various ancient myths by a sequence of events – the planet Venus being ejected from Jupiter as a comet, and making close approaches to Earth and to Mars – which:
1 are completely impossible according to accepted laws of celestial mechanics
2 if they had happened would have wrecked the Earth’s biosphere and left many other traces we don’t observe
3 Don’t, in any case, explain the myths.
Celestial mechanics is of course, one of the most accurately verified branches of science. To reject it with no training in relevant fields – he was a psychiatrist – does, I think, qualify one as an idiot.
Well, Bob the apologist does it again. The ‘simple’ question is a rhetorical device, not an argument, designed to provoke a response. You don’t have to be an idiot or stupid to be wrong or irrational. Scientists aren’t right simply for being scientists either. Atheist’s are in a sense like lawyers calling an ‘expert witness’ to the stand. The expert must be of reliable character and must reflect the consensus of his field. Unreliable witnesses or witnesses that are not reflecting consensus can be rejected.
Bob isn’t interested in the proper process, he’s like the lawyer for the opposite team. He doesn’t play by our rules.
David, Velikovsky’s ideas of planetary monkey business are indeed pretty bizarre. However, it is interesting to reflect that a recent hypothesis of the formation of the moon has a smallish planet impacting the earth throwing up an enormous debris cloud which formed the moon. Much evidence supports this view. Now, I suspect apologists can point to this modern view as a confirmation of Velikovsky’s basic idea of planetary pin ball. “He just had the details wrong”.
@Egbert He doesn’t play by our rules.
These aren’t even “our” rules.
These are the basic rules of rational discourse.
If you want to have an adult conversation in the marketplace of ideas then there is a minimum standard of behaviour that should be observed.
Consider it analogous to toilet training for infants.
As Troy Britain of the Playing Chess with Pigeons weblog put it (which he attributes to Scott D. Weitzenhoffer):
Well what do you expect on a blog? There’s supposed to be some give-and-take here!
My point about Velikovsky is this (and I’m thinking specifically about his book “Earth in Upheaval”): science, true science, thrives on criticism. Down through the years Velikovsky, as well as a number of creationists, some with scientific credentials such as Meyers, Dembski, and Behe, have attempted to reason from the evidence and point out logical flaws in evolution. Gould’s assessment (Veronica Abbass, #14) is probably fair, but simply to write the critics of evolution off as “idiots” hardly does science justice. Some do, in fact, know whereof they speak, and their criticisms should be taken on their merits.
I think this is especially true when talking about evolution. The Darwinist is in the position of trying to reconstruct prehistoric events on the basis of the fragmentary physical evidence available today. As someone who was trained as a historian, I can tell you that it is a perilous undertaking — the evidence is susceptible to different interpretations. And if a thoughtful critic, such as Velikovsky or Phillip Johnson or Stephen Meyer, you should at least give them credit for being sane.
I realize, of course, that when one is preaching to the choir one is liable to work himself up into a lather of righteous indignation, but the specter of a critical response is what makes blogging so exciting.
Bob, the evolution debate was over 100 years ago.
The chess analogy by steve obserski, is a good one. What do you do with an opponent that continues to break the rules of the game? Disqualification is the only solution. Both opponents must be willing to follow the rules of the game, and not cheat. Their intention is to win the game, but in a proper way. Cheating may create a win, but only through deception.
Bob, I’d like to make it clear that my reference to idiots had nothing to do with the scientific expertise or lack of it of the creationists. It was solely in reference to their interpretation of the Bible, insofar as they think of the flood as a possible geological/geographical/meterological phenomenon. The language used in the description of the biblical flood is very clear: it is a supernatural event of enormous significance, an act of uncreation by God, and not something conceivable along empirical, scientific lines. That was my only reference to idiots to my knowledge, at least in this particular post and comments, and it is a particularly telling one, for “floodists” assume that the Bible is recording an empirically observable event, whereas the Bible itself is quite clearly speaking of a supernatural or at least a mythical one. In other words, the text which they take as in some sense scientifically sound presents itself as no such thing, at least in this instance — and, I expect, in other instances as well. To jump to the conclusion that I am calling creationist in general idiots is simply way off the chart in this instance. At the same time, whilst I agree that science thrives on criticism, it can scarcely be thought to thrive on criticism based on biblical premises. As for Velikovsky’s catastrophism, so far as I can make out, knowing next to nothing about it, it seems to be based, not on scientific cosmology, but ancient myth, and this seems about as bad as criticising evolution on principles derived from the Bible.
Velikovsky, interestingly, began by trying to rebut an argument made by Sigmund Freud in “Moses and Monotheism.” This led Velikovsky to reevaluate ancient history. He looked at the biblical account, compared it with other accounts of a flood that have come down from ancient history, such as the Gilgamesh Epic, and asked the question, is there not a historical basis for all of the stories? What is especially interesting about “Earth in Upheaval” is that he presents physical evidence of a geological catastrophe. The problem here is how to account for it, and all Velikovsky could do as far as I could tell, was offer speculation, some of it easily discounted by astronomers. But that still leaves the question about the evidence itself, both the physical evidence and the widespread stories in different cultures about a primeval flood. It is not all that clear from the Genesis account, which may very well be two accounts conflated together, that it was not intended by its author(s) to be a historical narrative.
At any rate, at least, I am glad that you are not calling Velikovsky and others like him idiots.
No. There is not an historical basis for the fable of a global flood. Early civilizations thrived near rivers. Rivers flooded. Why rivers flooded was unknown. Especially in places where the rain that drove the flood was far removed from the headwaters, where the flood occurred.
Ergo, myth needed. Insert angry god here.
Fred Clark at Slacktivist mentioned another little problem with the flood story:
He then notes:
I don’t normally read PZ Myers, but he writes a great article explaining how tagging or labeling a person based only on their education or title does not necessarily make them a professional scientist or whatever other career they claim to follow:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/13/the-carpenter-and-the-pyromaniac/
Yes, Egbert, it is a good article, but his comparison doesn’t bring out something of importance. Carpenters may have unions and even associations (I don’t know), but it is very doubtful that such associations would provide institutional support for an arsonist’s claim to be acting as a carpenter, but science organisations and universities often do not make it clear that some of their wingnut scientists do not speak as scientists when defending idiotic things like creationism. Cambridge University, for example, which granted degrees to some of these idiots, should make it clear that, in speaking as creationists, these people should not use their Cambridge degrees to pull the wool over people’s eyes, and they should be warned that such use of academic credentials will not be taken lightly, and could endanger their academic standing. They have a responsibility to see that the credentials provided by universities are not used in such dissimulating ways. The problem is that universities themselves sometimes harbour some of the worst offenders at their very heart, allowing the Faraday Institute, for example, to fly under the false colours of academic respectability, just as the Royal Society allowed its premises to be used to promote religious apologetics.
Ugh.. Sceince vs. creation ‘science’…
There is a term for what the later is that gets used in computer science. Its called “script kiddies”. The principle is this:
1. A real computer expert spends hours, days, or months, figuring out what makes a piece of software, which someone else wrote, work, and how to exploit some of its quirks or vulnerabilities. This could be for a good reason, such as translating data from one program to another, so you can use it easier, or for horrible reasons, like breaking into some websites password server.
2. Either for malicious, or good, reasons, these “scientists”, in the true sense of the word, having spent lots of time figuring things out, publish the result. This may, as I said, be because they are working for some group like Anonymous, and want people to break other people’s stuff, or because they found a problem they think needs to be fixed, and won’t be, if its not made public, or because they think its bloody stupid that, say, you can’t upload photos to your phone, without using minutes, when there is no reason you can’t just plug the phone into a computer.
3. The script kiddies come along. They have done no work, they don’t understand what they are doing, they don’t know why the things they are reading do what they do, but they think they now have a tool that can be used to get what they want, without any actual effort. Sometimes they are right. Other times, they use the other guys work to release a virus, or something, which bombs so completely that it either doesn’t work, or doesn’t do what its intended to. These people are not computer scientists. They are the equivalent of the moron with a PHD after their name, which babbles about geology, when their degree is in something like Bible studies, and they know jack about what they are doing. At best, a few of them, might be weathermen, babbling about climate, but, again, they don’t run, invent, understand, or likely even directly use, climate models, they just look at weather maps, and complain about how someone else’s climate model doesn’t work, doesn’t tell the truth, or doesn’t do what its supposed to, based on nothing other than their opinion, or their Bible.
They don’t ***do*** anything that qualifies as science, any more than what a script kiddie does qualifies as “programming”, or “reverse engineering”, or “hacking”. They just use, and/or misuse, the tools that people who do conduct scientific research created, as a result of decades of actually bloody doing real work.
You might as well call a produce manager a farmer, purely on the basis that they can tell you the difference between two types of melons, while, in reality, they never grew a damn thing in their life time themselves. But, yeah, we have a long list of produce managers and script kiddies, some people can come up with, to claim that, “There are scientists” that think the earth is only X thousand years old. So what? Its means about as much, as showing a list of “scientists” that think bigfoot might be real, and finding out that most of them have PHDs in homeopathy, cyptozoology, or even, if you are real lucky, one or two might be physicists (i.e., just about as far as you can get away from actual knowledge of biology, zoology, or ecology as you can be, without studying alternate universes. What do we have in creationist circles – a long list of the “produce manager’ variety people, and those with PHDs that have jack all to do with geology, or anything else relevant. People that, if they ever so much as picked up a rock, in their life, did so to stuff it in a snowball, and throw it at someone else on a playground, 30-40 years ago.
Makes me wonder, sometimes, if they think actually having a degree in the field that relates to the problem is so pointless, why don’t they go to their automechanic, when they have a medical problem? I mean, they are both equally skilled “experts”, right?
One note of caution: creationists may be insanely delusional, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re stupid or idiotic. They can still be incredibly clever politically, which is why they’re as successful as they are in forcing their beliefs in schools and the media. They also have political support with the neoconservative right.
Pingback: The carpenter and the pyromaniac [Pharyngula] - BizNax
As someone pointed out over at the Pharyngula thread, the “scientists” quoted as, “creationist” by someone named txpiper where all either dead before Darwin, or started their own research **before** he even started writing his book. Its hardly difficult to be a good creationist if a) you are 200-300 years behind the rest of the scientific community, or worse, b) died before the theory you are being used to attack gained acceptance. Its a bit like claiming that Galileo never built and airplane, so Aerodynamics is in question, while ignoring the fact that we didn’t really even understand it until decades after the Wright Brothers successfully built their first bicycle. And, its even more absurd, if you insist that you have never seen a bicycle fly today, so its still wrong.
And, yes, they are incredibly clever politically, but there are any number of species that are clever in that sense, while still being dumb as a post. Clever ≠ intelligent, in all cases.
Eric, I’ve been thinking about this for a few days, and I’m going to highlight why academics can get away with irresponsible behaviour. It’s called ‘academic freedom’.
I don’t condone such irresponsibility, but in my opinion, there are certain principles of high importance for a democratic society, and two of high principle are academic freedom and freedom of speech.
Egbert, yes, of course, academic freedom is vital. But when materials scientists make large claims about biology, and use their degrees and professional associations to give their words weight with the unlearned, this is not academic freedom, it is plain dishonesty — and two of the scientists invoked by Mrs. White were materials scientists, not biologists, and another was an expert in thermodynamics and combustion theory. The fourth isn’t, of course, a reputable scientist in the sense in which the others are, but they are not reputable biological scientists.
Exactly Eric, but it all comes down to that housewife who is manipulated by clever apologists, whom she repeats, so as to sound as if they know what they’re talking about, and to convince people that respectable biologists like Dawkins are wrong (or worse liars). It’s no surprise that Dawkins refuses to have anything to do with creationists.
And this is the problem of journalism and the talk radio format, rather than academia. Journalists want to create a ‘drama’ out of things, and so present two conflicting sides, even if one side is nonsense. Dawkins wants to promote his side of things, and must therefore pay the price of a format that actually undermines what he is trying to promote.
Ah, yes, I am bitterly familiar with the tendency of journalists to take a supposedly “even-handed” approach — “balanced” is the word often used — which is really quite silly, since what is true and false are usually not so nicely balanced, and, in fact, in general, are not balanced at all. The attempt to create balance is, in fact, to fail as a jouranlist. Suppose an investigative jouralist set out to show that some politician was up to no good. To try to present a “balanced” account, so that it is not clear whether or not he/she was, would be to fail as an investigative journalist. The same is true in most other cases. Simply adding arguments, without making any judgements about them, is to fail as a journalist, since journalists should have a commitment to the truth. The urge to achieve “balance” is used as an excuse not to make a commitment, and thus not to put him/herself in the line of fire, an act of cowardice.
Despite your protestations, there is a great deal of science that points to a young earth. (would any of of you dare to read a scientific alternative that might question your ‘evidence’/) However this whole debate is more about 2 opposing world views, both take an element of faith, without a Creator, a ‘natural’ scientific explanation is required. Your members and readers are it seems mostly humanists and atheists etc and it is understandable that they deny God exists, but for 1.4 billion people on the planet, the Bible was written over a 1500 year period by men inspired by God. So if we put our faith in God above a scientific theory that opposes that view why is that such anathema to you?
If macro-evolution and the ‘big bang’ theory is undeniably true, why are so many atheists so vehement and sometimes plain nasty when Christians stand up for their world view? After all if we all nutcases as your dear hero Richard Dawkins loves to label us, why do you ‘protesteth so much’?
I have read many comments by non- Christian scientists who refute Darwinian evolution, because there are so many flaws in it. The intelligent design movement is growing in the academic world, but many of these scientists are being ostracised and persecuted for contesting the status-quo of Darwinism. Where is the impartial and respectful approach of so called scientists or supporters of Darwinian evolution? Is trying to ban the debate in schools and other public arena reasonable or scientific, or is this censorship inspired more by eugenics?
The Spanish inquisition is rightly criticised for its brutal repression of anyone who dared to speak out ‘heretical views’. The heavy handed anti freedom of speech which pervades so many Darwinist sites and the status quo scientific establishment is the modern day equivalent. (without I hope the torture chambers) In other words when the establishment feels threatened whether its religion based, political or ideological, it tries to ridicule, marginalise, and ban.
I strongly disagree with many interpretations of a long-age view of the universe, and I am quite happy to debate with any- one who disagrees with my world view. But I respect everyone’s right to say what they believe, in a public forum. However I suppose if you believe in survival of the strongest, and your view in Western culture is at present the dominant position, I suppose I should expect such oppressive superior attitudes towards .us ‘un-scientific fanatics!
Messengerpigeon. I have the greatest respect for freedom of belief and expression. However, it does not follow that professional associations should support the expression of beliefs which go clean contrary to the evidence. Your supposition that there is evidence for a young earth is ridiculous. Prescind from your religious beliefs, and would you have any reason to suggest such a thing? I say nothing whatever about freedom of speech, which is essential to a free society. However, a physician who set himself up in business to practice the ancient art of phelbotemy would scarcely be left on the register of physicians for long, and would received deserved criticism from his professional association. You should be quite free to believe and public commend any kind of nonsense you like, but it does not follow that professional associations should not discipline their members for taking public stands which contradict the science upon which they stand.
This kind of thing is beneath contempt:
Science advances by criticism and a retesting. No one questions that there are still issues still unsettled in biology. And it is well known that Darwin left many things unfinished, since he did not know many things that we now know. He did not know the mechanism of heredity, for example, so his theory lacks any mechanism for heritability. That lacuna has now been filled, but there are still questions about factors other than natural selection that operate in the evolutionary process. The whole point of science, as Hume saw clearly, is a gradual filling in the empirical blanks as we learn more and more about regularities in nature and their explanation. But supposing that there is a kind of equality between ID and evolution is a non-starter, and the only reason to support it is religious dogma, which is not science. IDers, however, have every right to hold their benighted views, and even to express them. They have no right to call it science, since it isn’t. This isn’t a matter of world view. It’s a matter of fact, and arguing about it at the level of world view is simply absurd. You have to get down to the nitty-gritty of what has been discovered and proved, and at that level ID is simply religious dogma, nothing more, and so far no one has provided any reason for thinking differently.
messengerpigeon can you please name these non-christian scientists who support intelligent design? Are any of them biologists? I would be very interested in reading their peer-reviewed papers. The intelligent design movement is dead in the water because it refuses to engage in the scientific process. Behe won’t define irreducible complexity and Dembski won’t define complex specified information. When others have tested Behe’s and Dembski’s hypotheses and found them wanting, the answer from the intelligent design community is to change the definitions. This is because they are trying to rig the system to produce a single answer and that answer is their god.
It is the same with you trying to claim there is evidence for a young earth – of course there is – there is some evidence for almost any hypothesis imaginable, but the overwhelming amount of evidence points to an old earth. Think of it this way – if a murder occurs there is evidence that you, by the very fact that you were alive when the murder occurred, committed the crime. That is all one needs to make you a suspect. If that is the only evidence, then your guilt is highly improbable, but the police could come up with a story to make the rest fit. This is intelligent design in a nutshell, the barest possibility built around an the unlikeliest of stories.
I say bring on the debate because creationism and intelligent design will continue to lose, as they have been losing for the past 400 years since western science developed. Every hypothesis about astronomy, geology and biology based on a literal reading of the Bible has been found to be wrong.
Oh, I’ve been mssing all the fun haven’t I? On the Noachian flood thing, I am currently reading a very interesting book called “Babylon – Mesopotamia and the Birth of civilisation” by a chap called Paul Kriwaczek. In the 1920s Leonard Wooley the famous archaeologist cliamed to have disvovered what he claimed to be the remains of Noah’s flood.What he had found was evidence of one of a number of floods in the Mesopatamain basin. Other archaologists have found evidence of flooding at several levels at a number of sites. No evdience of a universal flood though. And of course, the Legend of Gilgamesh which recounts the “great flood” predates the Jewish story, and strongly influences it. .
How creationists manage to ignore the cultural influences on the Old Testament is beyond me frankly.
I remember reading Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision over 40 years ago, in which he explained the 10 plagues of Egypt as a result of celestial shenanigans – comet tail I think, passing through earth’s atmosphere, if I recall. I also read a superb refutation of Velly by Issac Asimov.
As for people with science degrees who still cling to creation myths, perhaps it’s not more science they need, so much as a better knowledge of literature and history.
I have read ‘Gilgamesh’ and the Bible account of Genesis. The accounts are written very differently in style and I’m not aware of any proof that the Gilgamesh Myth is older in its first telling than the original Noah account. Because the clay tablets of Gilgamesh are believed to be about 1000 years older than the Moses account in Genesis does not prove it preceded and therefore influenced the latter. The former was found in the Sumerian geographical area. Whereas the Flood account would have been written somewhere within Sinai peninsula by Moses who was brought up as an Egyptian prince, and would have only heard the Hebrew accounts of their history from the age of 80 on-wards. But oral accounts were the common way of handing down histories and genealogies for centuries. However the real debate is about; ‘ there is no evidence for a global flood’ , only local floods at different periods of time, therefore the Biblical account is just a myth like Gilgamesh.’
As evolutionists /atheists always point to the ‘scientific evidence’ to refute alternative world views please read details below.
I have edited out ‘creationist’, comments, leaving only scientific responses to the evidence available. My point iis; that there is more and more evidence to show that the excepted views of Darwinian Long age processes are in dispute. Scientists who were content to accept the status-quo, now are trying to find an alternative, many not wanting to accept the Biblical account either, as that version is ‘not scientific’! Your remarks are like so many who who hold similar views are so insulting and derisory; as if your view is the only one we should accept. Of course there are many arrogant Bible believers too, so I can’t claim a moral high ground here, but what is apparent is that your camp claims all the evidence and the conclusions drawn are beyond doubt and therefor all other views must be wrong.
It seems if you took your own advice and studied extra-biblical evidence as well as the veracity of the Bible you might be less aggressive in asserting that everything in the universe happened and evolved from an initial Big Bang without external cause. It took 4+ billion years and all life on earth just randomly developed from an inorganic beginning.
If you are really as open minded and base your opinions only on ‘proven’ scientific’ models and evidence as you imply, then please have the humility to really look at a difference interpretation using the same evidence. Not all scientists agree with each other! In fact the history of scientific study is filled with heated debate and disagreement!
Please forgive the rather long response, but be interested in your, (I hope) considered response.
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
Was virtually all of the sedimentary strata laid down by a single Worldwide Deluge in a short amount of time, or is the evolutionary scenario of slow change, acting over eons of time, and the associated Geological Time Chart (with its millions and millions of years) a more accurate account of Earth history?
Let’s Look at the Evidence:
The following are 18 Evidences of either massive flooding and erosion, extremely rapid layering of strata, or direct evidence of a Worldwide Flood. Such evidences are found in numerous places on virtually every Continent.
Polystrate Fossils:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed “polystrate fossils.” Such fossils are found all over the world. They usually consist of fossil trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. 3 Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and, at least one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7
Very few of these upright fossil trees have attached roots, and only about 1 in 50 8 have both roots and rootlets attached. Such trees, and their — more often than not — missing roots, are discussed in much more detail in The “Fossil Forests” of Nova Scotia. 9 Likewise, many (if not most) of the large, fragmented, and broken-off Stigmaria roots are also missing their rootlets. 9
Many of these roots and rootlets, are also buried individually. 9 This strongly suggests that these trees did not grow in the same places where they were buried, but rather were uprooted and re-deposited there.
Similar circumstances occur at various other places in Nova Scotia, as well as in the United States, England, Germany, and France. Another place where large tree stumps are preserved without their roots attached is Axel Heiberg 10,11 Island in Northern Canada.
And although there is much data on buried trees in the geological literature, most of it is over 100 years old, and difficult to access. One of the few articles on this subject was by Rupke, and in it he comments that:
“Personally, I am of the opinion that the polystrate fossils constitute a crucial phenomenon both to the actuality and the mechanism of cataclysmic deposition. Curiously a paper on polystrate fossils appears to be a ‘black swan’ in geological literature. Antecedent to this synopsis a systematic discussion of the relevant phenomena was never published. However, geologists must have been informed about these fossils. In view of this it seems unintelligible that uniformitarianism has kept its dominant position.” 12
See also The Organic Levels of the Yellowstone Petrified Forest 13 and The Yellowstone Petrified “Forests” 14 by Harold Coffin.
The Fossils Themselves:
Fossils don’t form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea. 15 Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies. 16 Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past. See also Rapid Petrification of Wood, by Andrew Snelling.
Clastic Dikes: According to Austin, a clastic dike is “a cross cutting body of sedimentary material which has been intruded into a foreign rock mass.” 17
“These dikes…(may) penetrate horizontal sedimentary strata (or) they may occur… in igneous and metamorphic rocks. The process of formation of a clastic dike is analogous to wet sand oozing up between ones toes, but on a much larger scale.” 17
Clastic dikes present a problem to the “mythions of years” mindset of evolution in that massive “older” sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger strata. This must have occurred while the “older” sediments were still in a plastic state.
What took these “older” sediments so long to become hard?
One would think that a million years would be more than enough time to turn massive sand laden sediments into sandstone, yet we have an example of sediments which are said to be 80 million years older than those above them, and yet they still had not become hard, but were in a wet and plastic state when an earth movement caused them to be forced up into the (supposedly much) “younger” sediments. Such evidence not only present serious problems for the evolutionary method of “dating”, but also tell us that something is wrong with the millions of years mindset of evolutionary theory itself,
Mt. St. Helens:
Three separate eruptions produced sedimentary-type layers hundreds of feet thick. One of these was a hurricane velocity deposit that produced thousands of thin laminations up to 25 feet thick The third eruption was a lava flow, which turned into a hot mud-flow as it crossed the Toutle River. This hot mud flow not only diverted the river, but carved a 17 mile long series of canyons (up to 140 feet deep) in a matter of hours. They call it the Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River.” And to this very day, neither the mass media, nor any popular “science” publications have told the public what happened. For more on this see Mt. St. Helens: Evidence in Support of Global Catastrophe.
Palouse Canyon:
In Eastern Washington State there is a canyon that was eroded through solid basalt by Lake Missoula floods in 1-2 days. This canyon is 300 to 500 feet deep. See references below for more information. 24,25,26,27,28
Observations at an Australian Beach:
At Greenmount Beach on the Gold Coast of Queensland, an interesting thing occurred: “clear laminations, or layering, in the sand–formed by the separation of normal silica-sand grains and smaller, denser mineral sand-grains such as rutile which are dark in color.. The layering was present along the whole sand mass exposed.”
“This was produced as a result of a beach restoration project (which involved) the dredging of sand from a sand bar on)the Tweed River and carrying it by ship several kilometres north to the southern Gold Coast beaches, where it was pumped ashore as a water/sand slurry through a large pipe to the beach.”
Spontaneous Sorting of Layers:
Laboratory experiments have shown that spontaneous sorting and layering occurs with a sand, mud and clay slurry. When the mixture slows down, the sand, mud and clay will spontaneously precipitate (settle out) and form individual layers. Dr. Guy Berthault has performed a number of experiments which demonstrate this. 31,32,33 Those who wish to see for themselves, may do so by simply ordering one of the following videos : Evolution: Fact or Belief? Or Experiments in Stratification.
Turbidity Currents:
A turbidity current is an underwater mud flow, the discovery of which caused somewhat of a revolution in geology. As a result, many sedimentary strata layers throughout the world have been reevaluated and found to be turbidites.
For example, regarding turbidites and the impact they are having on modern Geology, Kurt Howard, 41 said the following in his paper on this topic:
My physical geology professor said, “Regarding uniformitarianism, you can take it with a grain of salt.” After reviewing geology texts on the subject of turbidites, I am following the professor’s advice. To paraphrase his words, I am taking uniformitarianism with a grain of sand, for the philosophy of uniformitarianism states that sedimentary layers form over many millions of years, while … recent research has shown that turbidites form within a few hours.
In 1972 Burgert identified several lower basal Tapeats units as turbidites in Grand Canyon’s Cheops Bay. Dr. Ariel Roth a geologist at Loma Linda University’s Geoscience Institute, suggested that 30% of all sedimentary rocks in Grand Canyon are turbidites. Some geologists suggest that 50% of the world’s sedimentary rocks might be turbidites.
Modern geologists discarded the terms flysch sediments and geosyncline because rapidly formed megathick flysch is incompatible with uniformitarianism and long ages. However, in the last few years, the number of geologists abandoning the classical uniformitarian discipline and adopting the new catastrophism is challenging the status-quo.Geologists are concerned about the nature of the stratigraphic record, which is a record of major catastrophic events and not the slow year-by-year buildup suggested by uniformitarianism. Flysch deposits might be the sedimentary results of a global flood. The idea of geosynclines is unpopular because most geologists believe in plate tectonics.
Extensive Strata and Pancake Layering:
As we observe sedimentary strata throughout the world we see almost everywhere flat-lying (or “pancake”) layered strata. Many of these layers are so extensive that they cover several states. Evolutionists believe that such layers were deposited slowly over millions and millions of years, or that they are simply “river” deposits or river deltas. A growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. First because there is virtually no evidence of erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas. That’s because many of the “layers” are quite thick, and cover (literally) hundreds and even thousands of square miles, and in many instances are the size of the state of Utah, or even larger.
This, coupled with the presence of marine fossils that are buried in many of the layers, tells us that they were deposited by ocean currents (i.e. from a major Flood), like nothing we have ever seen before.
We can say for certain that it was the ocean (as opposed to a lake) because of the marine fossils that are buried in much of this strata. For example, in the Grand Canyon area itself, old Earth geologists have said that the Ocean swept over the whole area on six different occasions. Young Earth geologists say it was probably only once.
A “Whale” of a Fossil:
Or should we say “a fossil of a whale? It’s true, but what is most interesting about it is how it was buried. In 1976, workers from the Dicalite division of Grefco inc. found the remains of a baleen whale entombed vertically in a diatomaceous earth quarry.
“They’ve found fossils there before; in fact the machinery operators have learned a good deal about them and carefully annotate any they find with the name of the collector, the date, and the exact place found. Each discovery is turned over to Lawrence G. Barnes at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The Whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected anywhere… (It) is standing on end.. and is being exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the head and a small part of the body are visible as yet.
“The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long and has a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may be close to 80 feet long.
More Fossil Whales:
“In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered … How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent… Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?”
“Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level…”
Marine Fossils In The Mountains:
In Mountains all over the world one can find sea shells and other marine fossils. These include the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more.
Frozen Mammoths:
Frozen mammoths and Mammoth bones are found in large numbers in Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Europe. Some of these were in such good preservation that Eskimos would feed their dogs meat from them when they became exposed due to melting ice and snow: that is, if wolves didn’t get their first.
Fissures In The Rocks:
In caves and fissures in England, Whales and all over western Europe are found bones and bone fragments of many types of extinct and extant animal species — including the mammoth, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, horse, polar bear, bison, reindeer, wolf and cave lion. In virtually every case, the bones are disarticulated, without teeth marks, un-weathered, and in most cases broken and splintered.
“In the rock on the summit of Mont de Sautenay — a flat-topped hill near Chalonsur-Saone between Dijon and Lyons — there is a fissure filled with animal bones. ‘Why should so many wolves, bears, horses, and oxen have ascended a hill isolated on all sides?’ asked Albert Gaudry, professor at the Jardin des Plantes. According to him, the bones in this cleft are mostly broken and splintered into innumerable… fragments and are ‘evidently not those of animals devoured by beasts of prey; nor have they been broken by man. Nevertheless, the remains of wolf were … abundant, together with those of cave lion, bear, rhinoceros, horse, ox, and deer… Prestwich thought that the animal bones… were found in common heaps because, ‘… [they] had fled [there] to escape the rising waters.’”
Erratic Boulders:
All over Europe and North America are found extremely large “boulders” which were transported many miles by some mysterious force — the most likely of which is a massive flood that swept over the Continents. Concerning these Velikovsky writes :
“Some erratics are enormous. The block near Conway, New Hampshire, is 90 by 40 by 38 feet and weighs about 10,000 tons, the load of a large cargo ship. Equally large is Mohegan Rock, which towers over the town of Montville, in Connecticut. The great flat erratic in Warren County, Ohio, weighs approximately 13,500 tons and covers three quarters of an acre; the Ototoks erratic, thirty miles south of Calgary, Alberta, consists of two pieces of quartzite ‘derived from at least 50 miles to the west,’ [and weighs] over 18,000 tons.” 57
Was the Flood Local or Worldwide?
In the late 60′s and early 70′s:
“Two American oceanographic vessels pulled from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico several long, slender cores of sediment. Included in them were the shells of tiny one-celled planktonic organisms called foraminifera. While living on the surface, these organisms lock into their shells a chemical record of the temperature and salinity of the water. When they reproduce, the shells are discarded and drop to the bottom. A cross-section of that bottom … carries a record of climates that may go back more than 100 million years. Every inch of core may represent as much as 1000 years of the earth’s past.”
“The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years ago.” 1 To Emiliani, all the questions and arguments are minor beside the single fact that a vast amount of fresh melt water poured into the Gulf of Mexico. ‘We know this,’ he says, ‘because the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago… There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood.
“Emiliani’s findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and Shackleton, who concluded that there was a ‘massive inpouring of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water, surface salinities were… reduced by about ten percent.”
The Black Sea Speaks:
“Science… has found evidence for a massive deluge that may … have inspired Noah’s tale. About 7,500 years ago, a flood poured ten cubic miles of water a day — 130 times more than flows over Niagara Falls – from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea, abruptly turning the formerly freshwater lake into a brackish inland sea.” 59 Emphasis Added
“In 1993, William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory dug up cores of sediment from the bottom of the Black sea. The cores showed that the sea’s outer margins had once been dry land, indicating it had been two-thirds its present size. Furthermore, over the entire sea bottom was a thin, uniform layer of sediment that could only have been deposited during a flood. The researchers also found that within that layer saltwater mollusks appear, all from the Mediterranean and all dating from around 7600 years ago.”
Miracle or Worldwide Flood?
“Such a hypothesis would require assumption of a highly unlikely pattern of faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras are followed, everywhere at the same distance and the same time interval, by swarms of species of Cheiloceras, the two waves preserving their separate identities on a staggered mass migration around the world … without evolutionary changes and without ever becoming mixed…”
“It would be easy to repeat this investigation for almost every critical zone fossil or fauna throughout the geological column for hundreds, perhaps thousands of… cases. The conclusions would be the same. In the words of Jeletsky (1956) we would have to ‘invoke a miracle’, if, for example, we were to assume anything but world-wide contemporaneous deposition for each of the 55 ammonite zones of the Jurassic. Not all of them occur everywhere, but wherever two or more are found in superposition they occur in the same order summarized the picture of … Mesozoic ammonoids as follows:
‘Evolution is above all very uneven. Certain periods were outstandingly productive of new and verile forms which often seem to have sprung into existence from nowhere … and to have become dominant almost simultaneously over a large part of the world.
How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is a task for the future to determine.’”
Worldwide Chaos and Out of Order Fossils:
The following excerpts provide further evidence that something is amiss with the Geological Time Chart and the associated Theory of Evolution itself.
“I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” 62
And that:
“Heretofore, we have thrown up our hands in frustration at the lack of expected pattern in life’s history — or we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it… If we can develop a…theory of mass extinction, we may finally understand why life has thwarted our expectations, and…extract an unexpected … pattern from apparent chaos.” 62 Stephen Jay Gould Emphasis added.
“One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression…”
“only 15-20% of the earth’s land surface has even 3 geologic periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order.” John Woodmorappe
“Any sequence in which an older fossil occurs above a younger one is stratigraphically disordered … disorder may be from millimeters to many meters … (and) is produced by the physical or biogenic mixing of … sediments … Since these processes occur to an extent in virtually all sedimentary systems, stratigraphic disorder at some scale is probably a common feature of the fossil record.”
“The extent of disorder …is not well documented; however, the widespread occurrence of anomalies … suggest that disorder should be taken seriously…” p. 234. W. J. Arkell. “Examination of Britain’s record of the Ice Age levels discloses a ‘complex interbedding of drift sheets derived from different sources.’ ‘When we add the additional complications imposed by thin drifts, scanty interglacial deposits, and the frequent presence in fossil-bearing beds of secondary [displaced] fossils derived from the reworking of older horizons, we get a truly difficult overall problem … All in all, British glacial stratigraphic research has encountered exceptional difficulties,’ writes R. F. Flint, professor of geology at Yale University.
A Note about “Problematica”:
“Problematica” is the “code word” Paleontologists use to describe out of order fossils, or those that are not easily placed, or that are “mixed” in with one’s they shouldn’t be with.
If one were to perform an internet search on this word he or she may be surprised at how many web pages there are on it: especially considering that the word isn’t even in the Dictionary: at least not an English one.
For more on this see: Sea-Sloths and Out of Order Fossils.
You have gone to unneccessary and unneccassarily hostile lengths to respond to what are fairly common place and uncontroversial remarks on my part. Frankly I really don’t care what you think of my views. I am not here to proselytise and I would rather that you didn’t attempt to proselytise me. As far as I am aware this comments log is just that – for comments.
Sadly, you have wasted your time and Eric’s webspace by posting a website piece I have no intention of reading. I fought this battle once before many years ago when I was a young man and nothing I have heard or read since then has given me a moment’s doubt that my acceptance of Darwinian evolution all those years ago was was the right one.
Messengerpigeon. I’m not sure that I see the point of your very long comment. For example, if you google the words (taken from that post) “the philosophy of uniformitarianism states that sedimentary layers form over many millions of years”, what you get are creationist sites. No scientists need apply. When I realised this, it seemed pointless to go on reading. What is the point of an argument made to yourselves, if you do not address yourself to what is really happening in science. Uniformitarianism, for instance, is not a theory about the sedimentation, but a theory of the laws which are held to operate throughout geological time, and the fact that there were floods, and occasions when very large sedimentary desposits were made, does not serve to prove that evolution is wrong. I simply do not understand why you would continue to make arguments of the kind invoked, if you really were concerned about evidence. So far as I know, no reputable geologist has produced evidence for a world wide flood. Indeed, the idea of the flood as we have it in the Bible is not of a world wide flood at all, because no one at the time had the same conception of the world that we do. Nor did they have the same idea about the place of the waters. Some was held above the heavens, and some was trapped deep in the earth. And, as I have said before, the interpretation of the biblical flood as a world wide flood is a misunderstanding of the Bible. In the Bible the flood is depicted as an act of uncreation, and its value is symbolic or metaphorical or figurative, not literal and historical or scientific. To make this fundamental mistake, and then try to prove it by adducing all sorts of scientific evidence, is a misuse of your intelligence, and I wonder what could have led you to it. I agree with Mike. I have no intention of reading the whole of what you have written either. You are not speaking to the choir, and for the kind of enterprise you are undertaking, you need choirs, not thoughtful people, or the scientific consensus. This is truly pathetic stuff, and to think that you devoted all this time on what amounts to a conspiracy theory is equally pathetic. What do you think you gain by challenging the scientific consensus in this way with the (only) apparent use of science? Your comment comes almost to 4000 words, and, despite all your claims to the contrary, geology, physics, and biology all point to the age of the earth which is around 4.5 billion years.
By the way, Gilgamesh makes a lot more sense than the Bible, if you think about it. The flood story in Gilgamesh is about becoming human, and recognising the indifference of the world to our sorrows, and the need for compassion. The Bible’s story of the flood is the story of an angry god who regretted that he had made man, and was determined to uncreate the world. Indeed, if you consider it, it is the story of God’s failure, God’s determination to destroy his failure, and the story of God’s failing again. It is not a particularly uplifting or inspiring story, and it surprises me that so many people take it as the basis, not only of their lives, but of an obvious conspiracy theory of the formation of the earth, and the appearance of human beings upon it. I find it odd that you should take as your internet “handle” the name of the bird who came and assured Noah of the appearance of dry land. (At least I assume that is where it comes from.) What a pity that you whould use your obvious intelligence to purvey such pathetic nonsense.
I will reply more a little quickly to both your responses.You are right i was wasting my time trying to debate with people who have such high opinions of themselves that they consider another’s efforts to offer them the possibility that their theories might be flawed is preposterous. I was not being hostile, but if you read your tone of writing, it is imperious and it will refute any view it does not consider valid, clearly proven by your stating you did not even deign to read most of mine!,and that I am purveying pathetic nonsense!.
There are none so blind that refuse to see; however I think can we can all agree that there is something in humanity that strives to know why he here at all and also a need to look to a creator or at least an understanding of the incredible universe and planet he surveys. I am amazed that any scientist can look at the incredible design of creation and not see a Creator(even if its only ‘Q’), but I and billions of other people can and do see a loving God who gave us the Bible to help us understand something outside of our feeble attempts to work everything out by ourselves. I do not know what you mean by a conspiracy theory? The accounts of God’s anger are about humanity rebellious sinful nature and His holy desire to have humanity rise above our baseness. God didn’t fail, we did and still do in failing to understand or admit this, but I appreciate this is all twaddle to such minds as yours.
I mean this without being patronising; I feel sorry for you, for all your apparent intellectual abilities, if you do not know God, your vaulted knowledge comes to nothing.
messengerpigeon, your response, after much bold talk about increasing numbers of non-christian scientists supporting intelligent design, is a cut and paste from a Christian creationist without any background in science, as far as I can tell. What a let down. Please do try harder next time.
Messengerpigeon. Nonsense! And I think you meant ‘vaunted’ in your closing uncharitable bit of patronising self-puffery. You cannot simply overturn the scientific consensus without being a scientist. And that you clearly are not. You are an apologist for a religion assumed to be true. There is absolutely no reason to think it true, and many reasons to think it false, not least of which is its denial of what we know, independently of religious belief, to be true. Save your crass religious “pity” for someone else.
I made it clear that the scientific information I posted was from that website, but you seem unable to accept that there are many creationists who have valid scientific qualifications and experience, so if you are too threatened to read their research, what can I say? But when I have the time I will indeed post a list of reputable scientists from many disciplines who are unconvinced by Darwinism and unproven theories. Thank you for the correction, yes I did mean vaunted, no I am not a scientist; however what self respecting scientist would with integrity say ‘there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to think a conflicting view is true’? I was not being crass, I really do care, but I can appreciate your irritability at my presumption.
messengerpigeon, that website was not “scientific information.” It was apologetics for a young earth gussied up with random references to the scientific literature by someone who knows little about science. You keep claiming that “real” scientists – even non-Christian ones – doing “real” science back up your claims, but you still haven’t produced any. How do you think scientists know creationists are full of crap – they read their work. I have reams of ICR’s “Acts and Facts” in my office. I have books by Henry Morris, Gary Parker, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe and others. Your claim that we refuse to read this crap because we are afraid of what we might learn is without merit. But please, if you have something new to add, pass it along.
I really have no idea what this means. I accept the definition of knowledge as “justified true belief”, a commonly accepted definition. Whether God exists or not is irrelevent as to whether something can be counted as knowledge or not. Theists do not possess any guarantees that what they think of as true is actually the case. All that really counts is evidence.
I cannot speak for Eric, only for myself, when I say that if I cannot be bothered to read creationist “research”, it is not because I feel threatened in any way. As I explained earlier, I have already considered the arguments, weighed the evidence, and found the evidence overwhelmingly in favour of Darwinism. I did that at a time in my life when I desperately wanted the evidence to support creationism and was, to adopt a phrase from CS Lewis, “the most reluctant Darwinian evolutionist in England”. And of course, I could have been wrong. However, as time as gone on, and I have followed developments in science generally, and biology in particular, I have become more certain to the point where I simply can’t be bothered following up the latest fantasies dreamed up by creationists.
Atheism for me actually came much later, so to lump evolutionists and atheists together as you do, is inaccurate. There are a number of respectable Xtian biologists I could name who are evolutionist and many Xtians who regard the first few chapters of Genesis as mythology and accept Darwinian evolution as providing a convincing explanation for life on earth.
Whether one can be both a Theist and an evolutionist, at least ofthe Darwinian variety at the same time is open for discussion, and my opinion on that tends to vary, but I don’t really care one way or the other. I am not a Darwinian because I am an atheist, I am an atheist because I studied Philosophy to degree level and found the arguments for Theism seriously underwhelming, and the lack of anything that might count as evidence too pervasive to ignore.
IComing bact to the website you recommended, or any other creationist sites, don’t need to read them to refute them, any more than I need to read the latest pseudoarchaeology to refute the nonsesne that ancient civilisations were visited by aliens or posessed a lost science that we do not know about in order to build what remains of their artefacts.
That’s part of the joy of knowledge – once you’ve seen the evidence that supports the genuine science, you don’t need to refute the nonsense. Nobody (I hope) believes in a flat earth any more, or the geocentric theory, and should anyone challenge the current science, nobody is going to worry too much about trying to refute the challengers. And the same goes for Darwininian evolution. And that’s not arrogance – it’s just plain common sense. Why bother fighting battles that have already been won?
Except of course, the challenge to Darwinian evolution is serious, not because it is an intellectual challenge – it just isn’t, but because some very influential people are challenging it, and some of those people have political clout, and want to introduce their creationist pseudoscience into the educational system – and that has to be fought, because it would be morally wrong to allow children to be taught creationism as if it were science.
And this is where one has to stop being polite, and say quite clearly to people like you Messengerpigeon – if you want to believe creationism, that’s your choice, go ahead. I really don’t care. But when creationists start pontificating about being even handed and open minded and allowing space for pseudoscience to be taught in schools, as a devious cover for religious proselytising then the gauntlet is thrown down my friend, and one has to say in no uncertain terms that your kind are deluded and dangerous and impressionable youngsters need protecting from you.
24 hrs since messenger pigeon claimed that reputable scientists and/or people with valid scientific qualifications have shown evolution wrong. We still need names – biologists, geologists and astronomers working at research universities engaging in experiments that test creationist hypotheses would be ideal – not random biblical literalists scribbling on the internet.
Patience Michael, it takes time to evolve into a better researcher!
If anyone is going to be patronising around here Messengepigeon, it’ll be me, not you. You don’t have the right, especially not after unloading that heap of bullshit above. Pretending, on the basis of creationist apologetics, that there is a great deal of evidence for a young earth is simply appalling, and, despite your sleazy innuendo about the hell that awaits those who do not believe, and your palpably insincere expression of being sorry for me, producing nonsense in defence of nonsense is not really the way to make friends around here. You have not produced one bit of evidence for a young earth. There isn’t any. But you know the routine, and are obviously good at misleading those who do not know. Shame on you. You have the intelligence, but you misuse it to propagate lies. Michael is right. You need to produce your evidence or check out. But, given your refusal to attend to the facts, you, sadly, will never evolve. It was created, just as it is, by religious indoctrination, and it goes on spreading it around as liberally as you can. The only thing that works here is reason. Dogma won’t get you anywhere.
The Discovery Institute list – another cut and paste – I am so not impressed; are any of the signatories doing the science needed to test intelligent design? The DI statement is a negative against evolution and not a positive for either creation or design and certainly says nothing about a young earth. I have looked at the people on the list and almost all of the biologists either work at religious colleges and have signed a statement of faith or are retired/dead. Even those that are at research universities are not working in fields directly related to the origin and diversity of life, the earth or the universe. If you will also notice, the affiliations are not current; often if they work at a religious college or working in the private sector, then they list where they earned their PhD.
A case is in point is Phil Skell at the top of the list. He was a respected inorganic chemist, but totally out of his skill set with evolution. His schtick involved his idea that evolution was not an important organizing principle in biology because some biologists don’t explicitly discuss it in their work. This meant that evolution didn’t need to be taught. I was in an email exchange with him during the Kansas standards hearings and asked him if he planned on teaching chemistry without atomic theory since it wasn’t addressed in every chemistry paper published, but he only wanted me to concede his points not to have an exchange of ideas.
Robert DiSilvestro, nutrition prof at OSU, works on mineral metabolism – no evidence of ID research.
Thomas Stackhouse, asst director of technology transfer at the National Cancer Institute – no evidence of ID research.
Karen Rispin, asst. prof no PhD at Letourneau University – a religious institution. Her comment on LU webpage: “I pray I can pass on some of the joy I find in studying God’s creation.” And the LU statement of faith includes: “We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only inspired, authoritative Word of God and are completely truthful and without error.”
Please take a look at the rest and find some people who are doing the relevant research.
Thank you Michael. Relevant points to make. However, since I do not like messengerpigeon’s tone, I have deleted that comment, with the list of names, and have asked him, if he wants to comment here, to change his approach. As you say, names are nothing without relevant research.
Eric, one does wonder why someone would come on so strong with claims about scientific research by qualified scientists showing creation to be true and evolution false, when he or she could neither name scientists nor scientific papers to back those claims. Does he or she really think we are that stupid?
In a nutshell, here is why I think intelligent design fails and what someone like messengerpigeon must bring to the table. Paley’s design argument used the analogy to human design to explain design in nature. Humans start out with a goal in mind, a blueprint, before they design. They know, in part, what the thing will do before they begin building. Darwin, who had studied Paley as an undergrad, turned this on its head, as Dennett said he inverted the reasoning, claiming design didn’t need a goal, didn’t need a mind – it could happen through “mindless” processes – variation (now known to arise via mutation) and natural selection.
We know how to identify human designs because we have seen humans design and build things. We know a watch is human-designed because we have seen humans build watches. We can distinguish stone axes from cobbles because we have seen “stone-age” communities produce tools and we have found stone tools associated with other human artifacts like pottery, painting and fires. A person who knows what to look for can pick out stone tools from a random assortment of rocks. We can also study how chimps fashion twig tools to acquire termites and we can distinguish between chimp-designed twigs and random twigs.
Intelligent design posits an unknown designer. If we know neither the designer nor how it designs, then how could we possibly know what it designed? We need to be able to see how a designer designs and the characteristics of its end-products to know what to look for. The Discovery Institute statement claims random mutation/natural selection is inadequate to explain organismal diversity, but does not explain what the missing factor(s) are and how they function to explain diversity. Intelligent design advocates must operationally define non-random intelligently-designed mutation and/or intelligent selection. They must define these variables exactly and how they are measured and they must avoid tautologies in their definitions.
I have seen no evidence that random mutation/natural selection is inadequate to explain organismal diversity, but even if there were, one couldn’t conclude that it was due to an intelligent cause without additional evidence.
Damn! I missed some of the fun with the pigeon::-)
Michael: Does he or she really think we are that stupid?
Well, they are “that stupid”, and I think we (humans)do have a tendency to attribute to others our own capabilities. I know that I tend to think other people have capacities similar to myself.
Michael: If we know neither the designer nor how it designs, then how could we possibly know what it designed?
We couldn’t, which is the great “secret” of ID & YEC
MessengerPigeon, if you actually want dialogue, and not just a unidirectional transfer of information, I’d be happy to oblige
Riandouglas. I am so sorry to have disappointed you. I was accused by messengerpigion, when I wrote to tell him of my decision, of refusing to look at the evidence, which, to tell the truth, consists of a lot of quotations, some of them from reputable biologists, largely out of context. The point that I did make, however, in response, is that, in order to produce evidence against evolution, he must provide evidence from working scientists who are themselves questioning the scientific consensus. It won’t do to provide supposed “evidence” from sources not closely related to the scientific project. That’s not the way science advances, and this is obviously one of the most serious misunderstandings of those who think they have arguments against evolution. You must be working at the coalface, as it were, and be prepared to justify your arguments by referring to actual research being done which shows that there are valid, working alternatives to the scientific consensus. However, this is precisely what evangelical Christians refuse to do.
Of course, there may be another way to do it. If, as Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini say, there are logical/epistemological issues with evolutionary theory, it might be possible to show that evolution is just a cover for a badly formed theory. However, it seems clear that Fodor and P-P themselves got it badly wrong, and that the philosophical confusion is theirs, and not the theory of evolution.
I did tell messengerpigeon that he is certainly free to comment here, but he must at least observe some basic rules regarding evidence. As usual, I’m afraid, young earth creationism deals in fabrications and misleading quotations. It takes a great deal more than this to establish that there are real problems with the vast age of the earth, which includes not only biology, but other sciences as well. It is hopeless to challenge this without an enormous amount of knowledge and the expertise which goes along with it. And as Hawking said, science will win, becasue it works.
Eric, it is not you who dissapointed, but others. I did not mean to direct my ire at you (nor to have your ire directd at me)
I meant to tempt “messenger pideon” into dialog
I felt no ire and meant none, I assure you. I don’t think messengerpigeion will be tempted. He knows that it will go straight to moderation, and he is so sure of himself that that is something he will not abide.
Pingback: The Giant’s Causeway and the Nature of Scientific Thinking | Cognitive Revolution