truth
Farmerman, I'm afraid it's a case of parallel devolution. (abuzz and now parts of a2k). I'm just shocked that Lightwizard is going along with it.
Hey JL, glad to see ya. I really think that wiz is just playing with this guy. As I hope are the rest of us . If not, then Im really creeped out.
Grand Canyon
True believers in God will always have an answer to everything. If you ask them how the Grand Canyon was made, they say "God slashed a crease in the earth", if you ask them how long it took for those layers of earth to be laid down in the first place, they say "That's how God made the earth!"
Surely to any reasonable person, it is clear why these arguments are faulty, and actually prove the NON-existence of God more than his existence.
Greg
truth
Skeptic, the most sensational experience I've had with fundamentalist Christian resistance to evidence was when one answered, when presented with geological evidence for the age of the earth, that such "evidence" is planted by the Devil to disrupt our faith. Another argued that it was God's way of testing our faith.
Aw now, JL, Ive been involved in quite a few state hearings in which the Creationists have attempted to enter "alternative theories about the origins and rise of life on earth" on a co-equal status with evolution in our schools. In most of the states our side (the various councils of state geologists and other scientists like life scientists and most biochemists) have prevailed in very well orchestrated and fair debate. In Pa , where I was most active, the Creationists (or Intelligent design school) had presented their side absent all references to religious doctrine. They tried using hydraulics to explain the stratification of fossils. They tried using random number theory to downplay evolutionary "chanciness", they tried to use DNA coding to explain that life had to "reinvent its code each time new higher orders were produced because the numbers of random trials would be astronomical (this was actually quite easy to refute), they used geochemistry and math modelling to try to explain for a young earth, and, having lost that, began argfuing that OK well stipulate that the earth is really quite old but life is incredibly complex to have occured without a preplanned template. (NO GOD IN THE MIX )
We prevailed by the simplest of means, we became involved in a debate in front of the Pa Ed Advisory Committee , that science s actually should follow , and therefore teach the 'scientific methods" We were able to quickly display more than hundreds of examples of how the scientific method had been used to discover, and assess data, and even find whenever frauds were being perpetrated.
I have to say that, in the ed board room for these hearings, the Creationists were closely trying to remain sounding very science centered. It would have totally killed their case had they not.
I agree
I agree that in academic debates, Creationists love to sound scientific. They have even engaged in the comedy of calling thier idea "Creation Science". That is definately a misnomer, as Creation is not a science.
Also, while academic creationists may argue validly using some scientific reasoning, I do not believe that this represents the average lay-persons belief in creation. If you argue with a creationist on the street or in a bar, they usually make statements like "God wanted us to find fossils as a test", and "evolution has way to many holes"...both absurd statements that seem to represent the public. If Creationsists really were scientists, as they claim, they would readily admit that Evolution has mounds of valid scientific evidence.
Greg
Farmerman, The Intelligent Design argument is simply an update of 18th century Deism. It presupposes a Newtonian Universe in which the master mechanic sets the works running and then leaves it to follow it's predetermined routine. What they cannot tolerate is the probabilistic and stochastic nature of the universe. Striped of those twenty-dollar words they are simply rigid determinists and can be easily befuddled when asked to explain anomalies that do not fit their models. At that point they almost always revert to theology, and you have them.
truth
Has everyone noticed that whenever a "discipline" uses the term science in its name--like Christian Science, Military Science, Science of Mind, etc.--it is decidedly not a science? Biology, Physics and Chemistry make sincere efforts to be scientific, but they are rarely referred to as biological science, physical science and chemical science.
The only holes in evolution exist in the Creationist's head.
What's up with the creationism topic? Bored with me?
no youre welcome to join in.
To Acquiunk
No , my point was that the hearings were handled in a forum that, if you talked like you wrote your post acquiunk, youd have lost the committee, which was mostly school administrators and some state representatives and a judge.
I was quite pleased at how the iD boys kept their arguments on a scientific basis. For example, we were challenged to explain polonium rings (we call it beta induced pleichroism when were among colleagues) The science (creation) writer Austin, made a very impressive case about Polonium rings in micas proving that the earth is younfg. It was all wet, but they pulled us into their court. we were faced with the obstacle that took our points off track and we then had to discuss their "scientific" observations AND we had to do it so the judge and reps could understand. The easiest thing , as we all know, is to discuss among colleagues. The most difficult is to explain to the intelligent layperson , who, is in the position of political power. The Creationists understand this and are verry good at playing to panels of politicians. Witness, theyve won in Ohio. Mostly because the Ohian scientists took them as "lightweight" non-scientists who would push some Biblical Babble. Well they didnt and the Intelligent Design group began with taking apart Darwin as a "true believer in intelligent design" .
Do not underestimate these guys they are not stupid, and they have more degrees than a compass. Duane Gish and Ian Mcppherson , for example are Phds in Physics, Austin is a Phd Structural Geologist (honest, no lie).
They dont revert to running away . Bill Behe , who teaches chem at Lehigh , wrote Darwins Black Box, which is a well written (albeit logically wanting) treatise on the concept of "Irreducible complexity" which has been a code word for Intelligent Designers. Theyve nicely mixed their Statistical Impossibility argument with the concet that, certain structures through all species are "irreducable" to anything simpler and were , therefore designed. You can believe this if we didnt have the secrets of genetic coding and its sub units , as well as Short Tandem Allelic structures in the genetic makeup of species from the first worms to hominids. Once a genetic structure that codes for eyes or legs or any basic structure was understood, we can see that genetics has laid out the ladder (bush) of evolution so nicely , and once something appeared, it merely remanifests itself as a typological model in non related genera.
The Intelligent Designers would have us go "back" to the drawing board and have a "hard wired" design prepared by "a designer"
Having been in the trenches with the school boards , Ive been surprised at how well organized and quite logical their spokesmen sound. Whereas nobody in the real sciences can speak for us all. Ive seen embarrassing debates wherein a college religious group invites a debate between a notable IDer or Creation Scientist and someone from the colleges science department. The scientist gets creamed in front of the audience, which is made up mostly of students belonging to some Campus "lighthouse" Club . Its always a setup, because the scientist is never prepared for the scope of the debate. He(or she) gets outflanked by preposterous propositions that are almost, but not quite , Silly. Unless the scientist does homework on the canned arguments that the creationists present, there will be a sound defeat for science.
Years ago, it happened at an Ivy League school with Duane Gish (I believe) and John Rogers , who was a brilliant although impatient structural geologist. His , Rogers, positions required a higher degree of understanding than the Creationist arguments , which were presented for "prime time" Rogers began to stammer and then he got angry and , well, all was pretty much a disaster from then on. I learned from that and, when the Creationists began their nationwide assaults on the science curricula, to have creation science co-equal with evolution, I volunteered to help out. Its still a raging battle in the several states and even the states that soundly defeated the proposition, have Creationists working through local school boards to have the state ed dept re-introduce this stuff.
Meanwhile, the rest of the planet is certain that we, in thje US, for variousw reasons including Creationism, are simply out of our skulls.
You should get involved the pay is great (NOTHING) the things it can do for youyr career are also great (NOTHING). but if you, as I think you do, care about the state of our ed system, you will wish to help out the cause of all science , nbot just evolution and natural selection
truth
Thanks for a very valuable bit of information, Farmer. Wow, what an experience. Personally, instead of trying to defeat the IDers I'd rather conduct a movement lobbying for the inclusion of ALL the known alternative creation myths (probably thousands) from throughout the world, and call each of them ____science. Why should the IDers be able to identify themselves as the ONLY alternative theory of biological origins and forms?
what a cool idea. JL
Actually modern evolutionary synthesis is an example of the manifestation of "stupid design" and the survival of the least stupid (for that moment in time).
If youve got a month you must read Jay Goulds last book
"The Structure of evolutionary Theory" the book is a great rambling , not well written, and poorly edited piece of random thought from Goulds fertile mind. He uses analogy very badly and the book is difficult reading. However, its still a great "line in the sand" drawn to take on the Creationists. Even though (he said) that was never his purpose to compose it. He knew he was dying and he wanted his last work to be a greqat one. It achieves that goal , mostly in mass, but it contains great out-of-text single quotables trhat should be required reading for anyone who uses or defends evolutionary synthesis. The only thing that I (personally) hold against Gould, is his obvious personal bitterness toward Ernst Mayr (who was omitted in Goulds book) and Lynn Margulis, whose always given us much to think about in true scientific fashion. She has the theory that , in early earth times, entire genomes were captured and absorbed by eukaryotes and prokaryotes, and various genomes reflect this early " genetic jump start"
BTW JL has the Sunday art chat room been fixed ?
truth
FM, yes, I believe it was in operation last Sunday, around noon here in the West. About 2 pm in PA? I missed it for stupid reasons. By the way, you do know that I believe that evolution occured only in the Galapagos.
The point to the question was: who cares?
What does creationism have to do with all the tea in china? What does it have to do with *this* thread?
I suspect you guys are *over* excited. More mundane topics such as 'creationism' probably are more your speed.
Farmerman, On Tuesday I get to take about 60 6th graders, who from my experience vary widely in attentiveness and interest, on a tramp through the woods and try and explain how archaeologist turn old cellar holes, stonewalls and assorted trash into history. I do the hypothesis, data gathering and conclusion routine. I'm not certain it helps, but it probably doesn't hurt either.
Aquiunk, you material culture types have my utmost respect. We historians dislike getting dirty!
As far as fundamentalists go, When I was at UMBC I took a class on teh Reformation that was crosslisted as a 400leval and 600 level class, so there were mostly undergrads in it. Many of them were there to hear about how Luther whpped the evil, devil wosrshipping Papists. Needless to say, they were dissapointed. The majority of them dropped when they discovered they were indeed in a history class. I also tend to get approached by fundies when I m waiting for the bus at the Broomfield Parka dn Ride. Not sure why,perhaps I look like I'm bound for the hot place.
