Larry Moran is much the overachiever, sort of the Hermoine Granger of evolution wizards scientists.
So, we shouldn’t be surprised that his hosting of the Carnival of Evolution #38 at his rollicking blog Sandwalk resulted in one of the longest, largest, most jam-packed blog carnivals ever.
Go see — unless you’re a creationist. If you’re a creationist you’ll see so much that you’ll begin to doubt your faith in creationism and anti-science, and then you’re likely to confuse that with doubt of God, and you can’t stand such a faith trial.
Yeah, you, Don McLeroy. And you, Granville Sewell. More knowledge than you can hold in your head.
Which article in the Carnival of Evolution is your favorite, Dear Reader?
Tip of the old scrub brush to P. S. Myers at Pharyngula (soon moving . . .).
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Summaries of relatively recent discoveries and experiments regarding early life and abiogenesis that may be of interest on this thread:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110821205241.htm
http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nchem.1108.html
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/August/07081101.asp
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/13/in-the-prebiotic-kitchen/
For those interested in more bleeding-edge research on associated topics, I suggest Arthur Hunt’s website, The RNA Underworld, which I discovered thanks to Ed’s link to the page. Thanks, Ed! http://aghunt.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
lowerleavell writes: ‘Actually, this “creation myth” as found in the Bible describes the earth to be a round sphere (Isaiah 40:22), the earth’s suspension on nothing (Job 26:7), and does not give us the age of the earth beyond giving human genealogies that may or may not have gaps in them that go back to Adam and Eve – these genealogies are consistent with the age of known civilization. People have speculated, but no one knows the real age of the earth.’
Joe, the bible refers to the circle of the earth – nothing about a sphere there, so you’re substituting what science has discovered for what the bible says, according to knowledgeable translators. That’s why there are Flat-Earth Creationists, after all (most are a subset of the Geocentric Creationists).
As for the age of the Earth, we know that it it at least 4 1/2 billion years since the oldest rocks cooled enough to yield concordia for radiometric dating that show the minimum age of the Earth. I recommend that you and your wife read The Age of the Earth, by G. Brent Dalrymple. See http://www.amazon.com/Age-Earth-G-Brent-Dalrymple/dp/0804723311 , and then share it with your children in your homeschool. Dalrymple patiently explains what scientists know about the age of the Earth, and how they know it.
Since I’ve recommended a book for your homeschool, could you please share the names and authors of the books you use in your homeschool? I’m particularly interested in the creationism books (ID, Young-Earth, Old-Earth, Geocentric, Flat-Earth or otherwise – since you want to teach “all sides”), so I can learn which creationists you feel “know their stuff”, and also the names of the books used in your homeschool to teach evolution.
LikeLike
Ed, I’ll try not to move the discussion onto psychology but I will respond to your post.
I am familiar with D’Amasio’s book though I haven’t read it. I’m familiar with a lot of the tenets of this viewpoint. Gluck wrote a rebuttal just a couple years ago called, “Damasio’s Error and Descartes’ Truth” that looks pretty interesting as well.
“Maybe the Mormons are right, that we are in the bodies we have for eternity. Maybe we are all part of a greater entity — no man is an island, Donne said.”
I know that my friends over at Joni and Friends and the author of “Life Without Limbs” Nick Vujicic would hope the Mormons are wrong! Being part of a greater entity is an interesting hypothesis. If that is true then there’s a lot of cancer in that entity with all the wars and problems right now. But actually, the idea is not without merit. The notion is somewhat Scriptural in that the “Church” is described as the Bride (singular) of Christ. So, those who know Jesus and are a part of the family of God are certainly not an island to themselves but part of a community as a whole. Interesting thoughts. I am a staunch advocate of congregational community.
Sorry to hear about your mother-in-law’s stroke. My grandfather passed away over a year ago of the same thing. Not fun. :-(
I would suggest looking up the placebo effect of depression drugs. Interesting ongoing studies are being done which really play into the dichotomy discussion. If we are simply biological and products of chemical reactions then the placebo effect would not be possible.
LikeLike
Pangolin said, “lowerleavell_ Your whole defense of intelligent design is simply Judeo-Christian creation myth with a thin whitewash. I notice you don’t explain how the world is flat and sits on a turtles back or that it’s only 6,000 years old.”
Actually, this “creation myth” as found in the Bible describes the earth to be a round sphere (Isaiah 40:22), the earth’s suspension on nothing (Job 26:7), and does not give us the age of the earth beyond giving human genealogies that may or may not have gaps in them that go back to Adam and Eve – these genealogies are consistent with the age of known civilization. People have speculated, but no one knows the real age of the earth.
So, before crying “myth”, just understand that this is a different “mythology” than say Tolkien. This one actually has facts to back it up that are consistent with science, history, and archaeology. It’s a reasonable faith (Tertullian). If the Universe can be shown to need a designer, there are certain characteristics this designer must have in order to design such an amazing Universe. Unlike the flying spaghetti monster, the God of the Bible actually fits the profile of the power and wisdom needed to be the designer.
Pangolin said, “You are doing a huge disservice to your son. Your average home-skooled Christian is stunningly unprepared for college science and biology courses as they’ve been taught a carefully edited, and incorrect, exposition of the facts.”
The beauty of home-school is that you are not locked into a textbook but can supplement accordingly. Where I think the curriculum is lacking, I have the freedom to teach additional information…in class. Beyond this, are these accusations you are making based on data that you can cite?
Here are some actual statistics of how home schooled students do in college:
1. Homeschool students earned a higher ACT score (26.5) versus 25.0 for other incoming freshmen.
2. Homeschool students earned more college credits (14.7) prior to their freshmen year than other students (6.0).
3. Homeschooled freshmen were less likely to live on campus (72.4%) than the rest of the freshmen class (92.7%).
4. Homeschoolers were more likely to identify themselves as Roman Catholic (68.4%).
5. Homeschool freshmen earned a higher grade points average (3.37) their first semester in college compared with the other freshmen (3.08).
6. Homeschool students finished their freshmen year with a better GPA (3.41) than the rest of their class (3.12).
7. The GPA advantage was still present when homeschoolers were college seniors. Their average GPA was 3.46 versus 3.16 for other seniors.
8. Homeschool students graduated from college at a higher rate (66.7%) than their peers (57.5%).
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/spending/blog/college-solution/can-homeschoolers-do-well-in-college/2551/
Homeschooling isn’t for everyone. I merely referenced it in regard to our children that we home-school for a myriad of reasons and it directly related to the discussion.
Pangolin said, “My mommy says that’s a lie” will get you a flat F in most bio classes and certainly in physics. Actually, any reference to creationism will. It’s simply off topic as non-observable.”
Most of the time it actually IS off topic. I agree. Beyond that, let your statement be a reference to show that you believe that being any reference to creation will result in bad academic grades in college. This would be discrimination, would it not? How can a student present his case when presenting your case means an automatic “F-“? Not a lot of incentive to study, eh?
LikeLike
I don’t think I do understand all the implications of either view. Antonio D’Amasio wrote a book a few years ago, Descartes’ Error, in which he notes a healthy mountain of evidence that shows our mental existence is not separate from our physical bodies — that our brains require our bodies to work and stay healthy. I’m inclined to think we are not dualities, more and more.
What are the implications of that for a soul? Well, that’s another area of rich discussion. Maybe the Mormons are right, that we are in the bodies we have for eternity. Maybe we are all part of a greater entity — no man is an island, Donne said.
In any case, I recommend D’Amasio’s book (his later stuff is very interesting, too). And you’ll want to look at Jill Bolte Taylor’s TEDS talk and her book (which we read about the time my mother-in-law had what proved to be a terminal stroke).
Gotta go move books and printers.
LikeLike
lowerleavell_ Your whole defense of intelligent design is simply Judeo-Christian creation myth with a thin whitewash. I notice you don’t explain how the world is flat and sits on a turtles back or that it’s only 6,000 years old.
You are doing a huge disservice to your son. Your average home-skooled Christian is stunningly unprepared for college science and biology courses as they’ve been taught a carefully edited, and incorrect, exposition of the facts.
“My mommy says that’s a lie” will get you a flat F in most bio classes and certainly in physics. Actually, any reference to creationism will. It’s simply off topic as non-observable.
LikeLike
Ed said, “Plus other life in a drought. I hope to get back to provide some reasonable answers to the rest of your post, Joe, but it may not be tonight.”
No worries Ed. I am very busy as well. I’ve got several projects for my grad classes that I’m working on which are pretty time consuming. Boy THAT would be fun discussion to have sometime as I’m majoring in Biblical counseling/psychology. Amazing the “soul care” that a lot of evolutionary psychologists do…who don’t even believe in a soul. :-) Random question (just because it’s what I’m studying and it has evolutionary significance), but do you believe that man is one part (material) or two parts (material and immaterial)? I think you know the implications of either view.
Anyway, I hope things go well for you in preparation for your semester. I heard about the drought there in Texas on KLOVE. Of course, they put a positive spin on it with showing the charity work that is being done by farmers who have brought hay in from other states to help feed animals, etc. Hope things get better soon!
Ed said, “There is no difference of any significance between these two facets of creationism, especially when it comes to the false claim that there is a conspiracy preventing publication of creationism science.”
So I do take it that you think that if a scientist tried to publish an article defending creationism itself, or the existence of God, it would be published? Can you imagine how much of a “laughingstock” to the scientific community that publication would be for allowing “mental terrorists” (a paraphrase from one of our previous discussions) a platform? As we discussed previously, I had the understanding that peer review provided legitimacy to an argument – something which you and others on this blog did not think that creationism had.
Ed said, “Why shouldn’t a text tell the facts? Joe, as I noted, there is a huge pile of evidence here, and a lot of it is fun to discuss, picques the interest of kids, and can be repeated in a high school lab, or a kitchen.
So, you’re asking that we hide the facts from the kids?”
I thought that this was the basic tenet of ID? I never said that those things shouldn’t be discussed in a classroom. You had said that basically nothing was taught on the origin of life and I was countering by stating that there was plenty taught on the subject. Instead of saying “yeah, you’re right” you defend its use. I’m fine with kids being taught that the mainstream of scientific thought is that RNA evolved into DNA (or other hypothesis). Since all we have is hypothesis (i.e. beliefs and ideas) about what happened, then why only teach one? Cause and effect and biogenesis is legitimate science, is it not? Let me use your words: “Why shouldn’t a text tell the facts?”
Ed said, “See, this is part of the corrosive effect of creationism. You start out calling for open debate, but quickly you try to cover up the facts. That was what got Nixon in trouble, more than the original crime — the cover up.
Let’s let the facts stand. No reason not to tell the whole truth.”
Wait a second here. I don’t remember once saying that evolution should not be taught. It is evolution that is covering up open debate and covering up the facts of biogenesis and cause and effect. So…are you going to be consistent here Ed and call for ID to be taught along side of RNA as a possible hypothesis for the beginning of life on earth?
Ed, my wife and I home-school our children. One of the main reasons being that they can get more hands on attention from my wife than they could from a full classroom..and yes, they get plenty of socialization and sports. My older boy is 8 and is already on a 5th grade level on every subject, so something’s going right…the boy is very smart (gets that from his mom’s side). Through his education we are teaching him both evolutionary theory and creation. Obviously, we are doing it from a creation perspective in that we believe it is the right view, but he will not be ignorant of evolution, I assure you. When he is old enough to understand, I would love to show him some of the discussions that you and I have had through the years so that he can ask questions and do research on his own. Point is…I am practicing what I am preaching in educating my own children. They will be exposed to both and have a working knowledge of both – how about the children you teach? Will they be exposed to both in a classroom?
James said, “Because sorry, if you’re going to claim that you can scientifically prove that life was created by some intelligent designer then the next question becomes who was that intelligent designer? And your side can’t answer that or won’t answer it. Either way it means your precious ID has no credibility.”
I am saying that both ID and abiogenesis are systems of belief, both founded on different presuppositions. Both have evidence going for them, but ID actually has scientific data to back it up. Abiogenesis has to overcome science to be true.
James, you cannot say that ID is wrong because you are afraid of the question “what comes next?”. The inquisitive mind is willing to go there. The identity of ID is a separate issue entirely. If you did not know who painted the Mona Lisa you would not throw out the existence of a painter based on ignorance of who did the painting, would you? It SHOULD actually make you more inquisitive to the identity of the painter rather than reject the existence of one.
If there is an ID, then there are certain qualities that this ID must possess in order to create the universe/life. The only “deity” that I know of that accurately possesses these necessary qualities (all power, all knowledge, etc.) is the God of the Bible. I am ready and excited to have that discussion James, but you cannot have it if ID is not even a possibility. Frankly, I think that’s why the educational system fights so hard against ID is because the God of the Bible is the only logical choice as the ultimate Creator (although as a Tolkein fan, the Valar sounds cool too :-) – actually Tolkein was a firm believer in the God of the Bible, and led C.S. Lewis [a devout atheist’] to Christ – “Mere Christianity” is a great book if you haven’t read it and deals directly with this discussion).
LikeLike
Lowerleaval’s last comment amounts to a quick and dirty refutation of the known science of microbiology, chemistry and physics.
All those objections have been answered at length, in exquisite detail, with footnotes, to the various research papers in other fora and more than a few books. The very fact that you ask those specific questions means that you are either parroting somebodies creation text or you already know the standard answers and simply object to them.
The “we can’t reproduce abiogenesis” argument is simply crap. Abiogenesis only had to work once on a planetary surface with ungodly numbers (many trillions) of micro-environments and highly active clouds, tides, and undersea volcanic vents. A few dozen labs are expected to replicate the sum total of unique conditions a mere few decades after Watson and Crick discovered DNA? Life had millions of years to evolve the first cyanobacteria.
The intelligent design people then claim that while science has to have perfect answers they can cut corners by simply saying “God did it” whenever they face a tough question.
Finally the intelligent design scam in the US is entirely a front for Christian fundamentalists who desperately want to cast a pall of doubt on science. Science produces profound, reproducible results such as human insulin produced by yeasts. Fundamentalist Christianity promises physical results but cannot produce them. ID is faith healing with a white coat on it to pretend to legitimacy.
LikeLike
Ed writes:
So, you’re asking that we hide the facts from the kids?
Well lets do remember, Ed, that the religious right thinks lying is a virtue and that facts are evil.
Actually that would more or less describe the entire right wing.
LikeLike
To quote:
Also, Creationism, by its very definition is a belief in a supernatural event from an intelligent designer.
And wait for it…Intelligent Design is a belief in a supernatural event from an intelligent designer.
And you’re trying to claim that they’re not the same thing? What? Intelligent Design believes that the creator of life on this planet was who? E.T.? Marvin the Martian? Puff the Magic dragon? The Iconians? The Valar? Oh wait the Valar would be supernatural, nevermind them. Oh I know…the Sith. Who? I know..maybe it was The Who.
Because I’ve asked people who claim ID who they believe created life on this planet..and curious they all do one of two things: 1: They never anser or 2: say that it was God.
Because sorry, if you’re going to claim that you can scientifically prove that life was created by some intelligent designer then the next question becomes who was that intelligent designer? And your side can’t answer that or won’t answer it. Either way it means your precious ID has no credibility.
At least the theory of evolution stays neutral on the subject which is more then you can say about ID.
LikeLike
Why shouldn’t a text tell the facts? Joe, as I noted, there is a huge pile of evidence here, and a lot of it is fun to discuss, picques the interest of kids, and can be repeated in a high school lab, or a kitchen.
So, you’re asking that we hide the facts from the kids?
See, this is part of the corrosive effect of creationism. You start out calling for open debate, but quickly you try to cover up the facts. That was what got Nixon in trouble, more than the original crime — the cover up.
Let’s let the facts stand. No reason not to tell the whole truth.
LikeLike
There is no difference of any significance between these two facets of creationism, especially when it comes to the false claim that there is a conspiracy preventing publication of creationism science.
ID did not exist in 1981, so that court decision could be said to cover the branch of creationism that excludes the IDists; ID did exist in 2005, and IDists urged the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board to pass the rule requiring creationism be included, before chickening out, most of them, before the trial got underway, to leave the non-ID creationists to defend creationism with the poisonous assistance of Michael Behe (he tends to tell the truth under oath, which helped sink their case).
I’m past up to my ears — our department chair left nine days before the students show up, and I learned today I’ve got a two sections of economics for which I am supposed to have a full semester prepared by Friday (ain’t gonna happen, but you get the idea). I’m skipping Ken Burns’ appearance downtown to rehearse with the choir for the ordination of a friend this Sunday; my insurance company thinks that maybe my dermatologist is selling lawnmowers or books or shoes, and I have a fight to justify their paying for a biopsy (of a lawnmower?).
Plus other life in a drought. I hope to get back to provide some reasonable answers to the rest of your post, Joe, but it may not be tonight.
LikeLike
Ed, I think that you are confusing creationism with the intelligent design camp. While I know you may not see the difference, there really is. You can believe in intelligent design without being a creationist but you cannot be a creationist without holding to intelligent design. The proponents you site, like Behe are intelligent design proponents. Their work centers around this basic tenet that an intelligent designer was a necessary cause of the universe. They would not, however, necessarily hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, or Noah’s flood.
Perhaps I did not adequately elaborate on what I meant about creationists being published in peer reviewed journals. My proposition was that they have not been published on the direct subject of creationism. Many creationists have had their works published in peer reviewed journals with creationist implications but do not sense the freedom to write on creationism itself. The conversations that I have had on this site and others have indicated that it would be absolutely pointless as their work is either too long (like the RATE project) to be in a journal, or their entire hypothesis invokes Divine intervention to human events and is thus supernatural…and will be rejected by the scientific community en mass. So…again I ask, what’s the point of trying to be published in a peer reviewed journal when you would have to sacrifice the basic tenets of your thesis (i.e. God’s existence) in order to gain the respect of the scientific community?
Here’s an AIG response to the question to peer review. I hope you find it helpful if you actually read it:
answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/04/15/creationists-publish
To say that no actual research is being done is to deny things like the RATE project. Of course, you’d have no idea what’s in it or not because it isn’t peer reviewed. Oh wait, even though it hasn’t been in a journal it has had significant criticism and feedback. Apparently, some scientific critique goes on outside the realm of scientific journals, eh?
Ed said, “There is a possibility that creationist researchers simply do not bother to share their results with others, contrary to the open discussion society that science flourishes under for the past 200+ years.”
This is simply false. Creationists are openly seeking debate and discussion of their premises and ideas. The I know you have this perception of creationism that you have to check your brain at the door but that is simply not true. Shoot, even what we are doing here on your blog is the open discussion of ideas, is it not?
Ed said, “It’s easy to get published.”
Tell that to my brother who is an aspiring author. :-) Maybe he should go into science if it’s so easy. You really believe that a scientist who writes directly on the subject of Biblical creation would be published in a scientifically peer reviewed journal? Seriously?
Ed said, “No textbook carries as theory any hypothesis for the origin of life, except to explain we don’t know for sure. Abiogenesis has the biggest pile of evidence going for it.”
Biology textbooks I’ve seen (ones in CA) gave a long explanation of abiogenesis, RNA, timelines, etc. before saying pretty much, “but…we don’t know for sure.” They sure say a LOT about abiogenesis for not carrying any hypothesis.
Ed said, “Evolution theory doesn’t rest on abiogenesis in any fashion. Abiogenesis’s key requirements, the spontaneous generation of complex molecules that living cells require, and the spontaneous generation of cells, have been demonstrated. On the other hand, no one has ever seen any iota or scintilla or a hint of an iota of a scintilla of evidence of spontaneous creation of complex life as required by creationism hypotheses.”
Without abiogenesis, evolution has no foundation, truly. There is no scientific evidence for abiogenesis as it cannot be proven, tested, or repeated. I will grant you that there are all the key components necessary for life out there. We obviously know that because our planet is teeming with life! But how these components organized themselves into DNA bearing, reproductive creatures is impossible. Molecules to man is an empty hypothesis. Even if you could prove to some degree that these compounds came together, you would still be left asking the question, “where did these compounds come from? How did they come into existence?” Tons of theories are out there, I’ll grant you that. But that doesn’t mean any of them actually work, or are repeatable and testable. Therefore, abiogenesis and the origin of life does not fit into the category of “science” but religious superstition at best. Yet without it, evolution is left with nothing else…but intelligent design. Therefore, intelligent design is being cast aside as impossible and primordial soup is in vogue.
Yet, at the same time, there is is ample evidence for bio-genesis wherever you look. You say there is not an “iota” of evidence for spontaneous creation? You mean where life creates life…like in conception where two organic forms come together to create a brand new life with a unique DNA strand that will never be completely repeated? Hmm… Life creates life all the time. Unless you still believe in the stork theory… :-). Yet science (bio-genesis) is not allowed in a biology textbook as a possible explanation to the cause of life – life from life? I thought you were on the side of science Ed?
Amazingly, the scientific community has the gall to actually believe that they do not start with presuppositions about the work in which they do. To say that they follow the evidence is laughable when you consider they scientific community en mass believes in abiogenesis, which is contrary to the laws of nature. At least in creationism, you have life from life and effect from a cause. These are my biggest objections to evolution Ed. Show me how you can have an effect without a cause and a complex life form like man come from random molecules…while at the same time explaining where the molecules came from and how they became molecules, then I will certainly be forced to rethink a few things about intelligent design.
Ed said, “Please be specific: Which “pseudo-scientific presupposition” is it you claim underlies the particle physics from which Alpher and Gamow predicted the proof of Big Bang?”
Abiogenesis is one “pseudo-scientific presupposition.” A cause (proximate or not) for the Big Bang is another.
My questions here on the Big Bang still have to do with the size of the universe vs. the theoretical age. After doing the research you recommended about the light being farther away than the age of the universe, I have found several flaws in my mind to the theories put forth by these physicists. I understand how they explain the distance is greater than the age of the universe but I do not understand how the light from these early galaxies has reached our telescopes if their distance is farther than the speed the light could have traveled in that amount of time. To me, it indicates that either the speed of light is not constant in the universe, which would indicate our theories of distance and age are set on a variable scale. This could indicate either a really old earth or make a young earth possible (light traveling great distances in a shorter amount of time based on the speed of the expanding universe), two, the age of the universe is a lot older than is hypothesized in order for the light to reach here (which still has many problems with light reaching us from galaxies farther away than light has time to get here), or three, I still have a lot to learn about physics as it relates to the universe. I’ll take option 3 myself, but the other two options still don’t make sense. Someone’s calculations are off somewhere.
Anyway, that’s all I have time to write for now. Hope my ramblings made some sense somewhere. :-) There are actually many aspects of the Big Bang that taught in Scripture. 1) The universe has a sudden and explosive beginning, 2) the universe is expanding. So, I hope I’m still open to some degree to what you would call the Big Bang. I would call it Creation…and it only took one day to make all the heavens. :-) Not scientific…I know, but we’re talking about a Supernatural being here that caused it…One whom I’m pretty sure you said you believe in.
By the way, I do try to portray evolution accurately. I know I don’t always do a good job but it’s mostly because I am trying to learn it from your perspective rather than how I grew up understanding it in school, etc.
LikeLike
Peer review is the key to science advancement — refusing to play the game is refusing to do science. Most often, over the past 200 years, when people have refused peer review it’s because their claims were patently false. So it is with creationism.
Joe, I know I’ve mentioned it before, but in two separate federal trials a quarter-century apart, in testimony under oath, creationists confessed there is no body of creationism evidence that is unpublished in science journals, and they confessed it is false to claim creationists cannot get published. I’m sure you just forgot.
In the Arkansas trial in 1981, creationists claimed their absence from peer-review journals was because of bias for Darwin among editors. As the suit was structured, this would have been a deciding point. Creationists were challenged to provide a few examples of creationist research which had been submitted to journals, but rejected. After a worldwide search, no such article was ever found. Not one. In fact, a few creationist articles have been published in geology journals and a few others. In each case the peer review process failed to find errors until after publication (at least one was a silly conspiracy by creationists), and in each case, after science errors were found, the articles were retracted.
Here’s the serious point: Those are the only articles submitted for publication in science journals. So far as I have been able to determine, every creationist article ever submitted to a major science journal has been published. They were later found to be in error, but they got published.
Why are there no other articles submitted? In order to submit an article, a researcher needs to write it up. There is a possibility that creationist researchers simply do not bother to share their results with others, contrary to the open discussion society that science flourishes under for the past 200+ years. But when the issue arose again in the Pennsylvania trial in 2005, it became clear that creationists simply do not do research to support the position — it is not that they “forget” to write up their research reports. It is that they have no research to report.
Hence, it is not a conspiracy of evolution-favoring scientists which creates the paucity (well, total absence) of creationism-supporting research articles. If there is a conspiracy, it is among the creationists, who have conspired not to write up research and not to bother with the research which might support creationism.
I don’t think there is a grand conspiracy, and I don’t think all creationists are so dishonest. I think there simply is no research, and nothing to research.
It’s easy to get published. Creationists have no difficulty getting into the journals with other research. Creationist Michael Behe at Lehigh University has more than 41 research articles published — not one on creationism, of course. But then, he was one of the guys who confessed under oath he doesn’t have research to falsify evolution, nor to support creationism. In fact, his testimony was a model of what creationists have to deny in order to hold on to their position against the evidence.
So, in short, the claim that creationists cannot get published is false, 100%. No body of hidden creationism research awaits publication, frustrated by biased editors. There simply is no body of evidence to support creationism which has not already been falsified over the past 200 years.
Big Bang is about as proven as it can be. Wilson and Penzias won the Nobel in Physics in 1978 with their discovery of the echo of Big Bang, predicted 20 years earlier by Alpher and Gamow. The mathematics work, the physics work, and there is no competing hypothesis which can withstand the tests Big Bang has already withstood — Steady State came close, but the discovery of the predicted echo did it in, since the echo would not exist in a Steady State universe.
As you remember, in science a theory is not ever counted as “proven,” but instead it withstands disproofs. Big Bang has withstood thousands of attempts to disprove it, and it works as a solid explanation of how the universe comes to have its present size, shape, blobs of matter, and appearance. Once we get a grip on dark matter, Big Bang will still survive, I predict. Creationism, on the other hand, was first disproven by Newton, who took the angels out the business of moving the planets. Creationism hasn’t passed a test since.
No textbook carries as theory any hypothesis for the origin of life, except to explain we don’t know for sure. Abiogenesis has the biggest pile of evidence going for it. Big Bang is there because it works.
The test of a theory is whether it can work to predict new discoveries, and Big Bang is solid there.
Please be specific: Which “pseudo-scientific presupposition” is it you claim underlies the particle physics from which Alpher and Gamow predicted the proof of Big Bang?
If one ignores all of nuclear physics and 97% of astronomical discoveries since Newton, you’re right.
Creationism has been known to cause such denialism in people. It can be cured with study, we hypothesize, but there are no clear demonstrations.
In any case, denying the evidence of Big Bang is pathological.
Evolution theory doesn’t rest on abiogenesis in any fashion. Abiogenesis’s key requirements, the spontaneous generation of complex molecules that living cells require, and the spontaneous generation of cells, have been demonstrated. On the other hand, no one has ever seen any iota or scintilla or a hint of an iota of a scintilla of evidence of spontaneous creation of complex life as required by creationism hypotheses.
Creationism does not rest on the same science data, nor on any of the same science foundations as evolution and modern biology.
If creationists call a calf’s tail a leg, the calf does not have five legs. Calling a tail a leg does not make a tail a leg.
Joe, head over to the Carnival of Evolotion #38 — see if you can find any hint of a rebuttal to evolution in any of those articles.
Science does not support creationism, and it’s dishonest to claim the contrary.
Please, do pay respects to those positions by getting them right, stating them accurately, and understanding them, before claiming to find falsifications which do not or cannot exist.
LikeLike
Failing to meet the standards of the scientific process creationists are reduced to the argument: “Science is a religion too.”
Science produces repeatable, verifiable, results to questions in an open public process. Creationism decided on the result required and discards all evidence that doesn’t mach the desired result.
Not even close to the same process.
LikeLike
Ed said, “Trudeau got it accurate according to Louisiana law. You’ll join in asking its repeal?”
Sorry I took so long in responding – pretty busy lately.
What I am saying Trudeau got wrong was the creationism – that’s not what Creationists believe – it’s a distorted viewpoint.
It appears the Louisiana law is somewhat ambiguous to protect themselves against lawsuits. Creationism isn’t mandated at all – the law merely allows teachers to use outside textbooks to enhance critical thinking and expose students to different viewpoints. Teachers aren’t even forced to do this. I could be wrong, but at least that’s what it looks like from what I’ve read about it. In that case, Trudeau’s point is completely wrong.
Responding to Ediacaran – This whole thing with needing to be published in peer reviewed journals has been discussed before, over and over again by me and others. The biggest point being that no peer reviewed journal would publish a creationist’s research article to be reviewed in the first place. Hard to get published when no matter what you write there is a firm “NO!” before you even get started. Creationist’s material is published regularly. Go peer review it if you are so concerned.
Also, Creationism, by its very definition is a belief in a supernatural event from an intelligent designer. You cannot prove a supernatural event scientifically. But neither can you prove the cause of the Big Bang or the beginning of life scientifically either. So, why are there theories of these things in our scientific text books??? Both start from pseudo-scientific presuppositions and then seek to explain what we see scientifically. Both work from the same data, but both have separate presuppositions that give foundational and ongoing ramifications to the scenarios that they present. I always love how evolutionists seek to say that their position = science and yet there is not one scientifically observable or provable explanation for the beginning of life or for the cause of a Big Bang. Theories, yes. But not hard scientific data. Neither Creationists NOR evolutionists have that data. Time to stop acting like you do. Without that data, all we have is our beliefs…
By the way, I respect you and your position. I am doubtful for your respect in return.
LikeLike
Pwned!
David, if you keep exposing your own ignorance like this, there won’t be any need for the rest of us to do so.
Then we might actually spend our time in more useful pursuits, like joining Dawkins in a good laugh while he reads aloud the hate mail he gets from creationists.
LikeLike
Angiosperms are not now, and never have been, either rabbit or hippo.
LikeLike
On August 13 I sent an email to contact@richarddawkins.net, UKcontact@richarddawkins.net, mediacontact@richarddawkins.net
—
Dr. Dawkins:
Back in 2005 (Aug. 07, 2005) you told TIME magazine:
Evolution Wars
By Claudia Wallis
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1090909,00.html
“Creationists are fond of saying that there are very few fossils in the Precambrian, but why would there be? asks Dawkins. “However, if there was a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found.”
—
Would finding microfossils of pollen, spores, angiosperms, gymnosperms, and at least one winged insect, in Eocambrian (Upper Precambrian) rock completely blow evolution out of the water?
If yes, why? If no, why not?
Eocambrian (Upper Precambrian): dated from about 1.6 billion to 600 million years ago
Regards,
David Buckna
Canada
LikeLike
Failing in the requested task, David touts mathematical creationists – talk about a Manifold Lie Group!
LikeLike
“Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published.”
“That’s why creationists for example, have set up their own peer-review system and publish their own journals eg. Answers Research Journal”_ David
So exactly how many of the thousands of creation myths known to religious anthropologists (see: The Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature & Culture) are allowed in that so-called “Answers Research Journal.” I’m guessing the answer is exactly one (1). The Judeo-Christian myth.(JCM)
When you’re starting with a conclusion and discarding all material that doesn’t agree with that conclusion you’re pretty much guaranteed to find what you’re looking for be that proof of the JCM, unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://edfromct.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/girmsvoetn-volcano-iceland.jpg?w=300&h=200
If nothing else “Rule 34” kicks in and somebody MAKES the evidence they want to find….http://www.salamandersociety.com/conference/050401cricket_official_plates.jpg
LikeLike
Ediacaran wrote: “David, instead of wasting our time with a list of those who don’t qualify, please only include those who have published explicit evidence for creationism in a peer-reviewed science journal that is respected in the scientific community, such as Science, or Nature. And to belabor the obvious since you didn’t seem to understand the criteria earlier, Creation Research Science Quarterly doesn’t qualify.”
In my 1997 article, Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?, I wrote:
Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.
For example, mathematics. Dr. Robert A. Herrmann (professor of Mathematics, Ret.) U.S. Naval Avademy
http://ns.creationwiki.org/Robert_Herrmann
Some of his peer-reviewed publications that had creationist implications:
“A special isomorphism between superstructures,” Kobe J. Math., 10(2)(1993), 125-129.
“Nonstandard consequence operators,” Kobe J. Math., 4 (1)(1987), 1- 14.
“Supernear functions,” Math. Japanica, 30(2) (1985), 169-185.
—
Nonstandard and Infinitesimal Modeling/ Mathematical and Theoretical Physics
(1) [CS] “A hypercontinuous hypersmooth Schwarzschild line element transformation,” Internat. J. Math. and Math. Sci., (to appear)
(2) [CS] “An Operator equation, and relativistic alternations in the time for radioactive decay,” Internat. J. Math. and Math. Sci., 19(2)(1996):397-402
(3) [CS] “Operator equations, separation of variables and relativistic alterations,” Internat. J. Math. and Math. Sci., 18 (1)(1995):59-62
(4) [CS] “Special Relativity and a nonstandard substratum,” Speculations in Science and Technology, 17(1)(1994):2-10.
(5) [CS] “Fractals and ultrasmooth microeffects,” J. Math. Physics, 30(4), April 1989, 805-808.
(6) [CS] “Physics is legislated by a cosmogony,” Speculations in Science and Technology, 11(1) (1988), 17-24.
(7) [CS] “Rigorous infinitesimal modelling,” Math. Japonica, 26(4)(1981), 461- 465. Natural Systems and Cosmologies
(1) [CS] “Mathematical philosophy and developmental processes,” Nature and System, 5(1/2)(1983), 17-36.
—
I think it’s extremely rare for creationists or proponents of intelligent design to submit papers for peer-review in secular journals with openly creationist/ID conclusions. That’s why creationists for example, have set up their own peer-review system and publish their own journals eg. Answers Research Journal
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj
*
David Noble: Peer Review, Where Are The Scholars?
THE ALTENBERG 16: AN EXPOSÉ OF THE EVOLUTION INDUSTRY
by Suzan Mazur (2009)
Click to access suzan_mazur_cover_3nov09.pdf
*
Read: “Slaughter of the Dissidents” by Jerry Bergman:
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
LikeLike
P.S. — I’ll wager there are more Christians on the Steve’s List than on the creationists list.
LikeLike
A list of 220 guys (any women?) who have degrees in a science-related area — generally not one having anything to do with evolution — who claim to be creationists.
That’s it?
A. Ediacaran is right: Not one of them has a piece of research published which questions evolution theory in any way, nor do any of them have published a single paper proposing a creationism model for biology. So they don’t meet Ediacaran’s test.
B. Here’s a sense of how few such scientists there are. Here’s a list of 1,169 world-class scientists, including Nobel winners, who think creationism is ill-thought, wrong-headed, and, to most of them, dangerous stuff to teach to innocent children — and this is a list of such people ONLY who have a first name “Steve” or a derivative of Steve. Statistics show about 1% of the population is named “Steve,” so this list might be understood to be about 1% of the population of scientists who understand evolution to be fact, and evolution theory to be useful stuff that cures cancers and treats other diseases.
1,169 distinguished, practicing scientist Steves, compared to your puny list of 220, mostly not well-known or published scientists.
Creationism is dead science, disproven thousands of times in thousands of ways over the past 200 years. We should never teach disproven science to children as anything other than disproven ideas.
LikeLike
“Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.”_http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
“Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.”_ibid
Internet rule #431: All creation/evolution debates are required to include a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
LikeLike
David, instead of wasting our time with a list of those who don’t qualify, please only include those who have published explicit evidence for creationism in a peer-reviewed science journal that is respected in the scientific community, such as Science, or Nature. And to belabor the obvious since you didn’t seem to understand the criteria earlier, Creation Research Science Quarterly doesn’t qualify.
I know of some articles about radiohaloes by Gentry that were subsequently debunked – and creationist Gentry helped his side lose one of those court cases I mentioned previously – but if you know of others to substantiate lowerleavell’s unsubstantiated claim, by all means make your (or lowerleavell’s) case.
You too, lowerleavell.
LikeLike
I wrote: ‘I haven’t seen anything scientifically “viable” come from the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, Creation Evidence Museum, the Discovery Institute, Reasons to Believe, or countless other creationist hucksters.
But do share with us the names of any creationist who “knows their stuff”.’
So what does David do? Provides a list of names of creationists from ICR, AiG, and countless other creationist hucksters who do *NOT* know their stuff as lowerleavell expressed. But I found it funny reading through some of the links that some of them also seem to think their fellow creationists at the Discovery Institute and Reasons to Believe are hucksters.
I’ve debunked many on the list. I’ve even had a couple of them to my home for dinner after attending a creationist presentation by one of them, where I exposed his plagiarism of a diagram from a science magazine I had in my collection, as good-naturedly as I could (he was a guest, after all, although it was odd to see the professor make sheepish excuses for his actions).
For one example of how these creationists don’t know their stuff, let’s debunk Sarfati yet again, since his estimation of his own intelligence probably exceeds that of anyone else on the list. Sarfati claimed: “Human lysozyme is closer to chicken lysozyme than to that of any other mammal.” But chimp lysozyme is identical to that of humans, according to this brief post: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie002.html
LikeLike
At the point it stops being able to predict accurately what we find next, it stops explaining the stuff we already have, and someone can propose a method that falsifies Big Bang and verifies another.
Faulkner must be a youngster. In the 1950s and 1960s there were two hypotheses that each did about as good a job as predicting and explaining as the other, Steady State and Big Bang. A few physicists had made some calculations that predicted, if there was a Big Bang, there would be an “echo” of it. There would be a hum, at a certain frequency, everywhere in the universe, Eagle Scout Ralph Alpher and George Gamow predicted (at my alma mater!.
Wilson and Penzias accidentally discovered a hum in their radio telescope, coming apparently from everywhere in the universe, in 1965 or so. Guess what frequency it was!
So, Big Bang was verified, and Steady State was falsified. Wilson and Penzias won the Nobel in Physics for their discovery that verified Big Ban.
If Faulkner understands anything about Big Bang he’d propose a test to falsify it — and run the test. Either he knows he can’t falsify it, and he’s fibbing above, or he really doesn’t understand much about the cosmos.
Big Bang is nothing like the old Ptolemaic model. Especially when Newton freed the angels held in bondage to the old model, it was done. Big Bang didn’t supplant it by consensus. Newton falsified it, hundreds of others falsified it in other ways, and Big Bang won out as the last model standing. It still works. It’s still the foundation for particle physics and theoretical physics.
Don’t you celebrate Hubble Day, and explain this to your children and grandchildren?
LikeLike
http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.asp
Dr. Danny Faulkner, professor of astronomy and physics at the University of South Carolina (Lancaster) commented: “The Ptolemaic model (of the solar system) stood for 15 centuries, but ultimately was rejected in the 17th century because of the huge complexity it had. The real problem with that model was you couldn’t falsify it. No matter what new data, new observations came along, you could always patch it up with a fix of new epicycles or other effects.”
“Over the past three decades the Big Bang model has been changed tremendously. They changed the expansion rate, hence the age of the universe. They’ve thrown in dark matter, dark energy…inflation, …string theory… and it’s starting to look more and more like the Ptolemaic model…. So at what point does the Big Bang model become as unwieldy as the Ptolemaic model, that caused people to reject it?” (unpublished interview, May 15, 2010)
http://www.icr.org/article/big-bang-multiverse-other-tales-about-outer-space/
http://www.discovery.org/f/386
*
Faulkner is the author of “Universe By Design: An Explanation of Cosmology and Creation” (Master Books, 2004). In chapter 6, Faulkner mentions Humphreys’ white hole cosmology model, outlined in his book “Starlight and Time” (1994).
Faulkner writes: “Indeed, general relativity demands that time pass at different rates at different locations in the universe. With certain initial conditions a literal day or two could have passed on the earth while permitting millions or even billions of years to have elapsed elsewhere. Such things are possible as a consequence of general relativity. Therefore the Humphreys cosmology could provide a resolution to the light-travel-time problem.. Whether or not the Humphreys cosmology survives, we should be encouraged by its proposal.”
Water Near Edge of Universe Bolsters Creation Cosmology
by Brian Thomas, M.S. [August 3, 2011]
http://www.icr.org/article/6247/
*
Water, Water Everywhere in Space
http://crev.info/content/110723_water_water_everywhere_in_space
LikeLike
I like most want to believe I can live forever. So I want to believe that God made the big bang. That does not mean I don’t believe in science. Science is what will tell us how God did it. Believe it or not that is what science has been working on for a few hundred years. Science has worked wonders… let it continue.
LikeLike
Ed Darrell says: “Johnson made that up. Total fabrication, just like all of creationism.”
How do you know Johnson made up the quote?
Ediacaran says: “But do share with us the names of any creationist who “knows their stuff”.”
OK.
Here’s some:
http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation
LikeLike
Science is the only cure for delusions.
LikeLike
You’re doing the same thing with creationism. The more you criticize it for its stupidity the more people will sit up and take notice when it is explained, by someone who actually knows their stuff, as a viable alternative world-view. [– lowerleavell]
Do tell, who is this creationist who “knows their stuff”? Even when creationists in the U.S. have had their day(s) in court, they have ultimately lost every case (even in the Scopes Trial, when Raulston’s verdict was overturned by a higher court). Most of the Discovery Institute’s “ex-spurts” high-tailed it away from testifying in the Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Trial (although Behe stuck around and made his gaffe regarding astrology). Creationists don’t fare any better in the free marketplace of scientific ideas. I haven’t seen anything scientifically “viable” come from the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, Creation Evidence Museum, the Discovery Institute, Reasons to Believe, or countless other creationist hucksters.
But do share with us the names of any creationist who “knows their stuff”.
LikeLike
Trudeau got it accurate according to Louisiana law. You’ll join in asking its repeal?
LikeLike
So…I believe the Bible’s account of creation…read several of the articles…and still believe the Bible’s account of creation. Amazing how different you see things with different presuppositions.
What I mostly took note of from the sight was an insight into how evolutionists see creationists. Shoot, if I saw creationism as Doonbury does, I wouldn’t agree with it either! Man, what a skewed and mislabeling of creationist’s positions!
But really, Ed, whether you realize it or not, you’re doing exactly what the Democrats did to Reagan which propelled him to victory over Carter. The Democrats portrayed Reagan as some stupid, old, outdated guy who wasn’t fit to lead anything…so, when people heard him speak, and he did so eloquence and conviction, they were compelled by his words because he didn’t fit the uneducated buffoon characteristic like he was portrayed.
You’re doing the same thing with creationism. The more you criticize it for its stupidity the more people will sit up and take notice when it is explained, by someone who actually knows their stuff, as a viable alternative world-view. Ridiculing and name calling of creationism is not helpful to advancing your “cause” of Neo-Darwinism.
LikeLike
David pointed us to a website that likes to keep alive the religion of creationism and poke fun at science — but a website with not shred of science to its name.
Johnson made that up. Total fabrication, just like all of creationism.
In any case, Johnson spent much of the past 20 years criticizing Darwin. For all his criticisms, however, he never published a single thing that advanced science against Darwin. He carped a lot — he was a lawyer, after all — but he never found a single science argument against Darwin.
Did that make him frustrated enough to imagine a Chinese paleontologist to criticize U.S. science?
LikeLike
Yeah, and if fish “evolved” legs, how come there are still fish? Huh? Answer that one!
LikeLike
Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture
http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.asp
LikeLike