Image: Victor Keon
-
Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?
Why do testicles hang the way they do? Is there an adaptive function to the female orgasm? What does it feel like to want to kill yourself? Does “free will”...
Read More »
As a science teacher, I am always curious about people's attitudes toward what I teach. Since more than 40 percent of U.S. adults believe literally what is written in the Book of Genesis—that Earth and the universe were created in six days about 6,000 years ago—and since I was in the neighborhood recently, I decided to visit the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., run by the Answers in Genesis (AiG) Ministry.
The museum has a brand-new planetarium and 70,000 square feet of exhibits claiming that the story of Genesis happened exactly as written. In the main lobby, a large display depicts life just after creation. Richly detailed with plants and rocks, it features a small boy playing, while two dinosaurs graze nearby. According to the exhibits, the stars are younger than Earth (they were created on Day 4), and Noah saved all animal species that we see today from the Flood. Earth had its one and only ice age, lasting a few hundred years.
What disturbed me most about my time spent at the museum was the theme, repeated from one exhibit to the next, that the differences between biblical literalists and mainstream scientists are minor. They are not minor; they are poles apart. This is not to say that science and religion are incompatible; many scientists believe in some kind of higher power, and many religious people accept the idea of evolution. Still, a literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be reconciled with modern science.
Scientists tell us we live in a remote corner of a vast universe that existed billions of years before humans arrived. The universe and Earth could continue just fine without us. We are one species of many on a little planet with an ancient fossil record that shows that more than 99 percent of the species that once lived are now extinct. This speaks to a tenuousness of our existence as a species—an existence we need to protect vigorously.
AiG's biblical literalists, on the other hand, hold that we are God's favorites. We live at the universe's center on a planet God made and maintains for us to use. Earth's resources are here for us to exploit. God protects us and promised he would not destroy Earth again until the end of days. In that scenario, we have little reason to safeguard our existence.
Creationists begin with answers and work to prove that those answers are right. This is antithetical to the scientific process. Scientists who formed the idea of human evolution did not invent the idea and go looking for fossils. Well before Charles Darwin published his treatise in 1859 and well before workers in a limestone quarry in 1856 found strange bones that would later be called Neandertal, scientists struggled to explain what they saw in the natural world and in the fossil record. The theory of evolution was the product of that analysis. That is how science works.
The danger is that 40 percent of the American electorate seems to have forgotten what science is. Considering that our nation put a man on the moon and invented the airplane and the Internet, this development is extraordinary. Yet when much of the electorate faces the complex scientific questions of our day, they do not reject science wholesale, they cherry-pick it. Few if any of them live without the benefits of fossil fuels and electricity. Most are happy to fly in airplanes, take hot showers, heat their homes, drive their cars, watch their televisions and text their friends. They reject science only if it conflicts with their beliefs or asks them to change their way of life.
When Americans selectively reject science, it handicaps us, as a nation, in a knowledge-based global economy. We need to be open when scientific discoveries tell us our actions have consequences, raise doubts about our future and ask us to change. So I'll keep teaching science, not belief. Because if students do not understand how science works, we can destroy our country's future or even threaten our existence on this old Earth.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
234 Comments
Add CommentWhat is missing from this discussion is the immorality involved in dishonesty about well established facts - even measurements - by the creationists. How is the creationist lie about the measured age of dinosaur fossils vs the measured age of the oldest hominid fossils any different than a swindler's lie about the size of a piece of land or the weight of an object being offered for sale? A measurement is a measurement. Physical evidence for a historic event "is what it is." How is a creationist different from a holocaust denier? How could creationists possibly qualify for jury duty when they publicly declare contempt for the validity of physical evidence?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo belief about spiritual matters provides a valid "pass" re honest appreciation of facts about the physical world. We must stop being dismayed or confused and should loudly proclaim moral outrage about grotesque distortions of facts.
Thank you, Mr. Tanenbaum, for an excellent essay on the sorry state of evolution literacy in our country, your critique of the Creation Museum in KY, and your courage to speak out as a teacher. A new resource aimed at helping teachers (Middle School through university) teach about evolution and the legacy of Darwin's work in diverse disciplines is "Charles Darwin: A Celebration of His Life and Legacy" available from Amazon and NewSouth Books in early 2013.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have one question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does fussing and fuming about origins have anything to do with doing good experimental science in the quest of finding more and better ways of doing useful things?
The implication that a belief in Creation somehow detracts from one's ability to do excellent engineering in any area of endeavor, seems quite impossible to believe.
Evolutionists seem so desperate to push their hypothesis that everything is based upon their beliefs about origins.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Why isn’t all this uselessly wasted energy directed toward developing better energy sources, curing cancer and other diseases, developing jobs for unemployed folks, better rehabilitation programs in prisons, developing hearing aids that actually work, curing the causes of dementia and I could go on and on?
This article mentions how the 40% of Americans who do not believe in evolution happily use electricity, fly in airplanes, take hot showers, heat their homes, drive their cars, watch TV, and text their friends.
This disingenuous author fails to notice that NONE of these wonders of modern science is dependent on a belief in the current secular hypothesis of origins.
Put tongue firmly in cheek. Go!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is sometimes famously quoted as having said “The more we know of the cosmos, the more meaningless it appears." That statement seems asymptotically to approach “The cosmos is meaningless.” The cosmos is simply a consequence of a theory of everything, i.e., String Theory 42 (ST42). (There being many variations of string theory, we will settle on one for argument…number 42.)
That being the case, ST42 seems to have given rise to a quantum state, a temporary confluence of protons, neutrons and electrons, that is improbable enough to warrant a label. A Tanenbaum. Within the Tanenbaum, there are electrical disturbances, nothing more, that are also ultimately a consequence of ST42. All of it is, of course, meaningless, but the electrical disturbances in Tanenbaum are sometimes called “believing in evolution.” It is true that the Tanenbaum state is improbable, but given enough time, any random state, no matter how improbable, will occur. Indeed, in an infinite amount of time, it will occur an infinite number of times. It looks like the first instance of a Tanenbaum has already occurred. Others may follow.
There are, of course, other quantum states, equally random and equally meaningless. Some have electrical disturbances that are labeled “believing in creationism.” I will refer to one such as “Bilbo.”
Now which one does ST42 favor? Neither, I suppose. ST42 (along with its concomitant cosmos and Earth) will pretty well continue “just fine without us.” Both states are meaningless and both rather random. But how curious that in a meaningless, random world, one quantum state should somehow “think” (whatever that means in a world that is pretty much predetermined by initial conditions) that ST42 prefers it over another. According to ST42, Tanenbaum is no more nor less than a confluence of protons, neutrons and electrons that has occurred by chance according to the principles laid down in ST42. Soon a unitary transformation will rearrange the constituents of both the Tanenbaum and the Bilbo, to be replaced by states that are equally meaningless and improbable. Given that, why does ST42 yield the conclusion that Tanenbaum and/or Bilbo is “an existence we need to protect vigorously?” God may have “favorites”, but certainly not ST42.
Life in Asymptopia can be kinda scary. No wonder some look elsewhere to live.
Quizzical, you neglect the portions of the article that point out that the deniers of truth in science threaten our existence by not recognizing the need for clean, safe energy. They think some mythical creator is there to protect and gaurantee their right to "have dominion" over nature. Your argument might have been valid in the 1500's just after enlightenment, but now it fails us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a high school teacher. Our science department head is also the christian club sponsor. He's also a biology teacher. How confusing it must be to students that he pretends to teach evolution in class, but in casual conversation with him he points out that he believes only in microevolution not macroevolution. He's a literal believer. Would people object if he were the science department head and biology teacher while he also was a literal believer in greek mythology? He would privately in club meetings tell students that Zeus really controls lightning! Yeah, creationism is that silly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArchbishop James Ussher in his “The Annals of the World” in 1658 stated the world was created in 4004 B.C. He was wrong and because of his ignorance and stupidity, people like you take this 6000-year-old earth theory as a “Religious fact” when it is not a fact. Pythagoras maintained that the earth is flat do you also believe in the incorrect flat earth theory as well? If you don’t then why not? Ussher has done more damage to religion than anyone and it just irritates me when ignorant people like tanenbaum reference him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto dwillia599:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you read my post? I was hoping all this useless energy directed at the discussion of origins would rather be channeled as you suggest, into developing clean safe energy sources and other useful pursuits. Could you remind me of one single useful scientific endeavor that would be scuttled by a belief in Creation?
To dwillia599 (your second comment)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is certainly strange how emotional folks can get on the subject of evolution! Micro-evolution is a demonstrable concept. Macro-evolution and abiogenesis have NEVER been demonstrated and I do not believe they ever will be. Why?
Because first of all, EVERY living thing is based on complex code that directs its development. Since ALL codes are languages and ALL languages are codes, some intelligent agent is required to write the code. If you are aware of a single true code that has ever bubbled out of a mud puddle, I would like to be educated.
The mud puddle analogy is not as facetious as it may sound. Just think. Before there was any life on earth, all the earth had to offer was mud puddles.
Even if these primordial puddles contained the exact chemical components necessary for living cells, there remains the need for the instruction set that could orchestrate the assembly of even the simplest imaginable living cell.
After the appearance of complex life, it is indeed possible for the code to be altered by accident or even by human tinkerers. This still remains light years from spontaneous generation of Life.
It is quite clear that the ONLY reason folks get so wound up in pushing an unsupported theory is that they just can't stand the idea that a Creator God actually did what the Bible says He did.
Jacob Tanenbaum has put his finger on a very sore spot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI, as a retired physicist, am also a scientist, and one who believes in a creation and a creator. Why, because obviously there is a creation and because I like the idea that there is a creator. This does not mean though that I believe in all the teachings of the organized christian religion. Many details are incompaticle with the carefully verified insights of science.
Therefore religious teaching should be reformed. We are faced with a situation like the conflict between the church and Gallileo. This was "solved" by a re-interpretation of religion. Now this has to be done again for religions' sake. As it is "religion" is losing credibility, and meaning, fast.
I propose to accept that God created the universe, hardware (mass/energy) and software (laws of "nature")at the same time. Evolution resulted because the laws of nature allows it to work as it does. The same applies to life
We humans are alive and are products of evolution. We are the dominant species on this earth. Therefore we have the responsability to keep this planet livable, for us and for all other species.
It appears to be quite simple, doen't it?
Bob van Ligten, Minusio, Switzerland, dec 22 2012
People like myself, and everyone else
In Mr. Tanenbaum’s essay about the conflict between science and religion, he uses a rhetorical device which reflects poorly on his background as a follower of science. He begins his essay with a startling statistic, but cites no source. In claiming that “more than 40 percent of U. S. adults believe literally what is written in the Book of Genesis—that Earth and the universe were created in six days about 6,000 years ago–“ he has apparently believed a widespread rumor which has no foundation in fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to the website http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2680/nearly-half-the-u-s-population-believes-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old, which I quote because it cites its sources, this rumor had its origin in a 2004 Gallup Poll survey result which asked U. S. residents to choose between one of three statements about HUMAN origins, not the origin of Earth and the universe. These were: (1) "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." (2) "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." (3) "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."
The Gallup organization fond that from 1982 to 2006, between 44 to 47 percent of respondents selected the “creationist” statement (1). But subscribing to this statement is far from stating that one believes literally what is written in the book of Genesis, and that everything was created in six days about 6,000 years ago. That position is known among Christians as “young-earth creationism” and while it has some adherents, I would be surprised to find that any more than 10% or so of people who call themselves Christians would subscribe to it.
Mr. Tanenbaum asks the common post-modern question,"can scientists and people of biblical faith get along?" And he answers the qwestion with a resounding NO!!! Let me say that the divide between the two groups is only made wider by so many unscientific statements. When a person turns on thier TV, they may not understand all the science behind it's working, but they can definatly understand the scientific conclusion of it when thier TV turns on. Is evolutionary science really that conclusive? Mr. Tanenbaum also complains that biblical thinkers look for physical evidence to support thier beliefs, yet isn't that the same motive that took the Leakys to explore for fossils in Africa. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to put Mr. Tanenbaum in the class of those primarily concerned with how people vote, and unable to assist humanity in the search to understand the truth of all we see around us and how it came to be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a Christian trained in engineering, I am always puzzled by the evolutionist rejection of creationism by distortion. More than 75% of the people in the US believe that man was supernaturally created by a God. This after decades of indoctrination by the evolutionary faithful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue science uses the result of the trials of the research to validate the theory and hypothesis being promoted. Knowing that I admit that , as a creationist, I cannot empirical proof of what I believe to be the origins of life as we know it. I also know that given the supposed time frame of the evolutionary theory, neither can the proponents of that theory. To dogmatically state that either theory is fact is religious in nature. This is a position I freely admit. I believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent and eternal Being we call God, created the heavens and earth and all the kinds of creatures that we see alive and fossilized. I also believe that, as the written history states, He created this planet for the creation He caused to exist, in a perfect form. That man was perfect in his nature and physical being. That man had full use of his brain and was far in advance of modern man in innate intelligence and physical ability.
A careful reading of the Genesis account will show that man was not a knuckle dragging half ape from the start, but a reasoning individual with the ability to communicate verbally and to invent new and amazing things. Abstract thought was not foreign to the earliest man,including the creation of music and the instruments on which to play it. The pre-flood world knew the animals we call dinosaurs and there is evidence that they coexisted with man following the global deluge.
To address Jacob Tanenbaum's article, the incompatibility of science and creationism rests not with the creationists idea of the origins of all that exists versus that of evolution, but with the failure of the evolutionist to employ true science to his argument. One cannot, with a straight face, claim to be a scientist and ignore the laws of physics. One cannot ignore information from intelligence and claim that “dumb” nature “selects” for anything. Order in nature goes from order to disorder unless intelligence is employed to disrupt the natural way of things. Inorganic matter does not breed life now, nor has it ever in scientific examination. Time has only scientifically shown to move creation to less functionality.
As a Christian trained in engineering, I am always puzzled by the evolutionist rejection of creationism by distortion. More than 75% of the people in the US believe that man was supernaturally created by a God. This after decades of indoctrination by the evolutionary faithful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue science uses the result of the trials of the research to validate the theory and hypothesis being promoted. Knowing that I admit that , as a creationist, I cannot empirical proof of what I believe to be the origins of life as we know it. I also know that given the supposed time frame of the evolutionary theory, neither can the proponents of that theory. To dogmatically state that either theory is fact is religious in nature. This is a position I freely admit. I believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent and eternal Being we call God, created the heavens and earth and all the kinds of creatures that we see alive and fossilized. I also believe that, as the written history states, He created this planet for the creation He caused to exist, in a perfect form. That man was perfect in his nature and physical being. That man had full use of his brain and was far in advance of modern man in innate intelligence and physical ability.
A careful reading of the Genesis account will show that man was not a knuckle dragging half ape from the start, but a reasoning individual with the ability to communicate verbally and to invent new and amazing things. Abstract thought was not foreign to the earliest man,including the creation of music and the instruments on which to play it. The pre-flood world knew the animals we call dinosaurs and there is evidence that they coexisted with man following the global deluge.
To address Jacob Tanenbaum's article, the incompatibility of science and creationism rests not with the creationists idea of the origins of all that exists versus that of evolution, but with the failure of the evolutionist to employ true science to his argument. One cannot, with a straight face, claim to be a scientist and ignore the laws of physics. One cannot ignore information from intelligence and claim that “dumb” nature “selects” for anything. Order in nature goes from order to disorder unless intelligence is employed to disrupt the natural way of things. Inorganic matter does not breed life now, nor has it ever in scientific examination. Time has only scientifically shown to move creation to less functionality.
I was schocked to learn that 40% of adults believe literally in the Book of Genesis. I suppose they tell these lies to thier children. God help us !!! Why did He give us a brain ??? I'll bet 90% of that 40% voted for Obama. This is almost as bad as what the athiests are doing to our religious institutions...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery good idea !!! Let's update !!! God gave us brains for reasoning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne obstacle to people accepting the consensus among scientists on matters such as evolution and anthropomorphic climate change is that such scientific theories are taught as a set of conclusions rather than as a set of observations and rules by which to interpret those observations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an example from atomic theory, instead of just teaching that atoms consist of a nucleus with a positive charge with negatively charged electrons orbiting at a large distance, relative to the size of the nucleus, organized in shells, teach the evolution of atomic theory based on experimental findings. Start with Thompson's cathode ray experiment demonstrating different charge components, leading to the plum pudding model. The teach Rutherford's experiment bombarding gold foil with alpha rays demonstrating that the positive of the atom is confined to a minuscule component of the atom but provided no information about the organization of the electrons orbiting the nucleus. Continue with Bohr's experiment of light wavelengths demonstrating that electrons exist only at specific energy interval in the atom.
Similarly, education about evolution, instead of jumping to the conclusions, should teach the incontrovertible facts and a why the theory of evolution explains those in facts. For instance, it is an incontrovertible fact that human chromosome 2 has two centromeres and an extra telomere located between those centromeres. We also know that when organisms reproduce, the genetic material of their offspring is mostly like themselves, but that there are small differences. Combine these bits of information and what you get is that at some point, human ancestors had one more pair of chromosomes than do humans and that two of those chromosomes fused into one to form the modern chromosome 2. Humans have 23 pairs, great apes have 24.
A further point is that evolution is falsifiable, creationism is not. A discovery of transitional species fossils from the wrong time would prove evolution wrong. Creationism claims that whatever fossils are present could have been placed by the creator when creating humans ex nihilo.
To correct a misunderstanding common among scientists and creationists; early man did live alongside dinosaurs. For that matter, we live alongside dinosaurs. Most can fly, there is one (non-flying) that can be ridden by a small human (but the dinosaur in question protests this avidly), and John J. Audobon is rightly famed for his paintings of dinosaurs. So much so a society was named after him, they encouraging and sponsoring dinosaur watching expeditions across the country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo dinosaurs? Scarecrows originated to deal with dinosaurs. Municipalities imported peregrin falcons (a type of dinosaur) to hunt down urban populations, and spread birth control pills to cut down on reproduction. Man and dinosaur have never lived together? Oh please.
To Mythusmage:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! Have you ever been sold a bill of goods! Can you imagine all of the very specific and complementary changes that are necessary to go from a ground bound reptile to a flying bird? Maybe, maybe not. In any case, there needed to be a specific plan. It is completely unreasonable to imagine that such a multitude of directed changes of that magnitude would somehow occur by chance over eons of time. I suppose you can believe whatever you want to, but leave me out of that nonsense. I wonder if you imagine that elephants will eventually learn to fly - what with those huge ears and all.
Have a Blessed Christmas!
Greetings from Australia!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst let me say I'm absolutely gob-smacked at the figure of 40%. That just shows how different our countries are. Here in secular Australia maybe one-tenth of that number would believe the Bible in any way at all, and only a tiny tiny minority of those would believe in a literal reading giving a 6,000 year age for the earth. Still, we have our fair share of climate-change skeptics and for most, the hip-pocket still trumps environmental concerns. We have a new Carbon-emissions tax but that will probably be repealed if we have a change of government in the coming election, which looks likely.
In answer to bigskyrad who speaks of creationists' dishonesty, I know some very well, and whatever you think of their views, they're totally sincere. That's the difference to the used-car swindler. They really believe it's all about presuppositions, so that if you look at the same evidence with certain presuppositions, you'll get 6,000 years. Anything that apparently contradicts this is either not seen, or ignored, or a subject for further research. But this is done with total sincerity. And I must say that many have quite a responsible attitude to looking after the planet. There may well be some who believe in exploitation, but not all. That's my take on it, anyway.
Simple? Just one question: who created god? And if you are going to tell me that "god" is the uncaused effect, then why not just let the universe be your uncaused effect?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs is all too common, the creationists do not seem to know that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with explaining the "creation" of life, an issue that he felt he was unprepared to deal with. Rather, it was his attempt to explain the origin of the existing diversity of organisms already on the earth, which is a different matter entirely. Moreover, many creationists ask what difference it makes whether a person engaged in scientific or technological endeavors believes in creation or evolution. It makes all the difference in the world! If I were in a position of hiring people for any such position, I would immediately reject anyone professing to be a creationist because that means that said person is incapable of distinguishing science from belief. Having rejected evolution, for which there is ample experimental evidence, they have chosen to believe in creation, for which there is none. Such a person is incapable of carrying out credible scientific research in my opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am firmly convinced that it is a fool's errand to try and persuade a committed religious believer that any of their beliefs are in error, no matter how strong the evidence. The religious cling to their beliefs so tenaciously because they cannot imagine any kind of happy or sane existence without them. It is an essential part of their identity, their psychological "safety net". It is quite the same with one's political beliefs (or "way of life"), and we have ample evidence of well-supported science being rejected when in conflict with those beliefs as well. A truly excellent scientist should be, and usually is, the rare exception to this in that he or she can accept convincing evidence conflicting with strong belief even when it is personally painful to do so. Fortunately, there is little or no conflict for many religious between their beliefs and well-established science. For the rest, we can only hope that a process of self-selection will keep most of these individuals away from professions in which their biases might be harmful to the nation and the earth. Yes, they may still vote, but I think it likely for a variety of reasons that they will not, in the long run, prevail in thwarting policies which will be necessary to avert or ameliorate natural disasters. This will surely be frustrating for Mr. Tanenbaum and other scientists who still gamely seek to persuade the unpersuadable, but I can only wish him well in his effort.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTetrapig,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou sound very confused. It seems that you have the whole concept in reverse and have couched God in human terms. Rather, we humans have been created in the image of God. It is NOT the other way around! That is not to say that we look like God physically, but rather, that God has granted us some of His attributes.
No Christian believer imagines that God is any sort of uncaused effect! Rather God is The Cause and the Universe is only the effect of His creative power. Every time someone asks, "Then, who created God?" they simply reveal their ignorance of what the Bible really teaches.
Regarding your comment about how too many folks confuse 'evolution by natural selection' with 'spontaneous generation of Life'. I think you would have to admit that the theory of evolution is claimed to cover everything from the big bang to the present. This is where that theory breaks down. I, for one DO believe in the concept of natural selection. You are right. We can see that happen all the time.
However, the notion that one can extrapolate that limited evidence to explain the existence and development of the entire Universe is misguided at best and completely, demonstrably false at worst.
Regarding your proposed hiring practices. If you were to stick to such a foolish view, you would have mistakenly discarded a bunch of very heavy hitters, all of whom believed in God, Jesus Christ and His purpose for coming to this earth, the Bible and Creation.
You may have heard of a few. Here is a partial list:
Newton, Lister, Pasteur, Kepler, Joule, Cuvier, Babbage, Rayleigh, Maxwell, Faraday, Flemming ,Kelvin, Fabre, Stokes, Hershel, Boyle, Mendel, Agassiz, Simpson, Maury, DaVinci, Paschal, Ramsey, Riemann, Steno, Linnaeus, Davy, etc.
You may or may not be familiar with their various major contributions to modern science.
Just one suggestion for a New Year's resolution: Think before you talk.
Have a Blessed Christmas . . . if you believe in the Reason for the season.
The alternative to “selectively” rejecting science is presumably to accept the conclusions of science wholesale. Does this mean adopting the multiverse as the answer to the fine-tuning of the universe? Scientific American recently published an article by George Ellis concluding that the multiverse is philosophical speculation, not science. (Aug. 2011). Does it mean accepting the inflationary Big Bang as the solution to the flatness and horizon problems of the original Big Bang model? Scientific American recently published an article by Professor Paul Steinhardt showing how the sort of inflation required to solve the original Big-Bang problems requires more fine-tuning than the original Big Bang. (April 2011). Does it mean assuming that we can know a material world independent of consciousness? Scientific American has published numerous articles discussing how, under quantum theory, the notion that the "world is made up of objects independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.” (Nov. 1979). Does it mean following the lead of Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and many others and becoming atheists? I can go on. The point is that while it is true that the creationist stance is fatally flawed, science has yet to assemble a convincing, all-encompassing picture of the universe, leaving us with many mysteries yet to solve, and likely requiring, as Einstein famously said, a higher level of consciousness to understand. So we should not be surprised if many people reject the current story of science. It is, after all, incomplete.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuizzical, in asking what useful scientific endeavor that would be scuttled by a belief in Creation, you failed to define "useful". But for the sake of argument, let us define "useful" as "lifesaving". How about immunology, virology, bacteriology, and the study of vaccines and antibiotics? How does creationism explain the adaptations of viruses and bacteria to vaccines and antibiotics and the need to develop ever stronger treatment regimens? Perhaps you also believe that HIV is a punishment from God for our wickedness. Try telling that to Ryan White and all the children who have died of AIDS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuizzical, evolutionary biology does not attempt to address abiogenesis. It only explains the origin of species (hence the title of Darwin's book). If you're going to attack science, at least get your theories straight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDrSamba,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn reply to your comment #26, I must say, you sound like Bill Clinton arguing over the definition of the word, "is."
How does creationism explain adaptations in the several fields you mention? It doesn't. It just explains Origins. Just because God created all those critters with all those variable genomes has nothing to do with the fact that the genomes can subsequently be altered by accident or by human fiddling. Please refer to paragraph 3 and 4 of my comment #24.
Also, I am insulted that you insinuate that I might claim HIV is a result of God's judgment on our wickedness. Wickedness there is, but I never said that, or implied anything like it, and if you can read you must know it.
Regarding your comment #27.
I have got my theories straight. Again, I refer you to paragraph 3 and 4 of my comment #24. If you doubt that evolutionary ideas include abiogenesis, explain to me why there is such intense interest in the possibility of water on Mars. Why is SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) continually searching for intelligent signals from the stars?
I believe it is because of an innate faith many folks have, that Life can and does spring up naturally wherever conditions are mild enough for its survival. This silly notion completely misses the fact that modern science has shown us that all known life forms are based on intelligently constructed codes that specifically direct the deployment of a correct recipe of chemicals to form living cells.
So, tell me again, who is attacking science? Not me. I do attack extrapolated and unproven claims about stuff that has long been proven to be false. That includes room temperature nuclear fusion in a quart jar on a table top, alchemists schemes to cook gold out of cheaper materials, particles accelerated to beyond the speed of light, perpetual motion schemes, spontaneous generation and other such stuff.
Have a Merry Christmas!
Believing there is no God is a belief involving religion every bit as much as believing there is. There is no such thing as a non-believer in religious matters. A belief is a belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieving there is no God is a believe in religious matters every bit as much as believing there is. There is no such ting as a non-beliewver in religious matters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is interesting how a lot of commenters don’t do their homework. For example, many people say that the Bible says that the heavens and the earth were made in six literal days. And they are rightfully called out for that given the evidence of fossils, climate data from ice cores etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember that the Bibles we use today are translations of original language texts that the Bible was written in. When you look at the meaning of the word translated as “day”, in the original language it meant:
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger..(Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries)
So a Day’s meaning can include whatever period of time necessary to complete each day’s purpose. So the earth and the universe can be whatever age God needed to create it.
As to who created God, that is a misunderstanding of the universe. Time is part of the universe that we are a part of. With our understanding of time as we have experienced it there is a “before” and an “after” to everything. When God created the heavens and the earth he created time as we understand it as part of its structure. God is outside of our universe - outside of our time as we understand it, therefore He has always “been”. There is no “before” where He is concerned since He exists outside of our understanding of time.
Many religions grossly misrepresent the Bible and even directly contradict it in their teachings. So if you are going to argue about a seeming contradiction of science and the Bible – on either side of the issue – please do your homework.
Q.E.D.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJacob Tanenbaum references Answers in Genesis, founded by a controversial proponent of creationism, Ken Ham, and extrapolates that group’s view to cover 40% of America. Not all 40% of American Christians that believe in Creation are young-Earth Creationists that believe like Ken Ham.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTanenbaum makes broad assumptions in stating that 40% of the nation’s Christians believe like this controversial group. However, the facts are not clear. A recent Gallup poll on evolution and creationism asked respondents to select from the following regarding their beliefs:
1. Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.
2. Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.
3. God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
Results showed 46% chose option 3, but this poll question is flawed. There’s no option for old-earth creationists.
Tanenbaum’s main interest is climate science and Earth conservation. This sheds an interesting light on his interpretation regarding the conservation views of the Answers in Genesis group, which is then extrapolated to cover the views of 40% of Americans. Tanenbaum states his opinion, that if God made the Earth and promised that He would not destroy it until the end of days, then a large segment of the Christian population is not interested in conservation. He concludes that believing God created the Earth is antithetical to the scientific process, and then argues that a large percentage of the American population is selectively rejecting science and has “little reason to safeguard our existence.” The author makes unfounded assumptions that a Christian that believes God created the world isn’t interested in taking care of it.
I believe in Creation because Science points to Creation. All the "facts" that evolutionists use to justify their theory can either be scientifically refuted, or also be exercised through the scientific method and hypothesized to be a result of Creation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExample: The author states "We are one species of many on a little planet with an ancient fossil record that shows that more than 99 percent of the species that once lived are now extinct. This speaks to a tenuousness of our existence as a species—an existence we need to protect vigorously." Presenting a hypothesis that because 99% of species that once lived are now extinct, that must mean our existence is "tenuous", lasting a loooong time (i.e. millions of years), and creates a nice argument for environmentalists to latch on to.
However, one could also argue that if 99% of species are now extinct, clearly something catastrophic must have happened to wipe out nearly all of the species on the Earth (i.e. a Global Flood, which geology in the fields of plate tectonics, canyon forming (such as the Grand Canyon), and sea creature fossils found on mountaintops suggests is most likely what happened). Additionally, if one assumes species were evolving over millions of years, what is the probability that 99% of those species did not learn to adapt to the environment and were wiped out? I'd say it takes as much faith to believe that happened randomly and that not more than 1% of creatures were able to survive the process of evolution to date...
@bobvanliten: While I understand the logic behind your argument as a "compromise" between science and faith, but that approach has incompatibilities with theology and creates a "slippery slope" to unbelief and rationalization for things that are inconsistent with the Bible.
Example: If you believe in evolution, then death entered the world prior to God creating Man. However theology tells us that Death is the result of SIN, which occurred when Man CHOSE to rebel against God (because of temptation). If you believe death did exist before man as a process of creation then we cannot rely on the words in the Bible. You see how this creates a slippery slope for believers? It allows MAN to pick and choose what he wants out of the Bible to believe instead of Believing what is real.
Unlike the author's suggestions, I say that the 40% who believe in Creation retain the ability to understand science for what it is: A tool to understand the world we live in. We do not make unfounded assumptions on why things occur and run with it as fact.
I wonder if this author realizes that a large percentage of the engineers who designed the planes he mentions, and a large percentage of the pilots who fly those planes, are young earth creationists? I am an electrical engineer. Many of the engineers I have worked with are creationists. We spend our entire careers applying science, yet he says we have forgotten what science is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor Tanenbaum to make the unsupported assertion that 40% of the American public believes in a young-earth creation (as exemplified by AiG) is about as accurate as to assert that 47% of the American public are lazy, ambitionless moochers who only want to receive their living from the government (taxpayer) dole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's convenient, but wrong, to create or find a strawman that you claim represents everyone on "the other side." As with any human endeavor, people fall on a wide spectrum. I highly recommend that people who like both science and God examine the logic of the Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org) organization. If you look at the "Days of Creation" link, you will find that many serious Bible believers agree with "joenn" that the Genesis "days" don't have to be 24-hour days. The people at RtB do an excellent job of harmonizing science with Scripture - without doing any violence to either!
The Bible says that the Heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth His handiwork. In another place, the Bible says that even people who have never seen or heard of a Bible should be able to know about God from what He has created. I take these and other statements in Scripture as encouagement for us to study our world in every detail and every aspect. God is not lying to us in either Scripture or in Creation.
Fact: Astronomers have now measured the distance to some stars DIRECTLY by triangulation at about one million light-years. For this to be true, then the Universe must be older than that, or else the laws of physics are changing with time. I don't believe that God is lying to us or misleading us in His creation. Applying Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is that the Universe is older than a million years. I have no problem at all believing it's 13 billion or so years old.
We should remember that the Bible was written primarily to touch the human heart, not as a scientific textbook. Thus, for example, when the priests in Leviticus measured the diameter and circumference of a circular basin, they got a ratio of 3:1. This is not a mathematical deriviation of pi, it is simply the record of some guys who used the tools they had available to take some measurements - and they very likely rounded off to the nearest integer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if we confuse "evolution" and "microevolution" with plasticity. In other words, some people assert that the wide variety of domestic dogs is evidence of evolution or microevolution. But I've seen where biologists say that if you penned up all the dogs in the world in one huge pen and let them interbreed for a few generations, all the dogs would end up roughly the same, just a generic dog. In other words, the genetic makeup of canis familiaris has within it a great deal of plasticity for variations that can be selected for and preserved from generation to generation - but it does not mean that there were mutations along the way creating some new creature.
In "Darwin's Black Box" Michael Behe critically examines some fallacies at the root of Darwinism. When Darwin developed his theory, the prevailing scientific view was "uniformitarianism" - that the universe had been essentially unchanging forever. Now forever is a very long time. It does not matter how improbable the event, if you can wait forever it will certainly happen. Given infinite time, I can light a campfire and put a frying pan on it every day - and someday an eagle will drop a fish right into the frying pan. But if you put a time limit of 13 billion years, everything changes.
The C-A-T-G code of DNA is absolutely indifferent to the sequence within the molecule. Every possible arrangement is equally favored. So for life to get started, you need to try an enormous number of arrangements before you find one that works. Behe showed that even if every atom in the universe were one of the C-A-T-G codons, and even if every "atom" were interacting with another "atom" several times a second for 13 billion years, the probability of creating a useful DNA molecule for life is still something like ten to the minus 38. In other words, it just won't happen by chance. (For a fascinating short story illustrating the difficulty of putting together a coherent "text" from random letters - written before the DNA code was discovered - read "The Library of Babel" by Jorge Luis Borges.)
Jacob, I think your worries are misplaced. I am a scientist and a Christian. My kids have gone to a K-8 Christian school complete with a very ridiculous creationist science text book. When my son went on to high school, it took about 2 months for him to reverse his position on evolution. My daughter is still in the school and easily recognizes the more silly things in the text for what they are. I see no more harm in it than propagating the myth of Santa Claus. The overall experience at this school has been far superior to our previous experience at a public school. The prevalence of drugs, much too early sex and apathetic teachers poses a far greater risk to their educational future than literistic teaching of genesis. It is my appraisal that even with the creationist undertones, their science curriculum at this school has been superior to what they were getting in the public school. The bottom line is that most kids are too smart to believe in Santa Claus forever. For those few that will reject the foundations of modern science into adult hood, for whatever reason, that is their prerogative. I would in a heartbeat vote for small faith based schools over our broken public school system where the next cost is 3 x higher with half the attention and I do not believe the country would suffer from that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMatt
I was shocked to read the assertion that 40 percent of U.S. adults believe in Young Earth Creationism or YEC. But according to Gallup, it's true. Then I checked what Judeo-Christian denominations teach YEC. There appear to be only a few, and they add up to not more than 17% of adults belonging to a church that might be expected to teach YEC. So a large majority of the 40% YEC believers either don't belong to a church or belong to a church that does not require YEC in its theology - in fact most teach that there is no inherent conflict between scripture and the demonstrable facts of evolution theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn your article, you see this YEC movement as causing Americans to "selectively reject science" to the detriment of the country, but the numbers I found indicate to me that Creationists are not the problem. So why would people whose faith does not ask it of them reject science?
Perhaps the problem is as much an artifact of education as it is of science or religion.
Church goers are not automatically well educated in scripture or their church's theology (I have no data on this, only complaints of people who write on these things and my own observations). That is unfortunate, but what is also unfortunate is that Americans are also not well educated in science as a consequence of graduating from high school or even college. Few college required core curricula require something equivalent to "the fundamentals of science." Consequently, it is all too easy to graduate from college and be ignorant of scientific reasoning or the scientific method. K through 12 science education has a different problem rooted in too few science teachers being qualified in their subjects (I assume you are not in this category because of your obvious concern for science) and two, curricula that are all too often designed to simply teach the test. This leaves the students unengaged, uninspired, and critical thinking skills undeveloped. Overall, only 15% of college students major in engineering or science - the lowest among the more developed nations - and many of these are foreign born.
Lacking data for a firm conclusion, I would guess, that it may be that many Americans, having some faith but little understanding of science, feel threatened by the increasingly aggressive anti-faith actions of secular media and secular scientists. Being ill-equipped to make a rational response, they make an emotional one.
Thank you for your thought-provoking article.
In trying to reconcile the Bible and science, I find it useful to distinguish "age of the Earth" and "creation" issues. Creationists insert "24 hour" in front of the word "day" and in doing so add to scripture, a practice forbidden in Rev. 22:18. The Hebrew word for day, "yom" does not always refer to a 24 hour day, nor were the ancient Hebrews as fixated on numerical order as we are today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution, or more correctly macro evolution, finds little support in either science or the Bible. As quizzical points out, there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of any natural process by which more complicated life could evolve from a simpler form. No one has seen anything close to a living cell spring together, a cat turn into a dog (or vice versa, I don't want to get in the middle of that one) or any logical path through which a chromosomally different life form could appear. This relegates evolution to the status of a religious belief in the Mark Twain tradition of "...believing what you know ain't so."
The fossil record, on the other hand, shows distinct, abrupt time periods during which different life forms appeared, remarkably paralleling the Genesis account. DNA genome research indicates a common human ancestor around 12,000 years ago, perilously close to a possible Genesis flood.
However, in my opinion, that God created the world and everything in it is not deduced from esoteric analysis but is plainly obvious from every scientific investigation ever conducted. Every time a scientist looks into their microscope or telescope or whatever they use to investigate the world around us, they see irrefutable proof that it is made by God. They avert their eyes and cover them, saying "I refuse to believe it!" and come up with drivel like evolution to cover their insouciance.
What to teach in public schools? I can't answer that but I wish the schools were controlled more by parents than the government.
TomCampbell, Thanks for your interesting and informative comments!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I have one thing to point out, regarding the use of the word "day" in the old Hebrew. I have found an interesting difference in the Hebrew script in the Westminster Leningrad Codex which is purported to be the oldest surviving complete Hebrew Bible. It turns out that there is a significant difference of script between a contextual "24 hour day" and a contextual "indefinite period of time" concept. I did not find this same difference in more recent manuscripts and I wonder why. There may have been revisionists active way back when!
Not only in Genesis, chapters 1 and 2, does this difference appear, but it is also very noticeable in Zachariah 3:9 and 10.
Here, verse 9 ends with one Hebrew script for the word "day" as in the English text, "...I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day."
Then, in verse 10, the English text continues, "In that day, saith the Lord ..." Here there is a distinctly different script used for what seems to refer to a more indefinite period of time.
This same difference is found in many places where the word "DAY" stands alone. Of course, there are other different constructions that go with other forms and usages such as "days", "tomorrow", "yesterday" and others.
I have therefore concluded that the insertion of "24 hour" in front of the word "day" in the Genesis account of Creation is not as far fetched as one might suppose. Especially in light of the context of "evening and morning, the first, second, etc. day."
Days 1 through 6 use the "24 hour" version of the script while the 7th day uses the "indefinite time period" script. Regarding the 7th day, there is no "evening and morning" context mentioned. I take that to mean that God continues even until now, to rest from His creative work.
Could that be construed as to be adding to the Scriptures, as Revelation indeed forbids?
Edoleman prompted me to look at the Gallup survey. I think I see the problem. In fact, I think I was one of the people who answered that survey. The Gallup question forces the respondent to make one selection, but the selections presented are not "clean." Embedded within their selection (A) there are actually two assertions: (1) that God created humans in a special act of creation and (2) that this happened 10,000 years ago. The other choices say that humans evolved, with (B) or without (C) God's active participation. The respondent is asked to state which proposition "most closely matches" their opinion. I will answer (A) because I believe that God created humans in a special act of creation - but it does not completely match my view because I don't agree with the 10,000 years. It's the "closest" answer but not the "right" answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther, the Gallup question does not ask the respondent to say when the Universe or the Earth were created; it only asks when humans were created.
So my most of my prior comments still stand - there is no reason for scientists to think that 40% of the American population really believes in a Young Earth Creation, and no reason for scientists to believe that 40% of the American population is willfully ignorant of or dismissive of science.
Beliefs based on literal biblical interpretation are demonstrably false. Scientifically, demonstrably false. A scientist who understands that and still interprets the bible literally has some extremely logic-tight compartments as discussed in the Skeptic article. We all compartmentalize, but that is some major contortionist stuff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeads are tough nuts to crack. Keep teaching, Jacob Tanenbaum!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForty percent of U.S. adults believe the Bible literally. Troubling. Disastrous really, as a reflection of education in the U.S. Even if we say, conservatively, that one in four are believers, I am left wondering how this happens in a society where everyone has pretty much the same high school education.
Volumes could be written about whether or not they really believe what they say they believe. Personally, I doubt it. The word “believe” carries a load of baggage all its own.
The museum scene depicting the little boy playing while dinosaurs graze nearby reminds me of the cartoon show entitled "The Flintstones". Here in Georgia we have US Congressman Paul Broun who serves on a science and technology committee; he's a Biblical literalist too! I wonder if he received part of his science education from Fred Flintstone? LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs usual those who believe like Mr Tanenbaum have completely ignored the growing number of scientist and theologians that accept the "fact" that science and the Bible can go hand in hand together without conflict.There is a reasonable answer to the 24 hr days of Genesis and the ~14 billion year (scientific age)of our universe. Dr. Gerald Schroeder (nuclear physcists) explains this very clearly.Other christian scientist who support the marriage of science and religion; Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. Robert Spitzer, Dr. Frank Tipler. Dr. Fazale Rana, Dr. Jeff Zweerink and many, many more. Mr. Tanenbaum, I have to dispute your comment, "..a literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be reconciled with modern science." It most certainly can and most certainly has been done. Please avail yourself of the latest information on this relationship and I am sure your students will be better off for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I make a comment from across the pond?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch a discussion of Creationism is inconceivable in Europe - the birthplace of Christianity. Even for religious people the discussion is completely irrelevant. They have, in the vast majority, moved on from such a nonsensical belief-system and are perfectly happy to accept Evolution alongside a religious belief in an afterlife.
In fact, the only European person I can think of who contends that religious people believe in creationism is Richard Dawkins, who spends a great deal of unnecessary time and energy in his excellent books inferring that someone who believes that there is something beyond the totally material must believe every word printed in the Old Testament - and therefore is an idiot. I can only presume he's addressing an American audience.
As far as teachers are concerned, I would doubt you'd find any who would want to teach creationism alongside - or instead of - evolution. The idea that a State could impose such a practice would be quite laughable.
It amazes and depresses me, therefore, that the country which outspends, by a huge margin, everybody on Science and which can justifiably claim to have the most sophisticated scientific thinkers, can have such anachronistic attitudes.
The sad thing is that such nonsense potentially closes down sensible educational debate about such matters, which, after all, underlie a lot of our philosophical and moral background, and potentiality closes scientific minds as well.
Rarely have I seen so much sickening twists of logic than here... by quizzical, iii333iii and others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFACT: The Bible was a bronze age book of TALL TALES written by a pre-scientific people. It has NOT A SHRED of evidence in it for ANYTHING. Those of you saying it goes hand in hand with modern science didn't read the article well or are ignoring what it says on purpose. You are twisting scientific fact and reality to suit your beliefs without even studying the facts themselves. You have drank the kool-aid from AIG and other sources telling you this. You are the ones who really need to do your homework and read some scientific books or articles on the subject. The Bible and Genesis do not, I repeat, do not make any kind of sense in reality. Please stop telling us we are wrong for believing your fairy tales, and please read a book to find out what evolution really is, why it is true, and why modern biology depends on it.
re:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you would have to admit that the theory of evolution is claimed to cover everything from the big bang to the present.
many people make false claims about the biological theory of evolution, the simple fact is that it requires a replicator. it does not propose how the replicator might have started that is the domain of chemistry, subtopic abiogenesis.
the confuse the term evolution of the stars and other physics usage of the term "evolution" with the biological theory of evolution is just plain nonsense. the stars in theories of cosmology are not alive, are not carbon based, are not biology.
the think straight about these topics is important, to lump them all into one lump of dough and yell at it is useless.
please look at gen 1:5
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
the word "yom" is being used in a single verse in 3 very different ways. the first it is being defined as daylight, the 2nd morning-evening a solar day, the 3rd as a marker for the 1st day of the week. only the period of time of a week has not astronomical definition. you can not derived a 7 day week from the stars. human beings historical have found 5 and 10 days weeks most convenient probably because of our fingers, but between a solar day and a lunar month there is no natural unit of time. the invention of a 7 day week has through the summerians alone and it spread through the world by diffusion. don't you think if the story of adam&eve was historically true a 7 day week would be found anywhere else in this world?
Quizzical,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs is usual with creationists, your argument is married with, and fueled by ignorance.
Macroevolution is observed ALL the time. It is defined as "change AT or above the level of species". Pick up ANY of the hundreds of journals in the field of biology and you will see enough papers reporting observed macroevolution that they could sink a battleship if you stacked them up. They are printed on a DAILY basis. Most of us in the field of biology who read them cannot keep up with them, there are so many. Polyploidy in plants and some animals results in macroevolution, aka speciation, aka change at or above the level of species, in as quick as ONE generation. Look it up on Google Scholar or any academic search engine of your choice. There are ENTIRE journals dedicated to the observed macroevolutionary changes in microbes, fruit flies, and other organisms that generate rapidly enough to observe speciation, aka macroevolution, in real time.
What is more, you’re just not getting the author’s point — he said:
"The danger is that 40 percent of the American electorate seems to have forgotten what science is.”
He’s talking about scientific illiteracy of a *process* — I think we educators are more concerned with ignorance of the scientific PROCESS than we are with various interesting implications (that are uncomfortable to some) like origins. The scientific process has led us through more than 200 years of elegant and painstaking research in MANY disparate fields to the same answer:
evolution — in any resolution you wish (i.e. “micro-" or “macro-") — is as real and true as anything we know to be real and true in science and in the natural world.
Plus, the author has a very good, highly relevant point about ignorant Americans selectively cherrypicking from the benefits of the scientific process. Yes, texting on a cell phone, and heating your home with…ahem…FOSSIL fuels may seem to you to not have much to do with evolution, but using evolutionary genetics to improve our food crops, using tools developed in molecular evolution labs to map ours and other species’ genomes, and predicting the evolution of Human Influenza virus in order to pick the right vaccines during flu season every year has TONS of direct relevance and usefulness in our everyday lives. Just to name two or three. Evolution is as a predictive, powerful, practical, and useful science as any other REAL science. Creation “science" will never be useful for anything practical in our daily lives and will never have the power to predict ANYthing.
re:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs quizzical points out, there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of any natural process by which more complicated life could evolve from a simpler form.
nonsense.
see gene duplication or read a good book on the biology of the hoxgenes like "endless forms most beautiful".
the fact that you either don't know about or don't understand the evidence is not proof that evidence does not exist.
re:
DNA genome research indicates a common human ancestor around 12,000 years ago, perilously close to a possible Genesis flood.
more nonsense.
look at the data on human paternal haplotypes and the evidence for agriculture entering into a europe filled with hunter gatherers and the resultant patterns of migration. any good genetic genealogist knows their paternal haplotypes diverged 10's of thousands of years ago. there is lots of information online about human genomes even stuff like the tova eruption that are fascinating and require far more than 12k years. there is simply no dna genomic research as you propose, i don't know if you just made it up or have been lied to by AiG or don't understand what you read. but look at a site like 23&me or ftdna for real science on human genomes that amateurs can get into. none of it hits any kind of a cliff at 12kya.
JT is spot on that the differences between biblical literalists and main stream scientists are not minor, but this difference is an unnecessary construct of the literalists due to their poor understanding of science, time, and evolution. I suggest a different approach to gaining their (and the general population's) respect of science and evolution in particular. Recognizing that their obstinate position is due to a concern that evolutionary theory contradicts the bible, we can use an excerpt from a simple thought-experiment to allow them to see the light...to spoon feed the non-scientist: Imagine if every moment of the universe from beginning to end is depicted on a large deck of cards. On the forth day, God existing outside of our universe and outside of time (Augustine's postulation)placed the stars and the pre-formation gases on all the cards. As even a non-scientist must admit, we can see stars forming (or being created) today, so they cannot have all been created on a forth day 6,000 years ago. In this way, God may have used any process He wished to enact His creation. While most will recognize that this very simplistic thought-experiment does not account for the fact that earth-time did not exist during the early inflationary period, a simplistic thought experiment like this is necessary to begin the education process. I can send a longer flushed-out version of this thought experiment to anyone asking at ackerr@verizon.net. Let's begin the education process unstead of just pointing out the flaws in the literalists position. After all, Newton, Mendel, Boyle, Carver represent a short-list of numerous scientists through the ages that did not let their beliefs ruin their respect for science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA.C. Kerr: So, we should begin the "education process"? About what? Unsubstantiated "thought experiments"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is certainly strange how emotional folks can get on the subject of evolution!
Micro-evolution is a demonstrable concept.
Macro-evolution and abiogenesis have NEVER been demonstrated and I do not believe they ever will be.
Why?
Because first of all, EVERY living thing is based on complex code that directs its development. Since ALL codes are languages and ALL languages are codes, some intelligent agent is required to write the code. If you are aware of any single true code that can be shown to have ever bubbled out of a mud puddle by chance, I would like to be educated.
The mud puddle analogy is not as facetious as it may sound. Here is a "thought experiment" for you. Just think. Before there was any life on earth, all the earth had to offer was mud puddles,(water and other various constituents.)
Even if these primordial puddles contained the exact chemical components necessary for living cells, there remains the need for the complex and specific instruction sets that could orchestrate the assembly of even the simplest imaginable living cell.
AFTER complex life is up and running, it is indeed possible for the code to be altered by accident or even by human tinkerers. But this is still light years from the random, spontaneous generation of any living cell.
It is quite clear that the ONLY reason folks like Richard Dawkins get so wound up in pushing an unsupported theory, is that they just can't stand the idea that a Creator God actually did what the Bible says He did.
I, for one am NOT against repeatable experimental science. I love it and practice it a lot. However, I AM against folks pushing notions about origins as facts even when they have no repeatable experimental backing.
I am eager to hear of someone finding life developing by chance in an otherwise sterile environment. Pre-biotic earth WAS sterile, you know.
The assertion that acceptance of an established scientific theory is a "belief" similar to an unprovable or clearly disproved faith based doctrine is an oxymoron. Evolution's truth appears in the stages of growth of an embryo as well as in the archeological record. Appearance of mutations in microbes such as resistance to antibiotics offer further proof. Humans have only been around for a minute fraction of the earth's existence. We are still evolving!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDaniel Haagens, Novato, Californis
Why yes Quizzical, an unsubstantiated thought model is a wonderful place to begin. To address JT's concerns...his lament on the strong bias against evolution of bible literalists, I suggested advancing an argument to bible literalists that even if evolution is true, it is compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis - once you fully understand the ramification of God residing outside of time, a long-held belief of theologians since 300 BC. In the thought model, I try to convey that on the forth day, God created all the stars that exist and will ever exist in the future, and the natural processes we see following natures laws. To the bible literalist's great advantage, this concept also challenges the concept of random occurrences since random would be constrained by the end product of God's will, considering that the end product was created with the beginning by God residing outside of time. Recognizing that the beliefs of Bible literalist was a main concern of JT's article, I would like to point out that most (not all) Bible literalist keep drawing a line in the sand and as science advances, they move the line. The literalists need to quit arguing for God based on gaps in scientific knowledge, it is a losing position, even if evolution was proven untrue. The argument of Bible literalists would be on firmer ground if they start with a well known ancient postulation that "nothing comes from nothing" and work up to the need for a timeless first cause with no before. With my proposed approach, I believe that we would see great increases in percentage of Americans accepting evolutionary theory. Tell me honestly, do you believe this conflict would exist if there was no perceived conflict between evolution and Genesis...I say it would not and should not exist. Thanks JT for taking a run at this stubborn issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. See http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInsectman - I took your advice and visited life-science-prize and ... Holy Socratic logic! My daughter's college debate team would have eaten them for lunch. They point out how the estimated age of the earth has increased over the last 100 years and assign a statistical confidence level to these claims over time. They then claim that the confidence level is horrible. This may sound good to the non-scientist, but their analyses are not evaluating variability with measurements. They are just tracking advancements in science. If you apply this same logic to the size of the earth, we should not believe what science is telling us since occupants of medieval monasteries believed the earth to be smaller. Adding these past beliefs for the size of the earth over time gives the same low confidence level. I do see merit in their argument for 'devolution' of some species, but to me is them admitting that evolution is occuring, just with negative consequences. Oh, how I wish all high school curriculums had a good dose of training in Socratic logic. In your worldview, please leave room to recognize that God often, if not always, uses natural processes to enact his will...it will allow a more rational view of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be great if there could be a more rational view of science! A good place to start would be with more rational scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWitness all the nonsense we are frequently assailed with. Some eager beavers have erroneously claimed to have accelerated particles beyond the speed of light. I just read today of some other foolish characters that claim to have reduced the temperature of a tiny bit of matter to below absolute zero.
Is it any wonder that many folks seriously doubt the global warming hype? Imagining that life can spring from a sterile chemical soup is just another oxymoron. There are others but do you get the drift?
If scientists would stick to rational science instead of running out on every silly philosophical limb they can find, it would help their credulity a great deal. As it is, my faith in their miscellaneous schemes and claims is necessarily VERY thin.
Sorry, my second to last sentence should have said, "it would help their CREDIBILITY a great deal."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome things I think I think based on reading Jacob Tanenbaum’s article and these forum comments, for which I am better off having read:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhil Hicks is correct that the beginning of life is a mystery. There is not yet a solid theory for the development of life from non-living matter. However, that does not mean that evolution is not true and it does not mean that a naturalistic pathway from nonliving to living material does not exist; and the observations supporting evolution do not preclude that God could have used a naturalistic process to result in us.
Science is doing okay. It took at least 40 years after being proposed for scientist to agree on the big bang as opposed to a universe in steady state that forever existed, but we eventually saw the light. Similarly, advancements in science likely will improve the acceptance of evolution or modify the theory.
Macro-evolution may not be reproducible, but that does not mean it is not occurring. The argument that it is not reproducible does not further our understanding.
Evolution does not need to rely on random, unguided, meaningless existence. With respect to Cabelio Blanco and his understanding of the uncertainties imbedded within string theory (assuming anyone understands string theory), a creator truly existing outside of time would be creating the beginning, end, laws and processes all at once. So random and uncertainty should not exist for bible literalists.
The long refuted argument that the bible is literal because there are unknowns and unexplainable occurrences in naturalistic worldviews, which is throughout these forum comments, has always been a poor argument. As science advances, these arguments discredit bible literalists and place unnecessary limits on how an almighty God may have modeled his creation. In other words, with the advancement of science, we should expect that occurrences now attributed to a supernatural creation would be relegated to Providence. This is okay for the bible literalists, since it should only add to His glory. God in a single creative act created all natural laws and processes to form a fully functional universe, not needing constant supernatural intervention, to enact His will throughout the life of our universe. I have read Bible literalists raging against this position as deism, even when the authors clarified that this view does not preclude supernatural acts, but describes the created universe. I do not understand this rage since all of creation – the natural laws, life, and the beautiful order allowing science are all a miracle.
I do agree that it's important for as many people as possible to understand how science works, and, in consequence, accept it as a trustworthy source of information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut religious faith is so deeply held, and so central to many people's ethical systems, it isn't really reasonable to expect Creationists to change any time soon.
As to changing our way of living: I presume that's a reference to the distressing tendency to deny global warming. I agree that's bad too, but it is obvious and certain that very bad consequences both for the economy and for national security would come from a radical cutback in U.S. energy consumption.
Fortunately, there is no need to resort to wishful thinking to find an effective solution to the problem of global warming that is far more acceptable to the majority of the general public than those usually discussed. All we have to do is discard the taboo against mentioning that solution.
Nuclear power, including breeder reactors (yes, reprocessing) and eventually the Thorium breeder.
Those will buy us all the time we should need to develop fusion power, solar power satellites, or almost anything else that might be required.
I think you are a little unfair on Archbishop Ussher, he was a well-educated man making a sincere attempt to make an accurate chronology, using what was seen at the time as the most accurate source available. Ussher did not have access to all the advances in astronomy, biology and geology we have seen in the past 350 years, he would probably be fascinated by what we know now!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUssher cannot be blamed for the wilful ignorance of some today.
School teachers need to spend less time playing with drugs. Since they are clueless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislet me cut to the chase – 40% are knuckle dragging morons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI say let intelligent design theory in the class room. And the first assignment should then be for students to come up with ways to prove it false. This could be a take home project for the whole family. Welcome to science!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"get so wound up in pushing an unsupported theory is that"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's the problem with your view. Evolution is NOT some unsupported theory. The evidence for it is not only overwhelming but also continuously reaffirmed.
Quote: "Since more than 40 percent of U.S. adults believe literally what is written in the Book of Genesis—that Earth and the universe were created in six days about 6,000 years ago—" The writer of this article wrongly redefines what creationists think. This inaccuracy by the writer seems to show bias.There is no reference in the Bible that intends to indicate the "6000 years". This is a invention, that seems irrational to me, that is taken by assuming that the extensive genealogies described in the bible are intended to have perfect continuity and each represent only one generation. Further, it seems wrong on the face of it that 40 percent of U.S. adults believe this misinterpretation. As I read the Bible I see no conflict between a rational and verified interpretation of evolution and the Bible version, if the Bible references of creation are taken as metaphorical as seem to me clearly the intent of the Bible author in this case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe writer's misinterpretation of Christian beliefs are offensive to me as it belittles my faith and the faith of my fellow believers as irrational. All this under the assumption that science supports his views. In my view far more effort should have been exercised by the writer to get past his biases and pursue accuracy within the context of the scientific method including verification of his allegations of American Christian's beliefs.
Quote: "Since more than 40 percent of U.S. adults believe literally what is written in the Book of Genesis—that Earth and the universe were created in six days about 6,000 years ago—" The writer of this article wrongly redefines what creationists think. This inaccuracy by the writer seems to show bias.There is no reference in the Bible that intends to indicate the "6000 years". This is a invention, that seems irrational to me, that is taken by assuming that the extensive genealogies described in the bible are intended to have perfect continuity and each represent only one generation. Further, it seems wrong on the face of it that 40 percent of U.S. adults believe this misinterpretation. As I read the Bible I see no conflict between a rational and verified interpretation of evolution and the Bible version, if the Bible references of creation are taken as metaphorical as seem to me clearly the intent of the Bible author in this case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe writer's misinterpretation of Christian beliefs are offensive to me as it belittles my faith and the faith of my fellow believers as irrational. All this under the assumption that science supports his views. In my view far more effort should have been exercised by the writer to get past his biases and pursue accuracy within the context of the scientific method including verification of his allegations of American Christian's beliefs.
Excellent essay. I didn't know that 40% of Americans believe in the Genesis. Its especially frustrating when people know what's right, but still refuse to stop believing in what they think should be true..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism is simply wrong. Evolution is simply correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any such discussion, a useful test is to substitute the word "gravity" for the words "evolution" and/or "Darwinism" and see how sensible the results are.
Thus "I don't believe in evolution" becomes "I don't believe in gravity".
Ladies and gentlemen, science doesn't care who you are. Science doesn't care what you believe. Science really doesn't very much care whether you even exist. Atoms will still combine. Gravity will still operate. Evolution will still continue: with you or without you. That is the glory of science.
For the rest, may I remind you of the evidence presented at Dover, PA.
Cute. Very cute. But what you believe isn't germane.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou could believe the Earth was flat but your belief would not make the Earth flat. The Earth will continue on its merry way as a 'not quite a sphere' whirling around the sun regardless of your beliefs.
I'm not sure that 40% is accurate for believing it's literal and the 6,000 years bit. (Maybe for believing various stories in the Bible really happened, but not 40% literalists.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you, Bob. That was well-said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Could you remind me of one single useful scientific endeavor that would be scuttled by a belief in Creation?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of them: belief in Creationism (and it is a *belief*, not a scientifically-based acceptance) leads to a habit of wilful bias in examining questions. I wouldn't want an engineer to cherry pick what data he or she "believes in". I'd want someone who is downright tough on all data and all claims. All others are suspect.
Actually, (and pardon me if i'm mistaken) but at the time, didn't they believe that the sun revolved around the earth? So I guess by that standard, we are still only in year 1, since its never actually happened!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh.. but please explain my Infinite Improbability Drive please!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo quizzical - "Could you remind me of one single useful scientific endeavor that would be scuttled by a belief in Creation? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. By bringing abiogenesis into the discussion of evolutionary theory it is clear you either a) fail to understand what evolutionary theory actually claims or b) intend to obfuscate the discussion with a common Creationist canard. Evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain the origins of life on this planet, it attempts to explain the diversity of life on this planet.
2. I can name one very important and useful scientific endeavor that would be scuttled (and nonsensical) if everyone were a Creationist and there were no evolutionary biologists - vaccinations. Each year new flu vaccines are developed based on how we biologists think the various flu strains will mutate from the previous year (yes, we have to use our understanding of evolution to do that).
Again, to quizzical "It is quite clear that the ONLY reason folks get so wound up in pushing an unsupported theory is that they just can't stand the idea that a Creator God actually did what the Bible says He did."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it weren't for Poe's Law I'd now be certain you are joking - not only are you again conflating hypotheses of abiogenesis with evolutionary theory but you claim that evolution is an "unsupported theory", when it is actually one of the most well-supported theories in all of science.
But you fail to realise that all medical breakthroughs in the last century and that's the vast majority of all medical breakthroughs, are predicated on an understanding of biology that is based on an understanding of evolution. Look at it this way, when the CDC works to identify the next set of influenza strains, to formulate the coming years Flu vaccine; they are in fact studying the evolution of that particular virus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstruction:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonal faith-based spiritual beliefs are personl faith-based spiritual beliefs.
Evidential scientific conclusions are evidential scientific conclusions.
They are different things which have no union, therefore scientific creationism is an oxymoron. Unless the definitions of the words used here are changed (and the words do mean what they mean), there need be no further discussion.
The strength or weakness of arguments on one of these topics in no way has any effect on the other. Creationism is a personal faith-based belief, and as with all personal faith-based beliefs, can be felt to be true within oneself, but this personal belief in no way makes it true for the next person who may have different beliefs.
One cannot perform repeatable experiments on personal faith-based beliefs which, by their nature rely on faith as their 'glue' Science is fundamentally based on repeatable experimental results, independant of the personal makeup of the excperimenter. This difference puts the ideas in different and entirely incompatible categories. Is as though both sides are saying that an apple is better than a Bach melody. It is not a question of buttressing arguments, it is a question of fundamentally incompatible comparisons.
The personal faith-based belief that a supreme being created everything around us only has meaning within ones faith and those who choose to share that same faith. It is both arbitrary and complete within itself. It's extension to others is not on logical avenues. Scientific inquiry and consequent predicitions made from consistant, repeatable experiments form sharable conclusions which only require an admission of the basic truth of logic to agree with.
"Could you remind me of one single useful scientific endeavor that would be scuttled by a belief in Creation?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, all of modern biology.
"AiG's biblical literalists, on the other hand, hold that we are God's favorites."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis view isn't peculiar to AiG. All Christians are not literalists -- in fact, few are -- but all Christians do believe that humans are "God's favorites," because in the person of Jesus Christ God redeemed us earth-bound humans from sin. This is an article of faith, of course, not a scientific proposition. There is no scientific evidence by which it can either be verified or falsified. But it does not it in any way contradict evolution or cosmology, and this is the great problem with creationists, who imagine that somehow scientific evidence can be found that confirm religious beliefs. It can't, it won't. The object of religion and science are simply different. Ad so the problem with literalists is as much their grasp of theology as it is their ignorance of science.
(It's worth noting, by the way, that the Pope fully supports the scientific account of evolution and has spoken out repeatedly against human destruction of the environment.)
I find it very dispiriting that people who claim to be Christian are so arrogant that they cannot believe in a creation that isn't all about them. This is the same arrogance that makes folks so eager to believe that the world is about to end, after all they can't have the world going on without them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am an observant Roman Catholic and I am not detered by an infinite multiverse. My faith is not shaken in the least, if my species turns out to be just a blip on the radar. The whole of creation and therefore the creator is not rendered pointless, if we become one of the many extinct species. It will keep on becoming whatever it is becoming, whether we are here or not and it not us is the point.
The Jewish people like many ancient peoples kept very good verbal and then written records of their history. Like all peoples in the biblical era, they believed: that the world was as old as their historical record, that the whole point of the creation was their particular tribe, that geologic and meteorologic phenomena were the deliberate acts of God and almost certainly a reflection of whose side their God is currently on, and that anything they did not understand was good (godly) magic or bad (demonic) magic. Our ancestors were not trying to mislead us, they simply did not have the information that we have with which to describe what they were experiencing.
If you understand the gist of the creation story, you will see the one gift man was given that the other creatures were not, was free will. From the get-go we had the ability and the right to be wrong, we can even make ourselves extinct.
We can choose to understand the real acts of God by learning the scientific facts or we can cling to one of the many dogmas the many tribes of early man invented to explain what he did not have the tools to truly comprehend. Dogma is the refuge of those who lack real faith, if the beliefs of others or a new fact about the universe threatens your faith, then that's a dogma not a faith.
I also find the 40% unlikely, however I would not be surprised at 30% and that's bad enough. You have to consider how many non orthodox Christians we have in America. Lutherans and Anglicans may be on the same page with Greeks, Romans and other Catholics; but Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Methodists, Baptists and most of the almost innumerable unaffiliated Evangelical congregations, do in fact officially disavow evolution. And yes I have met many of these people and yes they do insist, often angrily, that their views are the "real Christian" views. And even more disheartening, aside from the Methodists who broke from the Anglicans in England, all of these denominations are as American as apple pie. This is why the science deniers of all stripes are almost always American, the rest of the developed world seems to think us rather daft.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the reason that I stopped going to church in my teens. Creationism is an outright lie!!! If these claim's validity were questioned in a court of law, it would be an easy win for sense. Fortunately for themselves, Believers don't have the burden of proof. They just believe. Instead of taking responsibility and pride in what they've done. Forrest said it best "Stupid is as stupid does!" Boy, 40% of use sure are stupid! And they get to decide the president!!!! How foolish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut wait, no they didn't. Almost all science denying evangelical "Christians" are politicaly, far right Republicans. 41% is not a majority, 51% of the American people who took the trouble to vote, voted for Preident Obama not the Republican challenger. It is the Republican party who have painted themselves into the proverbial corner, by allowing it's members to go on record: claiming that women can't get pregnant in a rape, that women are only raped and/or impregnated when God wills it, that the planet is less than 8000 years old and that man is not capable of impacting the enviroment and/or climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd like to know where this alarmist 40% comes from other than being an internet meme. Next you are going to tell me 40% of Americans believe wearing fabric made of two different fibers is a deadly sin That certain people may tell a survey taker that they believe something doesn't actually show what they fully know, understand, and believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuizzical, Yes, I can name several very important scientific advancements that depend upon an understanding of evolution and natural selection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImmunology—Our ability to develop drugs to fight bacterial and viral invaders is directly dependent upon our understanding of the ability to mutate and evolve. Creationists claim that all of "God's Creatures" were created at the same time and that new species do not evolve. Mutation is of bacterium and viruses to mutate is the ongoing "evolution" and "creation" of new creatures right before our very eyes.
Natural Resource Development—Our ability to locate and mine natural gas and oil depends on our understanding of the long-term natural processes of the Earth. Geologists require an understanding of plate tectonics and other processes that occur over millions of years, rather than thousands as portrayed by Creationists, in order to target potential drilling sites.
Global Positioning System—The GPS system in your smartphone depends upon the same relativistic physical laws that tell us that our sun is many billions of years old, that light from other galaxies has been traveling for millions and billions of years to reach us, and that our own bodies are constructed of materials created in super novas that preceding our own solar system by a billion years or so.
These are just a few of that popped to the top of my head, Quizzical. There are countless more examples of how an understanding of science's discoveries regarding cosmological and Earthly "creation" affect our daily lives.
P.S. I agree with Bob from Switzerland. The universe is amazing, grand, and beautiful. It is worthy of our wonder. We are diminished if we limit ourselves to the literal acceptance of the small stories of an ancient peoples.
Sadly, this is not true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure you can drive a car and not worry about the age of the earth.
However, there are scientific pursuits where intellectual honesty will most certainly take a back seat to "bible first" thinking: Geology - how to make sense of the grand canyon if it wasn't formed over millions of years? Archeology - if the world is only 6000 years old, how to reconcile the long histories involved in agriculture, animal husbandry, and tool development? Genetics - one can claim "God did it" but then science stops when investigating fascinating developments like the immune system, lactose tolerance, physical anthropology, and so forth. Palentology - feathers? whales? Vistigial organs? and on and on...
I realize not everyone is comfortable with evolution. But don't let that discomfort dissuade you from learning. I find it funny and sad that so many young earth people will accept 95% of science (engineering, thermodynamics, chemistry, biology, physics, etc.) and their benefits to health, transportation, and comfort. And yet, with evolution, that must be wrong despite that the whole of the body of knowledge for science was put together, slowly, over centuries via methodological naturalism.
Anyway, science is good stuff, take a deep breath and enjoy - it is here to stay.
Ken
Ok, so we can observe the Andromeda galaxy, and it takes approx 25 million years for light to travel that distance. It's magic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnnual flu shots?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWeeds adapt to attempts to control with chemicals.
Staff infections resistant to antibiotics.
The list goes on & on.
Entropy .... not until the sun goes supernova.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This disingenuous author fails to notice that NONE of these wonders of modern science is dependent on a belief in the current secular hypothesis of origins. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not about what you belief. It's what makes us capable of doing these things, which is wholeheartedly dependent upon evolution. Do lions, tigers, or bears use electricity, fly in airplanes, take hot showers, heat their homes, drive their cars, watch TV, and text their friends? Why not? Maybe it has something to do with molecular products like the brains. From a scientist, it's very odd to see people vigorously deny an obvious truth. Then again, these people are usually the same that believe in transubstantiation, zombies, virgin births, and all other forms of non-sense.
The book of Genesis stated that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, and the Garden was to be guarded by some sort of celestial being. Thus the Garden is still supposed to exist. However, via Google Earth, one can see every inch of this planet down to the size of a house. The Garden is not there. Thus, Genesis is not literally true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs discussed before, the Bible time account may be around 6'000 years from the beginning of creation, but as other places in the Bible clearly define the value of time accountability on it, "One day is like a thousand years in front of You", with some adjustements, and taking into account this equivalence or approach in time lapses, both the Bible and the scientists' assessments of time from the beginning may be not too different at last. Anyway, as the time from the start of creation is far before us, and the song very accurately says: "Let's forget about tomorrow, for tomorrow never comes", the subject may be lacking any actual interest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs scientist we must be aware of dissonance this belief system represents in the 40%. These believers are pleased as punch to use the conveniences modern science provides yet hang tenaciously to the Biblical view when facing question of origins. For many this is simply a matter of convenience. It takes effort to understand ones existence from big bang through biology to you. Many simply do not want to expend the energy. Others however feel the darwinian synthesis deny's them their uniqueness in universe that they hold dear. Until we can deconstruct this fear modern "Creation Science" will continue to provide shelter to those unwilling to accept the scientific realities of our existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Tanenbaum,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "Creationists begin with answers and work to prove that those answers are right. This is antithetical to the scientific process."
That would seem to be a charge that looks back, not on my authority, but that of Prof. Richard Lewontin:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
[1997. Billions and Billions of Demons. NY Times Book Reviews: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, Random House, January 9, http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm]
Thank you Mr. Tanenbaum for being a voice of reason. Many people can not seem to grasp (or appreciate the irony) that religious fundamentalism can be just as harmful in its own way in this country as it is in the Middle East. It is also ironic that many people can accept that languages, cultures, technology and a multitude of other types of systems evolve, but they find it difficult to accept that biological organisms can evolve as well (evolution is a universal conceptual pattern that can be found virtually everywhere). christina a knight antigravitationalforce.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution did you say?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a systemic problem especially in archaeology and paleontology.
On December 9, 2010 in The New York Times science writer Nicolas Wade wrote: "Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word ‘science’ from a statement of its long-range plan."
Read pro-evolutionist Bill Bryson's best seller "A Short History of Nearly Everything" and discover on almost every other page the charlatanism, chicanery, lies, outright fraud—even murder—rampant in the sciences——even murder in paleontology and archaeology.
READ HIS BOOK AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF.
The American Museum of Natural History has a life-sized African diorama with a hairy male and female ape-like homonids walking upright—based on the finding of a set of footprints!
When Bryson asked the curator of the museum and paleoanthropologist, Ian Tattersall, if “he was troubled about the amount of artistic licensetaken, he replied, "You wouldn’t believe how much discussion can go into deciding details like whether Neanderthals had eyebrows or not…
In 2004 National Geographic tested four paleoartists by giving them the same fossil bones at different times without telling them other paleoartist would be creating drawings from the fossils. Not one of the drawings looked like the others—and none of them had any body hair on them!
The biography, “Schliemann of Troy: Treasure and Deceit,” by Dr. David Traill, a classics professor at the University of California, shows that Heinrich Schliemann, excavator of the sites of Troy and Mycenae, was a pathological liar.
A NY Times (March 12, 1961) article, “There Are Neanderthals Among Us” discussed fossil skeletons found in La Chapelle in Europe which turned out to be those of recently departed residents who were bent over from bone disease.
"Hobbit Hullabaloo" article:
…If they are wrong, “it will be worse than Piltdown” in terms of its effect on the field, as one anonymous observer put it, referring to the 1912 hoax that combined modern human and orangutan fragments.
This whole field has proven again and again that many of these researchers have lied and continue to lie. The most brazen—and unfounded—theories are proclaimed only to find the research was faked or non-existent.
This is chicanery not science.
This is weird imagination run wild.
This is absolute fraud.
Talk about honesty in the "sciences."
This is pure bunk.
Growing up in a Catholic Archdiocese from grades 1 to 10, well do I know the bible. Both new and old testaments. I find that science can get along with religion for those willing to understand what the bible was trying to express. Those who are rigid in the bibles' time line yet sort out the more distasteful aspects of the old testament are little more than charlatans. Relying on the bible to guide when it is convenient yet forsaking it at a moments notice when it comes to equality,casting the first stone,etc. It's a shame that with all the tremendous achievements and examples of enlightenment recorded in history we are still a dull,pathetic civilization,constantly at war and on the brink of self extermination. Creating havoc and hardship for future generations. Is this because of the bible or science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wrote: "...Pythagoras maintained that the earth is flat do you also believe in the incorrect flat earth theory as well?...".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a simple matter of correction, Pythagoras (6th century BC) was cited by the slightly later ancient Greeks as one of, if not the, originator of the spherical Earth concept. You can pick out pretty much anyone who lived prior to him as a 'flat-Earther', but Pythagoras was a good guy!
There are too many that are vested in the bibical rationale for our existance for them to accept an alternative truth. Livilhoods depend on the flock believing the bibical explanation. Otherwise those that consume resources with abandon, mar and deface our planet would have to find another means to justify their greed. The bible has been used to justify inhumanity to most living things to include fellow humans all for the benefit of the pious. If there was no justification for religion there would be no need for clergy or churches or the tax exempt status they enjoy which puts a burden on the rset of society. Belief in bibical mythology and other creation stories have held humanity back for thousands of years in a search for truth. Belief in creationism and the mythology associated with it does great harm as the believers continue their never ending quest to impose their beliefs on society. They attempt to surpress any scientific endeavor which might dispell their beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to find a common ground as all of us are in the process of deciphering a common reality. I hope this visual compass helps resolving this issue
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://firstdiscipline.com/2010/12/16/communitysocialintelligencelearning-a-meta-systems-perspective/
Joseph Manuel
Here's what upsets me regarding this ridiculous trend towards teaching creationism in Science classes. I attended Catholic schools as a child and received a classical education. This enabled me to receive a full ride scholarship to a superior university. We did have religious courses, (which covered all religions and of course creationism), but they were always separate from Science. The day when the religionists allow scientists to start teaching evolution in their churches at the pulpit is the day when science teachers should start allowing creationism to be taught in Science class.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI cannot understand why 'Creationists' (or any other brain-washed devotees of ancient superstitions and hobgoblins and poltergeists) even bother to read Scientific American magazine. EVERY time an S.A. article mentions Charles Darwin or evolution or a 4.5 billion year old earth, all the religious nut-cases crawl out of the woodwork and repost their inane drivel all over again. LOOK at the number of posts attached to this article...far more posts than usual...and many of these posts are from the 40% of Americans that are brain-washed by ancient scriblings written by superstitious old men who were trying to make up explanations for their own existence. All you Creationists and other religious nut-cases need to keep posting your drivel on your bible websites and stay OUT of the S.A. forums.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The danger is that 40 percent of the American electorate seems to have forgotten what science is."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe truth is most of those have never learned science at all.
We still live in an egregiously ignorant society. Many are hobbled by early misinformation and restrictions on free thinking as a tool for learning.
Culture acts as an inhibiting force when accepted without question. Religion being a primary part of the issue.
Your supposed intellect should inform you that your beliefs are fine so long as they affect only you. Its spreading of such beliefs that belies credibility in that context.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"quizzical" says:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This disingenuous author fails to notice that NONE of these wonders of modern science is dependent on a belief in the current secular hypothesis of origins. "
So what about carbon dating?
Wow! What a fuss. Evolution is clearly a fact, as - say - is child development. There are theories about child development, just as there are theories about the details of evolution. Fact and theories, the ideas we use in an attempt to bring facts together into a coherent picture, and then take this picture, as tentative as it is, to suggest new facts and new ways to seek out these facts. And so on, and on...and on...and on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me, the FACT that people can get so emotionally embroiled in all of this says something about our own primitive roots. Its hard to be rational. Its hard to be objective. Its easier to scream at one another. Our ancestors survived by doing that but it does not serve us well today in an ever changing world. Its tough stuff being human. But its worth a try.
Bob van Ligten: I don't get your point. Make God set everything in motion 13.7 billion years ago and then remove him from the picture altogether? Does it really make a difference to you? Does it make a difference to anyone of us out here? But I think I would be ok with this kind of light creationism: God put everything in motion 13.7 billion years ago - and then left us alone, happily moving on to create other Universes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCute comment. Thanks for writing. John Fentress, PhD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead my comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a lot more but was limited by Scientific American's software.
I agree with the author(s). Unfortunately, 'In God We Trust' was printed on the US money, which educated the US population (at least 40% ?) to think that God exists since their childhood. I am a believer of Confuscius. He was a teacher, and is still a teacher in the mind of most Chinese scholars. He was a humman being; I do not regard him as a 'god'. Legend has it that he amended the first bible (I-Ching) in China, which caused earthquakes and disasters. This linked him to some supernatural figures by some people, because, by amending I-Ching, he was believed to have caused a leak of the secrets of Heaven. Gradually, the statue of Confucius was put on the altars of temples. This became a circular thing --- God was created by man (who was believed to have the ability to communicate with Heaven), at least in China before the Cultural Revolution, and in most cities in Taiwan even today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do not have the answer to everything. Even Einstein did not know where magnetism came from. Putting the mysteries on God is not a bad thing before we find the answer. But we should not stand still; with science we keep looking...
Interesting fact: A recent statistical study in Australia indicated that 76% of the population there said 'religion does not do any good to our living'.
Amen!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a subject that will be debated throughout the ages. Whether or not science and religion - spefically Christianity - will ever see eye to eye. Unfortunately, Jacob Tanenbaum has it very, very wrong! There are plenty of individuals that are Bible believing Christians and scientific researchers that do see eye to eye. I am one of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a Christian and a scientific researcher. There are plenty of individuals such as myself that believe in God as the Creator of Heaven, Earth and the Cosmos (like my husband who is a physicist) and yet believe that science is our way of discovering what God already knows. God created everything on the beautiful planet and created us. However God DID NOT put us here to use and abuse this world but to worship Him in the midst of His creation. And we DO have a reason to safeguard our existence - though God will one day end this world, we are still to protect the sanctity of human life and His creations - ALL OF THEM!!!!!
AiG is a sect of the religion that are putting on display what they believe happened - we do not know fully know how long Adam and Eve communed in the Garden of Eden with God. It could have been 6,000 years it could have been 3 million years. The fact is that grouping all Christian's whether they be scientists or not into a group of anti-science is wrong.
Whether creationism or evolution is taught is up to the school. I believe in evolution - we evolve as time goes by to adapt to our surroundings and the changes that occur from using the natural resources on this planet. I reiterate that we are NOT here to use and abuse this planet!! But I do not believe that we evolved from some other species - my research has proven that to me - we are intelligently designed! Science should continue to be taught in the school - that is how progress is made and how diseases are eliminated! If I did not take science - Chemistry or Biology - I would not be where I am today. But do not lump in the people who do see "eye to eye" with science and religion with maybe a handful of people who don't - THAT is how we get no where in the world!
If /god created the World 4 or 6 thousand years ago, where in blazes has he or she or it been keeping themselves...too quiet for cool! Comes back at the end to kick it around somewhere even better for another 6 days out of the next 6 thousand?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found the golden rule that eliminates the need for further beliefs. Print kindness and rinse, repeat.
My thanks to Mr. Tannenbaum for raising these contentious issues without the acidity and thinly veiled hostility that often accompanies similar articles. His civility is an increasingly rare commodity and much appreciated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn old ditty says, "When science and religion appear to clash, 'tis the appearance must go to the trash." Translation: the Mind that created the universe is not schizophrenic, and when positions on these issues differ, the error generally lies not in the facts, but in their interpretation. For indiscriminate literalists, who almost always mean well, their errors lie primarily in a biblical hermeneutic that tragically literalizes the symbolic. It is a profound error, but one that for numerous reasons escapes their detection.
I personally think that the creation OR evolution frame falls victim to an "either-or-neriness" that misses the mark on both sides. I find that evolution is scientifically incontrovertible (setting aside the legitimate scientific debates on the specific mechanisms of evolution). I likewise think that anyone who isn't handicapped by invincible anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions or impenetrable scientistic ideologies (and the correlative trance of materialism, to name a few factors), can see clear evidence of unfathomable Intelligence manifested throughout the cosmos. Gratefully, fewer and fewer world-class scientists harbor the notion that human life and consciousness are the result of matter and blind chance.
As a Christian and theistic evolutionist, I am persuaded that there is one Author and two books: one the book of natural revelation, the other special revelation or sacred scripture. God simply doesn't contradict himself. The errors lie in our interpretations.
I would plead for patience with hardcore literalists. Over time -- at least here in the U.S. -- their numbers are diminishing. In the meantime, compassionately expect them to vigorously defend the scientific and philosophical assaults on their worldview. Psychologically and existentially, the issues are just too critical not to.
Why can't we respond to the creationists as ROLFL!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if the creationists here have been reminded yet that creationism is so wrong that it is NEW (Not Even Wrong, as in so wrong that calling it wrong makes other wrong ideas look bad). They certainly don't seem to understand their own willful stupidity and ignorance, or the fact that their views are wronger than wrong, to the point that said views don't even need to be refuted anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn unfortunate misreading of the Gallup poll results suggests the author's predisposition regarding those who might entertain creation and a creator in their worldview.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe poll provided no information regarding the respondents inclination regarding the age of the earth or the universe and only minimal insight into their thoughts on a creator's part in the formation of modern man. For those with a statistical inclination, reading the details of the survey is more of an indictment of the polling organization than informative on the subject.
That, and the poll of about 1000 folks was by telephone survey, something most serious people block or ignore these days.
That said, there are extremists at either end of the discussion.
There would be a lot less objection to the concept of deities if their proponents and descriptors hadn't endowed them with misanthropic and vile demeanors, like the one in the Xian 'bible' e.g. 2Kings 2:23
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment about the public cherry-picking which science they want to accept is so true. I work in the field of climate change, another place where science is set aside, not so much because of faith, but because solutions would demand people to change their behaviors. But I see dismissal of science with respect to discussions of risks vs. benefits of vaccines (MMR doesn't contribute to autism) and the reports indicating that organic food doesn't provide health benefits over conventionally grown food. These same people, of course, are against GM food, but hale the new medical treatments, many of them based on the same technologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo I too continue to teach science and to show students how to examine validity of information and credibility/credentials of who puts the info out to the public.
If the Creator created the Universe and, somehow, was not in turn created by an earlier Creator and so ad infinitum, how does such an argument differ from supposing that nothing is unstable and the Universe therefore created itself out of non-existence? and is, as the Multi-verse, still creating?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTotally hilarious, this is like watching two, four year old kids argue over whether the Easter Bunny is real. Of course he is!!! LOLOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJacob Tanenbaum, thank you for saying it so sweetly!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I see it, the die-hard Genesis believers have taken in a much larger lie that's been perpetrated by slicing and dicing all of history to suit the manipulators. If we were to include the history of how the Bible itself was created piecemeal, over hundreds of years by men only (no women, even though there were female disciples of Jesus),and discuss with students exactly when and why reincarnation was *outlawed*, and what an enlightened human is; we would possibly be able to reveal more of the storybook features, the fallacies and unholy atrocities of the Bible, by kindergarten. History teachers can teach the HISTORICAL stories of ALL the male and female Masters and Ma's according to lore AND documented evidence. Perhaps kids would begin to think again, instead of memorizing someone else's *truth*.
Read pro-evolutionist Bill Bryson's best seller "A Short History of Nearly Everything" to enlighten you on the charlatans, liars, —even murderers in the sciences—especially paleontology and archaelogy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead pro-evolutionist Bill Bryson's best seller "A Short History of Nearly Everything" to enlighten you on the charlatans, liars, —even murderers in the sciences—especially paleontology and archaelogy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlanco. Nice try, but your rant is typical, bogus double speak.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou made the same mistake that evos in-breds make all the time.
You based your rant on the old fallacy that anything which is highly improbable, will eventually occur, if given enough time. Not quite.
Your insanity is laughable. It all goes back to the
" million monkeys typing on type writers " nonsense, that was disproven long ago. You and your minions always left out the negative consequences of nature being involved. And Mother Nature takes no prisoners. Floods & fire alone don't pick winners and losers.
I did like your comment however, in which you said ....... " equally random and equally meaningless...." We'll put your rant in the equally meaningless category. Cheers !
@rmwilliamsjr: "only the period of time of a week has not astronomical definition. you can not derived a 7 day week from the stars. human beings historical have found 5 and 10 days weeks most convenient probably because of our fingers, but between a solar day and a lunar month there is no natural unit of time."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA week is a quarter of a moon (or pretty close). A moon has 4 phases, new, first quarter, full, and last quarter. Maybe the Sumerians decided to stick with exactly 7 days, for convenience, but for a lot of people the phases of the moon were the most obvious way to keep track of time between a day and a year.
TomCampbell: "No one has seen anything close to a living cell spring together, a cat turn into a dog (or vice versa, I don't want to get in the middle of that one) or any logical path through which a chromosomally different life form could appear. This relegates evolution to the status of a religious belief in the Mark Twain tradition of "...believing what you know ain't so.""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently you have never seen anyone with Down Syndrome, which is caused by a chromosomal modification called Trisomy 21. This is not only a logical path, but a clear biological example of a "chromosomally different life form". Most chromosomal abnormalities will result in a phenotype that is detrimental to survival, just like most point mutations. But if one occurred that was beneficial, like the one that makes humans different from apes, then only one occurrence, if it survived, could be enough to change the path of evolution.
TomCampbell: "DNA genome research indicates a common human ancestor around 12,000 years ago, perilously close to a possible Genesis flood."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can google "Mitochondrial Eve," who was the mother of all women alive today. She lived about 200,000 years ago. But her mother was also the mother of all women, and her mother before her. The concept of "Mitochondrial Eve" is that the genes inside our mitochondria do not reproduce sexually. They are clones of the mitochondrial genes in the mother. That means that just by chance all the different sets of mitochondrial genes, one in each woman who lived at that time, may increase and decrease in the population just by chance. Eventually the descendants of each one will either reach zero or 100%, leaving only one at 100%. But you can start with any generation to measure this. So perhaps 200,000 years before "Mitochondrial Eve" there was a previous woman whose mitochondria were the ancestors of all women who lived at "Eve's" time.
There was also a "Y-chromosomal Adam" who likely lived between 60,000 and 142,000 years ago. This is based on the fact that, like mitochondrial DNA, the Y chromosome does not reproduce sexually, but by cloning, and that means that of all the Y chromosomes in all the men who were alive at "Y-chromosomal Adam's" time, all were eliminated by chance except whichever one was left. Like Eve, Adam's father, grandfather, great-grandfater, etc., were also the ancestors of all men.
"Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y chromosomal Adam" were not related, and could have lived in completely different parts of Africa.
Tom: "As quizzical points out, there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of any natural process by which more complicated life could evolve from a simpler form."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot true. The kind of mutation called a duplication does that all the time. In a duplication, a stretch of DNA gets duplicated and inserted into the DNA, sometimes on a different chromosome. If the duplication is long, and if it contains a complete gene, then what you end up with is the addition of a new gene, which is temporarily identical with an older gene. As mutations accumulate, it can lose its original function, and possibly take on a new function. The result is a larger, more complicated genome.
I live in the UK. I am flabergasted at the discussion on evolution conducted in these comments. So many unsupported assertions put forward as though they were obvious, by people who seem to have a great desire for evolution not to be true. The sophistry, willful ignorance, and illogical arguments - it is safe to say my flabber has never been so gasted. The theory of evolution through natural selection is one of the greatest insights of the human mind. To find so many apparently educated and informed Americans accepting the dubious arguments of creationists makes me very sad. I will not rehearse the arguments for, nor attempt to refute the somewhat absurd arguments against the theory as expressed by some of your correspondents, since it seems that blind faith can overcome all reason on this topic. I simply pray that the messages of enlightenment will eventually overcome the prejudices of those who prefer the adolescent certainties of religious dogma over the empirical observations of the world as it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuizzical
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs unlikely as it seems to you simple life forms can and did occur spontaneously over billions of years.
Recently, a virus has been constructed from DNA fragments. If people can do this, given billions of "mud puddles" and billions of years, it could certainly happen in nature. Once a simple self-replicating life form gets started, the rest of evolution from simple to complex life forms is clearly supported by the fossil record.
It seems pretty clear. Scientists and theologians should talk to each other, but do not have the right to dictate what can be taught by the other.
The biology profession has a right and a responsibility to demand acceptance of scientifically proven facts and adherence to the scientific method as a requirement for practicing and teaching biology.
If a man or woman wants to teach intelligent design, they can legitimately become a minister or a shoe salesman, or almost any other occupation, but NOT a biology teacher.
Quizzical: "Could you remind me of one single useful scientific endeavor that would be scuttled by a belief in Creation? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt isn't about "Creation", it's about CreationISM. Creationism is a method of Creation. So is evolution. Both are HOW God created.
You asked for one scientific endeavor that would be scuttled by creationism. Medicine. ALL the medical discoveries of the last 70 years have been based on evolution. All those medical discoveries have been based on animal studies, and those animal studies, in turn, are based upon the idea of descent with modification. We choose our animal models based on the inference that, since animals (including humans) are related by descent with modification, that the attributes we are studying are going to be similar to humans like the attributes we can see. For instance, I do bone regeneration with adult stem cells. I use mammals as my animal models. Morphology and physiology indicate that mammals are more closely related to humans than reptiles or fish. Therefore, bone regeneration in them will resemble bone regeneration in humans. Now, IF creationism were true, I could not do that. There is no underlying reason rats and sheep would be closer to humans in bone regeneration than any other vertebrate. It's all up to the whim of the Creator, and the Creator could have made crocodiles with bone regeneration closer to humans. I would spend all my time testing each and every vertebrate for bone regeneration to see which was closer to humans instead of testing whether adult stem cells will enhance bone regeneration.
This reasoning underlies nearly every advancement in medicine. New surgical techniques are developed in mammals because their anatomy is going to be closer to humans because of evolution. New drugs are tested in rats because their physiology is going to be closer to humans because of evolution.
Now, none of this involves "Creation" in the sense "God created". God creating by evolution gives the same results as no God. So this isn't about WHETHER God created, but HOW. God simply did not create by the methods stated by creationism.
"The danger is that 40 percent of the American electorate seems to have forgotten what science is."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would argue that that 40% NEVER KNEW science, so how could it be 'forgotten'? We've got science teachers that don't accept consensus science; the education paradigm in this country is one of our problems.
MRC06405, your faith is certainly unbounded!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, it does NOT seem unlikely to me that simple Life forms can and did occur spontaneously over billions of years.
Rather, it seems totally IMPOSSIBLE. Your very claim that a simple virus has been recently constructed from DNA fragments, is based on intelligent design! SOMEONE must have cut and pasted previously existing code. Do you know how many base pairs of nucleotides were involved in that experiment? I am guessing, perhaps hundreds or even thousands.
That is where you make your huge leap of faith. Just because Humans can cut and paste fragments of already existent DNA, that makes no implication whatever that such DNA can ever self-assemble by chance in any warm mud puddle anywhere.
It is abundantly clear that before any life existed, ALL mud puddles were STERILE. Of course, "Sterile" is the very definition of "NO LIFE."
If hundreds or even thousands of base pairs are required to construct a viable virus, the question is, "How long might it take for such a correct string of DNA to self-assemble by chance?
It turns out that even though there are FEWER than 474 quadrillion seconds of time in 15 billion years, there are MORE than 1,152 quadrillion ways to randomly arrange a sequence of only 30 nucleotides! (1 quadrillion = 1 times 10 to the 15th power)
You may need trillions of years to make your "facts" come true! The real FACT is, that what you claim to be fact, has never been seen to happen and actually has vanishingly small chances of ever happening, no matter how long you plan to wait.
lucaspa, the Creator God is not one of "whims." The Creator God is a person of PURPOSE. So, your argument fails. You are making assumptions about how the Creator God operates. You are casting God in your own image. The medical field has no need to understand origins. The medical field has only to understand how created things work. They are doing a great job, I might add.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquizzical - Engineering is based on the scientific method. It isn't based on what SOMEONE wrote in a book that was pick out of various other writings by people by Constantine and the Council of Nice in 300 A.D.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific method uses our available data and current ways of measuring data to form hypotheses to conclude the best possible theory at the current time. The scientific method is always questioning and changes with new data found with new ways of measuring.
That is why we fuss because the very things you think we should be focusing on like developing better energy resources will only help save this planet when we realize human beings that our survival is connected with the Earth. When belief systems - cultural, political, or religious reject the data - fossils, radio carbon dating, thermal luminescence dating, etc., we only hasten our own demise by refusing to understand our society as it is today and how dysfunctional we've become. This planet is over-populated. Not just one country, the whole planet. As an example, by not providing birth control for everyone, limiting or refusing the availability of safe abortion clinics on the BELIEF system of whatever religion to "protect" unborn, non-existing children you are only ensuring that no future children or generations will even have an opportunity of ever happening. It also takes the focus away from actual, living people on this planet that are suffering.
So it might seem inconsequential to you teaching science and keeping religious beliefs separate - you can teach religion in churches - but you can't teach religion as a science.
As a Unitarian Universalist who studies Process Theology (which envisions God as evolving) I definitely believe in evolution over awesome eons of time. But my main contention is that you should never confuse "engineering" with genuine science! Engineering is an application of one or more scientific discoveries and requires limited knowledge. Science encompasses all the universe, its conclusions need to be tentative and ever-evolving, and I consider it allied to philosophy. Certainly cosmology is--and without cosmology I would not be able to believe in any kind of god.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorst of all, to completely misrepresent scientific knowledge, as do the Creationists, is self-deluding. I have a personal list of two cardinal sins: the first is exploitation that harms or destroys anyone or anything or any natural process; the second is willful denial of reality in the face of overwhelming evidence. Creationists engage in the latter sin, but are often in the pay of greedy exploiters whose intent is to keep the people ignorant and fearful.
"But I think I would be ok with this kind of light creationism: God put everything in motion 13.7 billion years ago - and then left us alone, happily moving on to create other Universes."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat isn't how Christians responded to evolution. It isn't even how Darwin viewed evolution and God. What you have stated is extreme deism, not theism. Michael Ruse examined whether evolution was consistent with theism in his book Can A Darwinian be a Christian? He concluded "Yes". I also suggest Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. You don't have to go to extreme deism to have God as Creator.
@ bobvanligten
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why, because obviously there is a creation"
That's only obvious if you've already assumed the existence of a creator. You see it as a creation, others see it as the results of the Big Bang.
If a religion is to survive, it must be updated to comply with scientifically-established facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquizzical :"If hundreds or even thousands of base pairs are required to construct a viable virus, the question is, "How long might it take for such a correct string of DNA to self-assemble by chance?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It turns out that even though there are FEWER than 474 quadrillion seconds of time in 15 billion years, there are MORE than 1,152 quadrillion ways to randomly arrange a sequence of only 30 nucleotides! (1 quadrillion = 1 times 10 to the 15th power)"
Your math is incomplete. You left out the factor of the sheer amount of carbon in the primordial oceans.
If you take the DNA of only a single human, you have 3 billion bases in a single strand of DNA in each cell. Then the number of cells is estimated at about 10 trillion. So multiplying, you get 30,000 quadrillion bases, or 30 sextillion bases. If you are interested in sequences 30 bases long, you have 1 sextillion non-overlapping sequences in a typical human body. But of course, it is OK if the sequences overlap, so you actually have about 30 sextillion such sequences.
You also left out the question of what proportion of those possible sequences have any ability to self-replicate. Certainly any self-replicating ability is rare, but it is unlikely to be limited to only one single fixed sequence. Suppose it is a very low number, like one in a quadrillion. If so, then if all the DNA in a single human body were random sequences, you would find maybe 30 million that had some ability to self replicate. If the proportion of self-replicating sequences is even lower, like one in a sextillion, then you still get 30 such sequences per human body.
The question then comes down to this. How much nucleic acid was present in the primordial soup, formed by the action of UV light and lightning? How much did it tend to gather together? Studies show that the 4 bases found in DNA have an affinity for clay, making it more likely that they are found together and can react chemically.
An even better question is whether there were other kinds of self-replicating molecules that were more likely to be the origin of life. RNA sequences can actually have catalytic action, in addition to being made the same way as DNA. Are there others that we don't even know about?
Since when did any bang produce order of any sort?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those who default to 'there has to be a creator' so it must be the God of the Bible must separately justify their faith in this book of nonsense. Adequate technical information by academic writers is available to flatten any authenticity of the Bible. Even reading the Bible (and any religious book)by oneself can identify reasons to reject it as 'God's Word'. So where does this leave us as to identifying "God"? Nowhere! There is no communication, identification, concept or any meaningful reason to believe (other than our subjective mental meanderings). Better that we continue to search for origins (so long after the event) and extrapolate that science has revealed so much in a relatively short time that more time will reveal more information. Technology is aiding the acceleration of the research so speculation is interesting but not revealing until proven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is so much here that is right, and so much that is wrong, I hardly know where to begin!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf ( as I believe) God created the cosmos and "wrote" (inspired) the Bible, then correct and proper interpretation of nature and correct and proper interpretation of the Bible should not conflict.
I find ample good scientific evidence to support the hypothesis of a pre-existent creative entity with attributes similar to the God of the Bible - timeless, acting with a purpose and according to a plan with supreme intelligence, knowledge and ability (power), occasionally intervening in natural processes to accomplish specific purposes.
I also find ample room for possible good, valid interpretations of the Bible that allow for creation as a process taking place over billions of years and including men evolved from earlier species, without taking anything away from who God is or what He has done.
There is much in nature and in the bible that puzzles me. But what I find most distressing in this whole issue is the desire on both "sides" of this "conflict" to promote conflict.
Scientists who insist there is no God (a wholly unscientific belief, not provable, not based on any available evidence or extrapolated from anything known)
or who claim that belief in the Bible is silly, uneducated, or unwarranted, undermine the credibility of science.
And Christians who insist that scientists are just wrong, ungodly, and/or engaged in some worldwide conspiracy against religion, undermine the credibility of their own beliefs.
You may claim my math is incomplete. But is your math correct?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this3 billion ( 3.0 x 10^9) times 10 trillion (1.0 x 10^13) equals 30 sextillion (3.0 x 10^22).
But, is your assertion not false that 30,000 quadrillion (3.0 x 10^19) equals 30 sextillion (3.0 x 10^22)?
Jumping to human DNA for an example is a strange leap of logic because I am asking about the difference between NO life at all and even one single viable critter, no matter how simple. The requirement for the INFORMATION that has been encoded into DNA is always disregarded.
In any case, I doubt if it matters how much carbon is in the oceans. There may be too little and there may be too much. Or, on this Goldilocks planet, it may have been "just right."
Actually, this whole silly conversation has been between two very different world views, neither one of which can be proven scientifically. My world view seems like it should be perfectly obvious to any intelligent observer. Others think their world views will be proven sometime, somewhere, some how, given enough time.
So far though, there seems to be no budging on either side. Although it was fun for a while, it seems really quite irrational to continue this thread.
I wouldn't give credit to a historian who denies the Holocaust. Neither should I trust a 'scientist' who denies the massive evidence of evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no use arguing with people such as Quizzical because people like him twist any argument to suit their beliefs and nothing can shake that. Why is the Bible God's word and any other old manuscript is not? We have been created in God's image? We have created God's image. The God of the old testament is a spitting image of the old Emperors of China, who predate the written history, who were considered Gods, had absolute power, ruled with an Iron hand through his representatives (angels) throughout his realm, protected his subject as well as exploit them (offerings), were despotic, were always right, demanded strict loyalty and had the power of life and death of his people. They had to be approached on your knees so you could run, with folded hands to show that you had no threatening weapons, and beg (pray for favors) hoping your pleas would be heard, but had no insurance that your prayers would be successful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there is a Creator it certainly is not the "god" of the old testament.
Quizzical you asked for a "single useful scientific scuttled by a believe in creation? how about stem cell research. We do have a serious science problem in the USA. Read the article in Scientific America magazine of November written by Shaw Lawrence Otto.
O wait, no use for you to read it, you will be in denial before you even read the first sentence.
In my previous post I stated "approached on your knees so you could run" should have said "couldn't run". Rulers in history were always in danger of assassination therefor one could only approach the Emperor in hearing distance on your knees and with hand clasped. (The traitor to the emperor who lived and escaped after an unsuccessful assassination attempt and formed a competing force was called the Devil.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuizzical, a "bang" certainly can produce order. It takes energy and an increase of entropy in one place to cause a smaller reduction of entropy in a different place. The release of any energy has the potential to produce order. When the sun emits its vast amount of radiation, it increases in entropy but causes a small decrease in entropy on earth, where plants capture it and use it to capture CO2 and grow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny explosion in the air produces a very orderly, spherical compression wave.
Any internal combustion engine uses bangs to produce forward motion of a vehicle and charge the battery.
Meteor strikes can produce diamonds.
Likewise, vast amounts of energy pass through biological organisms while increasing the complexity of just a few of them, but that complexity is passed on to future generations by the use of still more energy.
Quizzical: "You may claim my math is incomplete. But is your math correct?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"3 billion ( 3.0 x 10^9) times 10 trillion (1.0 x 10^13) equals 30 sextillion (3.0 x 10^22)."
"But, is your assertion not false that 30,000 quadrillion (3.0 x 10^19) equals 30 sextillion (3.0 x 10^22)?"
You're right. The calculation seems to be correct but I typed quadrillion where I meant to say quintillion. Thank you.
Quizzical: "Jumping to human DNA for an example is a strange leap of logic because I am asking about the difference between NO life at all and even one single viable critter, no matter how simple. The requirement for the INFORMATION that has been encoded into DNA is always disregarded."
I guess I should have explained better. I used the amount of DNA in a human because it seemed small compared with the ocean. A human contains roughly 1% DNA. A 200 lb man contains maybe 2 pounds. I am guessing here, but it seems reasonable to say that the primordial ocean contained more than 2 pounds of nucleosides or nucleotides. If the bases were formed into sequences, even two pounds of DNA would be far more than enough to form virtually any sequence of 30 bases. If you let it sit for a billion years it becomes more likely. If there is more than one sequence that will do the job, it becomes even more likely.
Quizzical: "Actually, this whole silly conversation has been between two very different world views, neither one of which can be proven scientifically."
One of the two world views makes "scientific" claims about the other, and the claims turn out to be nonsense on the slightest examination. The other view just tries to figure out what happened.
Quizzical: "My world view seems like it should be perfectly obvious to any intelligent observer. Others think their world views will be proven sometime, somewhere, some how, given enough time."
Your world view is that what you see with your own eyes must be wrong if it contradicts the Bible. The Bible can be interpreted many ways, but it is not a scientific textbook. I choose to interpret Genesis this way: "Darkness" is ignorance. "Light" is understanding. The "Days" of creation refer to past eras in which civilization advanced under the influence of the "Light" and then fell back into "Darkness", only to advance again later. The ancient Hebrews could have been building on stories of past greatness, with Eden being "the good old days." Or they could have been inspired by God, take your pick. Whatever it was, it was not a scientific description of where the dinosaurs came from.
If the notion that the visible universe can self-organize seems unbelievable, the notion of an invisible being capable of self-organization is even more unbelievable. It is a flight of fantasy to rationalize what we desperately want to believe. Not that it is impossible. But the invisible cause is indistinguishable from the imaginary one. It is an act faith not of reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy comment on "...a literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be reconciled with modern science." The evidence for this is the volume of comments on the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are these two belief systems irreconcilable? In my view, because a) our brain can not simultaneously and consistently hold two disparate and conflicting concepts, and b) a 'first mover' effect where acquired knowledge which is channeled in dialogue and story and delivered by authoritative choices sticks and resists change.
Logic and evidence-based "opcodes" are not the most common instructions in our brain architectures.
Benjowo, thanks for your offer in comment 151 of an area of science that would be scuttled by a belief in Creation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, "stem cell research" doesn't cut it. It is an excellent and useful study of how existing Life works. But it really reveals nothing of how Life began from sterile components without any information that could guide the assembly of those sterile components.
GreenMind, In reply to your comment to me that, "Your world view is that what you see with your own eyes must be wrong if it contradicts the Bible."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have never said that. Actually, my worldview is scientific in that, "what I see with my eyes MUST add up to reality."
I simply do not find any scientific proof that any living thing has ever come into existence from sterile components in the absence of intelligently designed code that could direct that development.
What is so hard about that? I am totally amazed at the furor that results by casting any doubt on the myth that the above has ever happened.
I have not been quoting Scripture to make my point. I have only asked for real, true, repeatable, experimental examples of the random development, by chance, of any living entity such as may have originated WITHOUT THE NECESSARY CODE on a planet that was, until then, completely sterile.
That IS really the hypothesis being taught in our schools, is it not? I only ask, "Show me the evidence."
I simply consider that notion to be complete fiction. It takes more faith than I can muster to believe such an unscientifically foolish notion.
The ONLY way I can be convinced is if someone can show me a sealed, previously sterile test tube full of critters that have come into existence with NO cutting and pasting of prior existing DNA or RNA and no addition of anything except raw energy. And I don't want to hear folks hiding behind the smoke screen of "but it will take millions of years."
Good article, and I agree: keep teaching Science. But be careful to distinguish between those who take the Bible literally and those who take it seriously. To take the Bible literally at all points is the equivalent of taking a large number of pieces of different jigsaw pieces, dumping them together and trying to fit them all into one huge final product. First of all, it can't be done, and secondly, any attempt to do so will produce a grotesque result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article talks about the "immorality" of the AiG efforts, and I agree. But Science cannot discover morality, and so if we are not to be left with complete relativism, in which any atrocity can be written off as "The Way They Thought About It," we have to look elsewhere for a standard by which to judge the Biblical literalists.
My own thinking on this is that there is something universal about being human that ties together all moralities, though they vary in their details.
I take the Bible seriously, but not literally. I deplore the dishonesty of the AiG folks, and feel that literal interpretation does violence to the Book which informs the whole of Christianity. Not all of us (40% of the population?) stick our heads in the sand and ignore facts and likelihoods. There are a great number of people of faith who believe that any established fact is in harmony with belief.
Thanks Ed. I too take the Bible very seriously. But, of course it is NOT all meant to be taken literally. It requires wisdom AND knowledge to tell the difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been very difficult in following the reasoning of Quizzical. Quizzical has defended himself as not being a biblical literalist, but he seems to have been greatly insulted by the author of this article that only discussed his concerns about biblical literalists such as those in the AiG Ministry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuizzical, answer these questions:
1. Do you believe that the Earth and the universe are literally 6,000 years old?
2. Do you believe that the Earth is literally older than all the stars in the universe?
3. Do you believe dinosaurs and humans literally lived side-by-side?
And I could go on and on with many more beliefs from a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible (as presented in the AiG museum).
From what you have stated, I would guess you would answer 'no' to all these questions. So why are you so defensive? The author explicitily stated science and religion are NOT incompatible. The author has not attacked the belief in a creator. He is only disturbed by people's literal belief in the Book of Genesis and the rejection of scientific evidence that Earth is more than 6,000 years old, etc.
Ed Holden said, "science cannot discover morality."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not quite sure what this means. Does this mean that morality can only arise from the Bible or religious beliefs? Does this mean that science can not explain how morality arose or evolved?
Also, where is there any mention of the "immorality of the AiG efforts" in this article? Was that in the printed article?
I too am a science teacher and the biggest messages I try to put through my teaching are observation, evidence and repeatability. Unfortunately if a student chooses to reject this approach then beliefs based on legends and mysticism take hold. All we can do is keep on pushing. We should not aim directly at creationism or any other "ism" because this sounds like persecution. When tackled with a scientific approach creationism falls flat so we need to teach the tools not the conclusions. This is especially so because in science teaching ideas are often simplifyed to match the cognitive level of the student (and often the teacher) and we do not want a situation where a student defends an idea with "Because my science teacher told me so". This is really no better than teaching creationism. The essence of scientific ideas is that they are not fixed but are constantly modified by new evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCramer, I always get riled when I seen anyone pushing some concept they probably know little about. I have seen both Christians and non-Christians doing this. That is NOT to say that I think I know more than they. It is just when I see obviously (to me) erroneous concepts being championed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, I have a DVD by a so-called Christian that pushes a naturalistic view of the Christmas Star. I have been studying astronomy and telescope building for over 4-1/2 decades and the astronomy he uses is basically correct. However none of his (astronomically correct) concepts match the Biblical details at all. He also calls on past editors of SciAm and Sky&Tel to write glowing reviews of his work. Since I have subscribed to both of these magazines for many decades, I know where they are coming from. I therefore consider him a fraud.
Another case in point. You may have heard the story of how NASA scientists were checking orbital mechanics in preparation for a new satellite. The computers stopped with a calculation error indicating a missing day. One Christian engineer pointed out that the sun stood still for Joshua for"about one day". And the sun "went back on the sundial of Ahaz about 10 degrees." That made up the full day! I immediately flagged that story as a fraud because I am fairly sure that there is no known accurate enough check point before the time of Joshua to use as a benchmark. I think that is a Fraud.
By the same token, when I hear of hypotheses that claim that Life may bubble out of any mud puddle that is in an environment mild enough to sustain life, I think that is a Fraud too. I get riled especially when so-called science teachers teach their philosophy of science instead of pure science.
You are right. My answer to your first two questions is "No." On question #3, i am not so sure. The oldest book of the Bible describes a dinosaur very well.
Again, I claim that beliefs about origins have NO adverse effect on doing good science.
Do you really think humans and dinosaurs lived side-by-side? LOL There's plenty of evidence from fossil records that dinosaurs were extinct 65 million yrs ago while humans evolved about 200 thousand yrs ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW that it would take millions of yrs for a chemical soup to organize into life is not a smokescreen. That is evident from fossil records as well. It really took that long for life to emerge from the chemical soup. The question is whether the laws of nature are enough to explain the phenomenon or it needs an intelligent being to put it all together.
Most scientists would prefer the natural explanation. But I can wildly speculate that ETs from another star went to earth to create life. That's less fantastic than an invisible being with supernatural powers beyond space and time. Of course that is also possible but requires more imagination.
"Science cannot discover morality"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should read the book "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer. It describes how morality evolved in humans from the perspectives of evolutionary psychology, anthropology and game theory.
"Since more than 40 percent of U.S. adults believe literally what is written in the Book of Genesis—that Earth and the universe were created in six days about 6,000 years ago"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is about as ridiculous of a statement as the one it is attacking. I am so disappointed this is on SciAm. Even if it is a blog, it shouldn't contain such ignorant statements.
Thanks, everyone for a great discussion. I've enjoyed reading your comments. I would like to add a few things:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe piece does not claim a contradiction between religion and science. In fact, most major religions accept evolution and an old Earth. Here is a quote from the Pope:
"[Creation and evolution] are presented as alternatives that exclude each other. This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such... above all [evolution] does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/
Surveys also show many scientists believe in a higher power. There is an entire spectrum of belief and much of it does not conflict with science. A conflict occurs when people try to fit a literal interpretation of all or part of Genesis with modern science. They conflict.
Several people questioned the 40% figure. I looked at several polls. Here are three in addition to the Gallup poll mentioned earlier in the comments. You can see how questions were worded. They are all somewhat different.
http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2010.07.15_Origin.pdf
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/
Clearly if folks believe that humans were created less than 10,000 years ago, there is a conflict with modern science. If people go a step further and state that the entire universe is less than 10,000 years old, as AiG does, then you have a greater conflict.
As an educator, I view the four-billion-year-old pattern of evolution followed by extinction--often due to environmental change--as an essential concept that all should understand as we enter the anthropocene, the epoch where human beings control the fate of the planet.
Sorry Quizzical, perhaps you should have phrased it differently, I must have misunderstood you, I think. Stem cell research was " a useful scientific endeavor" which was nearly "scuttled" and was limited by religious people who believe in creation, and that was what I thought you meant by "name one".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever I understand that you will twist every opinion until it favors your world view (fantasy) and you can not be open to logical reasoning if it doesn't agree with you.
Let me ask you a question and I ask all of you who "believe" in the bible. Why do you have the audacity to pick one historical book out of the many written in the distant past such as the Koran or the many writings from the old Chinese empires, and other "religions"(Hinduism, Budism to name a few) as the "true" one. The majority of the world population is not Christian and their many old scripts should have the same value as the one written by the "prophets" of a small roaming tribe of shepherds, who finally wrote down ancient tribe stories passed on (and distorted by time) by story tellers and songs only.
Did you read the article I recommended? We are having a great problem in the USA if fantasy stories are more important than reality to at least 40% of the population.
Then again, for you "fantasy" is reality, because you can bend it in any shape to suit your beliefs and you do not want to be uncomfortable or even panicked a reality that does not fit in your way of thinking. Tragic!
Benjowo, I think you may miss the crucial point about stem cell research. And that is, the resistance to that technology was ONLY related to the destruction of human embryos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know when you imagine that a Human Being becomes human. Many folks rightly believe that happens at conception. I say rightly because science tells us that before conception, you have only "parts", the "semi-code" of the egg cell and the "semi-code" of the sperm cell. Immediately after conception, you have an "assembly" and the "door" is immediately locked against further sperm cells. All that remains to happen is development. Different folks choose different points in that process to identify when someone becomes human. You may choose "attachment to the uterine wall", 1st trimester, 2nd or 3rd trimester, actual birth, when the cord is cut, when the child can talk, when the child can walk, - you get my point.
What is so twisted about that scientific explanation?
Regarding your question about "why the Bible?" Until you read it with an open mind, you will never know. You may have heard that the Bible states, "the heart of man is deceitful and above all, desperately wicked."
In this passage, the "heart" is NOT meant to be the pump in your chest. A better interpretation might be "mind".
The reference to being "desperately wicked" does NOT refer to being a murderer, rapist or thief. Those conditions are certainly included but they are symptoms, not causes.
To be "desperately wicked" simply means that one places their own mind (ego) and it's constructs above and before that of the Creator God.
Only the Bible outlines the state of mankind and the loving Creator God who has provided a solution to our deplorable state. Jesus Christ, being the Creator God, came to this planet to pay a debt He did not owe to redeem those who owe a debt we could never repay. No other "religion" does that.
You are right in saying that believing fantasy instead of reality is tragic. However, your question about ancient religious books indicates your abject ignorance of what any of them say.
I don't mind being accused of "twisted logic" but I would appreciate if you could clearly state exactly what you think I have twisted.
Quizical, I don't know why I even answer you because you have no capacity to listen or even understand any other facts that do not conform to your ideology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Spirit" originally means Breath, in spite of all the other meanings it has accumulated throughout the ages, look it up in the dictionary or thesaurus. latin "spiritus- breath"and "spirare-breathe". In Genesis God "breathes" life into Adam. Genesis 2 vs 7:"the Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a human being". Claiming that this was just a matter of symbolic speech is convenient and can be "twisted" to mean anything you wish, which is done with many Bible text but if you take the Bible literally you must believe it literally (by the way I do read the bible with a real "open mind". I was brought up Cristian Reformed and when through "Cristian" School systems, had to be able to recite Bible Quotes every week and went to church twice on Sundays and Sunday-school in between so don't you dare to assume and insinuate that I should read the bible. But that is typical of person like you who jumps to conclusions all the time to justify their point of view. By the way I "believe" you have read very little of the other old philosophies with an "open mind". To get back to "spirit". Up to the time that we learned more about it (Fault of Science I'm afraid). In Denmark they still open the window when someone dies to let the Spirit join the Great Spirit. The opinion up to the 19th century was that life began when the Baby took the first breath. We now know better and the debate is on "when does a fetus become human " but this should be a scientific debate and not a religious one, let's not give you a chance to divert from the topic of "why the Bible", as you are wont to do if you do not have a realistic answer to the topic at hand. A very familiar tactic of many religious people. Similar quotations you are using appear in many other old or older manuscript suggesting that there was some "fertilization" between them. Then there is your "twisting" again. You say " in this passage heart is NOT to be the pump in your chest. A better interpretation might be the mind" might be"? God told you that in a dream? In those day people thought the mind was located in the heart. If this was "God's Word" don't you think God should have known better? The bible was written by human beings with the knowledge they had at the time, not "God".I could go on and on but I have only a few Characters left. Answer"why the bible"?
I agree a literalistic reading of the creation accounts in Genesis is not necessary or even advisable. But I disagree such an understanding of human origins endangers our planet. I suspect the vast majority of the 40% you mention read God's command to care for creation (to say nothing of love for neighbor) very literally as well. Theologicans call it the cultural mandate. So, no worries on that front.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must disagree that Literalists are not dangerous. It is precisly the turn of mind that insists God hates Gay people, that the universe must be small enough for them to understand and exists primarily to be dominated by people who agree with them; because the Bible or Koran tells them so. Who also refuse to notice that the Bible says that God doesn't like them either for eating pork or shellfish or marrying their cousin or not bathing correctly; or that there is nothing in the Koran to forbid a girl going to school or a woman, like Mohamads first and favorite wife, running a business. As a well educated Roman Catholic I am always worried by people who pick and choose what to believe from the old ways, in order to claim some sort of "mandate" from God almighty. They are never in search of instruction on humility, or a mandate to not pass judgment and forgive. They insist on believing that they have the approval of God when they loudly proclaim how righteous they are and how God agrees with whatever they believe and didn't really mean any of that other stuff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe archeaological record and the histories of some of our modern stone age bretheren clearly show that a Dark Age can occur at any point in the history of a people. There are people in the Amazon river basin who find their stone tools lying around; they believe and rightly so that their ancestors left them there, but they don't know where to find the right stones or how to work them themselves. They are stone age peoples who have fallen into a dark age.
I think my fellow man has seen enough darkness,I think it's time to put willfull ignorance in it's place. Dogma is not a friend to faith or wisdom.
See comment 170, paragraphs 4-8.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuizzical, Its "twisting" time again. I am not really arguing with you but I am drawing responses out of you so other people can read your silly arguments. (wait, they are God given so they must be correct). When you read the Bible you interpret whatever you need to prove your point. Examples; "heart is NOT meant to be", "desperately wicked does NOT refer to","only the Bible outlines the state of mankind"."No other religion does that", Are some of your statements in comment #170. Who gives you the right to "interpret" the literally words in the Bible to suit your believes ( O jeah, God told you I bet)and are you such an expert in other religions that you can make that last statement? I bet you have not even read most of the tenets of other religions but perhaps some short version on the internet or encyclopedia. So I will ask you again: why the Bible over all other manuscripts without resorting to unfounded statements such as you made before.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's good to hear the Pope now accepts evolution. In the 19th century didn't the Church condemned Darwin? I hope Catholics will now accept evolution and teach it in their schools. Astronomers at Vatican also accept the Big Bang as the moment of creation right? It was a Catholic priest who proposed the big bang theory independently of Hubble in 1930s. The Church will have to open up to science to survive the 21st century.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskarenalcott,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an unlettered Traditional Roman Catholic, militant young-Earth Biblical creationist and geocentrist, your comment (173) has raised a number of issues that have obviously captured my attention.
Your concern regarding a literal approach to Scripture seems to me to be unjustified on several counts:
Anyone who hates homosexuals is not basing it on a literal acceptance of Scripture:
THE PROPHECY OF AMOS
5:15. Hate evil, and love good...
THE HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO SAINT MATTHEW
5:43. You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt
love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy.
5:44. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them
that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and
calumniate you:
Nor is a literal reading of Scripture to rejected out of hand:
THE PROPHECY OF ISAIAS
40:22. It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth,
and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that
stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them
out as a tent to dwell in.
[Catholic Bible. (c) 2000 CD. Douay Rheims translation. Murray, KY: A production of Catholic Software]
And finally:
"...[I]t is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred....For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author."
[POPE LEO XIII. 1893. PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, ENCYCLICAL ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, NOVEMBER 18, Sect. 15, PAPAL ENCYCLICALS ONLINE, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm]
Dr. Strangelove,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "It's good to hear the Pope now accepts evolution."
"Some will contend that the theory of evolution, as it is called—a theory which has not yet been proved beyond contradiction even in the sphere of natural science—applies to the origin of all things whatsoever. Accepting it without caution, without reservation, they boldly give rein to monistic or pantheistic speculations which represent the whole universe as left at the mercy of a continual process of evolution. Such speculations are eagerly welcomed by the Communists, who find in them a powerful weapon for defending and popularizing their system of dialectical materialism; the whole idea of God is thus to be eradicated from men's minds."
[Pope Pius XII. 1950. HUMANI GENERIS: Encyclical Letter on FALSE TRENDS IN MODERN TEACHING promulgated 12th August. In: FALSE TRENDS IN MODERN TEACHING. 1961. London: Catholic Truth Society, section 5—also available online: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html]
It isn't what religious people believe that offends me; it is that they are not satisfied just privately entertaining their notions about the meaning of life, in all its ramifications; they provoke my ill will by adamantly insisting that they are entitled to decide what the rest of us must do, or not do, in order to assure that they remain comfortable in their belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I suggest that your dissatisfaction be directed toward guys like J. Tannenbaum as well? It seems like everyone is tries to push their world view onto others. Why can't we all just live and let live? J.T. is the one who started this whole discussion by insisting that he knows best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, even God Almighty never forced any belief system on anyone - from Adam and Eve until the present. However, I also understand that there are very different consequences, depending on what we choose.
Chepahlis, you are absolutely right except what the religious right believes offends me greatly. because although Qiuzzical states that "even God almighty never forced any belief system on anyone" people of his ilk are influencing , right now, our future by electing people who are trying to legislate the "teaching" of nonsense to our children and undermining future scientific research. I wish that as he states "why can't we all just live and let live" was true then I could accept it. But Quizzical knows very well that his world view is being pushed on all of us. The religous right is very dangerous to our future if they are allowed to convince more people of their "world view" They have far to much influence on our politicians already. We did not elect the religious leaders who influence the elected ones already to the point that to be elected you must belong to an organized religion. No politician who declares to be non-religious, agnostic or atheist (these are swear words in their minds) would have a hope in hell (pardon the pun) to get elected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this8 quizzical: All of modern medicine would be would be scuttled by a belief in Creationism. All of modern medicine is based on evolution. So next time you get sick, go to a witch doctor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This article mentions how the 40% of Americans who do not believe in evolution happily use electricity, fly in airplanes, take hot showers, heat their homes, drive their cars, watch TV, and text their friends.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis disingenuous author fails to notice that NONE of these wonders of modern science is dependent on a belief in the current secular hypothesis of origins. "
The physics of electricity and flight require a constancy of the fundamental constants that the young Earth creationists propose as variable to fit geologic ages into 6000 years. The fossil fuels used to heat our homes and power our vehicles are successfully prospected for based on the understanding of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, and million of year old coal and oil deposits, not on a 6000 year time scale.
What is fundamentally and woefully lacking in the article and the Comments here is the element of FAITH, with which only the human species is uniquely blessed. With that frame of mind, kindly allow me also to bring the following to your mindful consideration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, when all is said and done in the physical sciences, why the concept of The First Cause, or a Creator God, though still beyond human understanding, and relegated to the abstract and metaphysical realm, now comes clearly within human reasoning and comprehension – based simply on the logic of our now better observable universe.
Serious fundamental research into the nature of things, invariably leaves one stranded, as it were, at the highly controversial gates of “The Designer, Who fixed it,” as the great fundamental physicist, the late Sir Fred Hoyle, once a militant atheist, and later turned believer, would tend to start his lectures in quantum mechanics at Oxford (ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDBw-0bqzB4).
Yet, to the physical man, the conditions at the extremities of space and time, and beyond, are totally outside observation...
Therefore, they will remain always speculative.
The cause for mass-energy and the asymmetry of its motion (the perpetual spin and vibration of nucleons and electrons), too, are beyond the scope of physics… Therefore, they will remain always metaphysical.
But then:
We see the order of things in and around us and call it the NATURAL ORDER.
And this observational domain of ours is finite.
That is to say, the space and time of our observations have bounds.
Therefore, at the extremities of our space and time, our natural order would interface with another order (or a series of order).
And all that is outside our observational limits will then be explained by this outside order, or EXTRANATURAL ORDER.
In the realm of this extranatural order, the fundamental physical laws, and hence the physics and the logic, will be different – since the extranatural order would account for all that is beyond our finite order.
In other words, the extranatural order will be superior to our natural order, or a SUPERNATURAL ORDER.
The photon particles of the cosmic background radiation (CBR), or the aether, of our observable order interfaces with this unobservable outside order.
Continued...
…Continued from above:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words, the mass-energy aether particle bridges the gap between the natural and the supernatural.
And do we not glimpse in this mass-energy aether particle what we would call an extension of the supernatural, or an attribute of Godhead: Perfect, indefatigable and eternal; of energy transcending space and time and even human comprehension; encoding very possibly the secrets of life and even of the brain itself; bridging the abyss between the natural order and the supernatural order –
A truly “God” Particle?
Moreover,
This fundamental aether particle, being the ultimate constituent of all mass and energy, as well as the mediating agent for all of the forces, of nature, in all probability, carries with it the “software” for all of biology.
The physical man is merely a finite number of these particles.
Collectively, these particles in man are able to lift his eyes to the sky above; and cause his lips to produce three of the simplest – yet stunning words – in deep, mindful enquiry:
Who Am I?
(perhaps, that’s also when he got his eternal soul and the gift of faith in a how-great-Thou-art Superior Being!)
The very fact that a product, in turn, could produce such an output about its producer…
speaks far more eloquently, and convincingly, than the countless volumes man already has on: THE MAKER.
Ref:
(1) http://www.sittampalam.net/MassEnergy.htm
(2) http://www.sittampalam.net/TheSpin.htm
Links open best with Internet Explorer.
Thank you all for the time, and to SA for the space here. Cheers!
www.toe.tv
The article is just one aspect of the U S culture, now the big thing is the 2nd amendment. People are going wild as usual about their rights to own guns, and manefesting their fears that the evil government is going to take their guns. Most of their thinking is the result of propaganda. And , like most propaganda, it is just lies designed to minipulate them. And, that is what they say science is, propaganda used to control them. And, to a larger extent, that is the U S A
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Mr Crofut, I find it difficult to credit any one who describes himself as Militant, with much understanding of the New Testament and I note that your Cannonical referances are somewhat outdated. I assume that you haven't gotten around to reading the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, Authorised by John Paul the II, copyright 1994 and based on the new revised Roman Catholic Bible of 1989. I here enclose some of what our church has to say about science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.
159 Faith and science : "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." (Dei Filius 4: DS 3017) "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (GS 36 ' 1)
You can find more here, ://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/cat-sci.html
There is nothing in the official Catechism that would dictate any restriction of science, save for a strog insistance that human experimentation must only occur with the informed consent of the subject and with the intent to do him good.
That said, my church has cults within it as do others, some like Opus Dei are officially tolerated others like Old Order are not, but they do not represent the Roman Catholic church.
Mr. Tanenbaum laments the fact that "40 percent of the American electorate seems to have forgotten what science is." However, is it possible that some define science and scientific process with an awareness of its philosophical foundation. This foundation includes a set of presuppositions-- e.g. affirmation of the existence of objective reality, the operation of 'cause and effect', and the belief that repeatability of experimental outcomes should be expected because natural processes are governed by certain 'natural laws' that do not change from day to day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly, when we consider the philosophical context of what we call 'natural science' (once called 'natural philosophy'), we suddenly realize that 'natural science', as the name implies, has limits in its attempt to explain phenomena in the world around us--in short what is the extent of the 'real world.' For those who credit natural science with limitless powers to know all of reality (i.e. "all we see is all there is"), there is no choice but to deny 'supernatural causation'-- for example, the existence of a Creator (personal or impersonal) that has intervened from outside the 'natural' operation of the 'laws of nature.'
Many including Mr. Tanenbaum base their critique of the origin of life on the 'naturalistic philosophy' or worldview. Instead of acknowledging a 'supernatural' power or being as the creator, naturalistic scientists attribute great power to the laws of matter and energy operating through successive chance occurrences over billions of years.
I submit that many in Mr. Tanenbaum's "40 percent" are simply not willing to believe that life can be explained entirely by undirected natural causes--that in fact, science, instead of 'explaining it all' is actually capable of explaining only a portion. Like Jim Carrey's character in The Truman Show, some are willing to allow for a reality outside the sphere of that which is defined by naturalistic science.
But naturalistic science has another philosophical problem; one that both naturalistic and supernaturalistic scientists must reckon with; namely, the fact that no one was there to observe the creation of the first organic molecules, the first genes, the first cells, or the fossils in rock strata such as those of the Grand Canyon. Therefore, I suggest that both naturalistic evolutionary scientists and supernatural creation scientists must exercise caution is their attempts to explain the origin of life. Instead, each should read the others' writing and research and strive for honest, respectful dialogue.
Can we bring this discussion back to the original article. Should we let the righteous religious right allow the teaching of nonsense such as a supernatural believe in the creation of the world and its inhabitants to "counteract" the teaching of well researched and proven science there by undermining the education of our young people in a world where the believe in the supernatural create such excesses as trying to force laws upon us (same sex marriage, homophobia, limiting stem-cell research etc. etc.). We have already a problem with non-religious belief in the supernatural (astrology, phsycics swindling people, end of the world "prophets", conspiracy nuts, etc. etc.). At least the latter group does not try to foist crazy laws upon us but the religious right keeps on trying. How do we stop them? It is no laughing matter. My grand children have to live in this world and I fear that they will have to live under religious persecution. History is filled with that. I keep writing to this forum because I am very afraid of the future if they get more power than they already have. Aren't you? They are sure of themselves because they have "God" on their side. I wish that I could claim the support of an Almighty Fantasy Figure too One who's existence I cannot prove but I "know" exists because I "believe" he/she does. I know for sure because he/she appeared in my dreams or I have that special feeling in my Heart (sorry Quizical) "heart" does NOT mean the muscle pumping blood but I am sure it meant "Mind" instead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFootnote: if you don't understand this last remark read all of Quizzical's comments and I hope you will read mine as well. I leave it up to you to decide who makes more sense.
Love to see a survey of that. I bet that, sadly and alarming, according to some stats. 40% would agree with Quizzical's non-sense ( hyphen placed there deliberately) because they "believe". How many "rational people are there left? How can we increase that number? Through science education, not by giving illogical knowledge as an alternative to "chose" from.
Dear Benjowo, I am also frightened by those who claim to be full of faith, yet cannot stand anyone else believing something else. These are the very people who would like to push our species into another Dark Age, rather than face their own lack of real faith. Anything to spare themselves from having to risk rethinking their own beliefs. The Inquisition is nothing to aspire to, let the truth set us free.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf anyone is being "disengenuous," it's "Quizzical,"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisseizing on isolated words, rather than on concepts, in a facile attempt to refute Tanenbaum's plea.
The author's point is simply that Flat Earthers can fly in an airplane, dependent on the science and engineering of aerodynamics, despite doubting the similar scientific basis for discoveries, theories and hypotheses that have analyzed evolutiion.
It takes persistently studied cognitive dissonance to convince otherwise "smart monkeys" that up is down, black is white.
In various venues around the U.S., including Pennsylvania, Kansas, and Arkansas, courts have determined that teaching "creationism," or "Intelligent Design" involves taxpayers being saddled with an unconstitutional burden of paying for religious indoctrination in schools, to the exclusion of actual science. I expect Texas will be next, given the appointment of Latter Day Know Nothings to its body that determines curricula and textbook purchases.
I've visited the Creation Museum myself. I was astonished at the appalling ignorance displayed therein. Even the adult visitors seemed mostly as credulous as five year olds at a Disney park, Santa's Workshop or a "Haunted House," deeply believing in Mickey, elves or ghosts.
It was as commercial a venue as could be found, hucksterism selling hundreds of pricey children's books and scores of videos meant to inculcate ever more fanciful explanations to enable youngsters to disbelieve evidence of their own eyes.
Its success depends on P.T. Barnum's observation:
"There's a sucker born every minute."
I found it particularly ironic that the theme park was open on weekends, though employees were required to swear belief in the literal truth of whatever version of the Bible they favor. The cafeteria had lovely dishes with Biblical names: Diners could feast on shrimp or pork, despite prohibitions in Leviticus.
A visit to the museum's website shows they also push anthropogenic global warming denialism based on some Panglossian delusion that ours is the best of all possible worlds, with man-made disasters but a myth to distract us from their collective bizarre "reality."
Those anti-science efforts are most disturbing, particularly when supporters of evolution studies and ostensible libertarianism, like David H. Koch, in the interest of property tax reduction, support politicians who would turn public schools into American Taliban-operated madrassas, ridding them of such "impediments" to ignorance or social responsiblity as the teaching of world history or sex education.
Hear, hear, Pancho, but I am afraid you are throwing pearls to the swine. They will not listen, but we can prevent them from teaching our children the creationists' nonsense and we must!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKarenalcott (comment 187),
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my personal description, militant is followed by young-Earth Biblical creationist.
Re: "...I note that your Cannonical referances are somewhat outdated."
If you mean by outdated Cannonical references, the quote from Providentissimus Deus, you might wish to cite any official teaching document of the Roman Catholic Magisterium that has abrogated it. You might also be interested in this quote from the same document:
"There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.'' [51] If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so." [Section 18]
Kudos to Jacob Tanenbaum for continuing to teach science, not belief. Equating the mythology of creationism with evolutionary theory is not only an affront to science, but, more importantly, an affront to our young people. We do a great disservice to future generations when we fail to educate students as to the way scientific methods can help us to understand the universe in which we live, and instead, indoctrinate young people with statements which are not subjected to, nor with any intention to subject to, rigorous proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt’s interesting how many people have come to discredit the Bible even though they have never read it. What does the Bible really say? Genesis 1:1 says: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. It does not say when that beginning was. It could have been trillions of years ago. So when scientists say the earth is 16 billion years old, that does not contradict with the Bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, what about the 6 creative days, were those 24 hour periods? Genesis 1: 3-31 describes how God prepared the already existing earth for human habitation. It does not say that these were 24-hour days. The Hebrew word translated “day” has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, MI; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used, allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length. Moreover, it is not unusual for a person to refer to “his grandfather’s day”, meaning that one’s entire lifetime. Thus, the Bible has used the term “day” to describe an extended period of time. See 1 Peter 3:8. Hence, the “days” of Genesis chapter one could reasonably be thousands of years long.
On the other hand, you are accusing creationists of the very same thing evolutionists are guilty of! This is how the “scientific method” works: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Obviously this theory cannot be tested. At best, and the most obvious way is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another really happened. Does the fossil record prove this gradual change? No. The truth is, the sudden appearance of animal kinds in the fossil record supports special creation, much more than it does evolution. Evolutionists have been looking for the “missing link” for decades now. Have they found it? No. Without a doubt, this renders the evolution theory as nothing more than a theory, not a fact, even though it’s taught as fact. And therein lies the real danger.In reality it is more dangerous for a nation to hide the truth and teach mere speculations as facts, as opposed to rejecting a supposed scientific theory.
As a computer pgmr, I believe if you take a simple computer program & toss the code in the air. No matter how many years you keep doing that, you'll never get the right sequence. Keep in mind that an inteligent designer wrote that program.
albeers,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease explain to me what evolutionism has to do with the scientific method. For example, what is the scientific method that resulted in the following statement (which, for me, has all the earmarks of dogma):
“...(birds are descended from dinosaurs)...”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/20/dinosaur-cells-discovery-t-rex-fossil_n_1988988.html
gsabbag,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, any time the Hebrew word, yom (day), is used with an ordinal number, it can only mean a day consisting of 24 hours. The Hexameron in Genesis is the primary example of that; for example:
1:5. And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night;
and there was evening and morning one day.
[Catholic Bible. (c) 2000 CD. Douay Rheims Translation. Murray, KY: A production of Catholic Software]
Well said Wooster6. Thank you for clearly dissecting the uneasiness that many Christians feel toward naturalistic worldviews, even when educated in science and philosophy. The underlying, and disturbing, claim I hear within many of these comments is: Since we now understand the natural laws that give functional integrity to our universe, we can say with certainty that no author of natural laws is necessary, everything came from nothing, and all this order is by chance. This leap from our reasonable understanding of evolution to giant metaphysical claims is so without merit…so non sequitur. Evolution does not provide a claim for or against a creator, nor allow one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA.C. Kerr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "Evolution does not provide a claim for or against a creator, nor allow one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
"I personally do not see how the concept of evolution can be made consistent with that of creation by a personal god [sic, God], or indeed any sort of god...[T]he defiance of the Lord God was original sin, and this sin is the one which every scientist worthy of the name is dedicated to uphold."
[Prof. L. Beverly Halstead. 1984. Evolution: The fossils say yes! In: Ashley Montagu, Editor. Science and creationism. Oxford University Press, pp. 240-242]
"...[A]lthough atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
[Prof. Richard Dawkins. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, p. 6]
As an engineer, I know that highly complex systems do not occur by chance. I fail to see how belief in naturalistic evolution has anything to do with applied science or technology. Why bother to design anything, if the natural tendency is for things to evolve?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't need Genesis to inform me that unguided Darwinistic evolution is impossible.
No scientist has ever shown that life can arise from non-living matter. Consider the complex mechanisms of even a single cell bacterium, plus the immense amount of data contained in the DNA. Francis Crick proposed that life was brought to earth by aliens from a distant galaxy. Even Richard Dawkins believes this. Is this this where "true" science leads us?
Nobody has shown how complex organs and systems could really evolve by random chance. All we hear are fairy tales and imaginary scenarios.
No scientist has explained how animal instincts evolved. How did fish, birds, and butterflies learn to migrate thousands of miles? Where are the gene mutations that produce instinct evolution?
Consider also that most of the early fathers science were Christians and believed in creation. Creation is not anti-science. It is only anti-naturalist-science.
"Science" as we know it now is defined as naturalistic materialistic science, so obviously it will not recognize anything supernatural. A huge amount of anti evolution scientific evidence is systematically suppressed and censored by the scientific community.
The statement, “they cherry pick” science is also true that people cherry pick religion for the same reason “they cherry pick” science. People tend to at some level use a combined view of religion and science to justify their actions, beliefs and view of politics, emotions, financial welfare, education and the list goes on. The debate over science and religion seems to have well defined lines. However, small bodies of people are coming to the conclusion that maybe the debate is wrong. Many scientists are like one side of a coin and religious people are the other side of the coin. The true worth of any coin is the base metal and the economic cost to make the coin. Therefore, the true worth of science and religion may lay somewhere between the two sides of the debate. As when the bible was originally written, people then and today have a very difficult time understanding certain concepts, we therefore tend to over simplify ideas, which over time takes on a life of its own. People then believe the overly simplified ideas and turn them into reality. If god is eternal, why would the creation of earth take just seven days? Maybe creation took seven billion years or more. The bible states god created all life forms, maybe he allowed some to go extinct. The LDS church believes men have agency to make the right and wrong decisions in life. If we assume god made all the laws of science and allows people to discover them, then, all life forms and the universe would have randomness included. This would be the case for the fossil records and past extinctions, god may simply be sitting back watching where things go with small incremental adjustments along the way. Maybe god includes the idea that humans will eventually will go extinct if we continue to make the wrong decisions in life. Maybe past extinctions are a lesson to humans and we simply ignore pre-human lessons, just as we ignore past lessons of human history. We "cherry pick" the lessons we want to trust and beleive, randomness at it grandest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeep backing yourself into a corner, quizzical. By this point your ilk have been reduced to arguing a biological scheme more ugly, more complicated, and less predictive than any geocentric model that was ever concocted to account for ever more precise observations of the motion of the planets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you are not concerned with knowledge and seem to have traded in your Occam's razor for a hedge trimmer, it is not surprising that you fail to understand the telos of -- the basic motivation behind -- doing science. It is not -- nor has ever been -- technological progress. It is understanding the universe.
Let me sum it up for you like this. Whereas your ilk wants to believe in this:
dogma --> endless rationalizations when confronted with facts by people actually doing science --> certain technological progress!!!
This is what the history of science actually shows:
curiosity --> theory --> possible technological breakthroughs.
for "a christian trained in engineering" you seem sufficiently incompetent at operating your computer to write a fatuous comment without posting it twice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, one thing is for sure Tanenbaum...If you're right, no biggie. If you're wrong, you're screwed. Either way you'll know for sure the second you pass away. As a matter of fact, the same is true for all of us. Just sayin....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill_Crofut – Assuming by militant, you figuratively refer to yourself as one who aggressively argues your beliefs, I respect your position. In fact your self-description as a militant young earth creationist brings a smile to my face. However, I humble ask you to consider that God sometimes uses physical processes to enact His will, such as using a strong east wind to push back the waters of the Red Sea. You should also consider that mankind once believed in a flat earth since we had a poor understanding of gravity and outer space. It is reasonable to believe we still to not have a full understanding of our universe and reality. Finally, you should consider that St. Augustine, when considering the full implications of a timeless God and with full respect of Genesis, came to the conclusion that creation was an instantaneous act. With this in mind, I ask you to consider that both evolution and Genesis may both be true. As a geologist, I used the thought experiment at- https://sites.google.com/site/bookwwg/home/thought-experiment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-to help with this apparent dilemma. As for your quote of Prof. Halstead, I commonly see this error assuming evolution is random, assuming a creator existing outside of our universe is confined to our timeline, when even our GPS satellites are not confined to our timeline. Both Augustine and Einstein would chuckle at this narrow view of reality.
What error do you refer to in comment 205 regarding "assuming evolution is random"? Unless I misinterpret your point, may I remind you that the source of all evolution is "random mutations"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember, Dawkins claims,"the watchmaker is blind."
We would agree, natural selection is not random. But, the mutations on which natural selection operates definitely ARE random.
Therefore, is not the entire concept of evolution based on a random foundation, despite what many folks continually try to claim otherwise?
Quizzical – You have held up well against many within these comments and are correct that mutations appear as a random occurrence. However, I propose to you that random to us is constrained to the end product of His will. A timeless God would have created the first and last moment of this universe in full view. God has already ordained and witnessed the future. I disagree with those who believe in God, but diminish Him as constrained to the physical laws of this universe. Only from our limited perspective can someone claim the watchmaker is blind. Unfortunately, it is the created that are blinded by pride thinking they see in full. Each month, Scientific American publishes articles from 50 and 100 years ago revealing how great is our blindness…that we do not yet see in full. This is why I am bothered by those that attempt to refute evolution because we do not know how life began, or because of our limited understanding of the mechanisms. As these unknowns become know, it falsely diminishes the truth you believe in. Similarly, scientists often overstate our knowledge of evolution to prove a philosophical point…and so articles such as this from Jacob Tanenbaum incite great angst and commentary ranging far and wide through science, philosophy, and theology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuizzical - And consider what it is that makes something random. What we consider as random occurrences in reality are the result of the same cause and effects following the laws of nature to which all occurrences are subject. We only refer to them as random since they are too complex to scientifically trace back though all the cause and effects. Take the random flip of a coin. It has an initial position, a quantifiable force placed upon it, a quantifiable spin and trajectory, that if all considered, could be used to predict the outcome. Mutations are only random because of our inability to trace back all the biochemical reactions cause and effects. So what Mr. Dawkins is really claiming is that because we are unable to trace the cause and effects of this complex occurrence, neither is a creator. Glad I am not taking comfort in that logic. In total, as random becomes predictable with the advance of science, so do miracles become relegated to the providence of God due to the same advance of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA.C. Kerr (comment 200),
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's no question in my mind that God can/does use physical processes to enact His Will. However, regarding the parting of the Red Sea, the only informational source we have of the occurrence is Revelation. Scripture tells us God used wind, but only after commanding Moses to act (He insisted on Moses' physical cooperation):
And when Moses had stretched forth his hand over the sea, the Lord took it away by a strong and burning wind blowing all the night, and turned it into dry ground: andthe water was divided. (Exodus 14:21)
Yet, even if the wind was used by God for more than drying out the sea bed, there's no indication that wind was the cause of retention:
And the children of Israel went in through the midst of the sea dried up; for the water was as a wall on their right hand and on their left. (Exodus 14:22)
Regarding the flat-Earth assertion, one must obviously go farther back in history than 785 years B.C. to verify it:
THE PROPHECY OF ISAIAS
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. (Isaias 40:22)
[All Scripture taken from: Catholic Bible. (c) 2000. Douay Rheims translation. Murray,
KY: A production of Catholic Software]
According to the information available to me, St. Augustine was the only Church Father who proposed Creation as instantaneous. The rest of the Church Fathers accepted the Hexameron as the period of Creation.
The only reason for using the Halstead quote was to show the anti-Christian tenor of the evolutionary hypothesis.
I believe in a creator, as an intelegent being with 60
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscredits in math and physics, with two years of philosophy
and four years of theology. What evolution does not teach
is the purpose of life. What Jacob Tanenbaum will not
teach is why God created us. In a parochial school in the
first grade we learned that God created us to know Him, to love Him, to serve Him and be happy with Him forever.
Him, to love Him
To A.C.Kerr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for further unpacking the term "random." Perhaps terms like "disorder" or "entropy" would have been better.
It is a bit like dumping a truck load of one million child's blocks out onto a smooth level spot. Even though the laws of physics concerning these blocks are well known, the exact circumstances of each block are, as you point out, too numerous and complex to tally. Therefore, the resulting pile could reasonably be said to be a "random" bunch of disordered blocks.
But, one thing is for SURE. After the truck dumps the load of blocks, it can be GUARANTEED that they will NOT end up in a nicely ordered cubical stack, 100 blocks on a side. This is perhaps a crude analogy of what I meant by "random."
Dawkins' concept of the "Blind Watchmaker" claims that mutations are NOT guided by a vision of the future, but are simply sorted out later by natural selection. I find that hypothesis quite untenable due to the extremely slow process of accumulation of random but beneficial mutations and the propensity for any changes to be diluted and lost in the genetic pool.
I believe in a creator as one who has majors in physics,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismath, philsophy and theology. I understand Jacob Tanenbaum plight with those who believe in the literal
translation of the bible when it comes to creation.
Evolution is a theory and I go along with their theory.
Somehow a soul was infused in man along the way.
John Romanoski
To Quizzical
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe geology associated with a 6000 year old earth would not enable discovery of petroleum.
and in response to your next posting in which you imply that you know why I support evolution as a sound scientific concept, you don't know me and you don't have any idea why I think the way that I do
John, you can believe what ever you want. Folks always do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbuckosu, Regarding your comment about what you think I implied about what I think you support, it would help if you would note the comment number you are referring to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are certainly correct. I do not know you and cannot recall any comments you may have made before. Unfortunately, I can not read minds.
Actually, yes. Belief in creation does detract from one's ability to do science. Evolution underlies the entire field of biology. Good luck trying to treat cancer if you throw out the genetics. Good luck fighting anti-biotic resistant bacteria if you reject natural selection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd that's nowhere near the end of it. In addition to the widespread use of index fossils, the entirety of geology depends on an earth that is billions of years old. Nothing would make any sense with only millions, much less 6000 years. Good luck searching for oil while rejecting everything science says about how it forms, or trying to combat climate change.
Even that's not the end. A 4.5 billion year old Earth is based on evidence from EVERY field of science. Not only would they have to be wrong, they'd have to be VERY wrong.
Rejecting radiometric dating means rejecting nuclear physics along with the atomic clocks and numerous pieces of advanced medical equipment based on it. Anything to do with radiation really.
Ignoring the billions of years old light coming from distant stars throws out special and general relativity, which our GPS satellite and linked computers depend on in addition to those atomic clocks.
You have to throw out all that seafloor chemistry too, and magnetic striping from reversal of the earth's poles has to go as well, meaning electromagnetism is wrong too. Even gravity needs drastic revision to explain the trajectories of planets and galaxies, and the life cycle of stars. And this is all just for the claim of a young earth. This isn't even touching the other literalist nonsense.
Creationism is not only opposed to every aspect of science, it is fundamentally opposed to the CONCEPT of scientific inquiry. The idea of changing beliefs to match observable evidence.
Yes a creationist can still hypocritically use the fruits of science, but you'll have a hard time generating new scientists with creationists trying to destroy science education.
@ John Romanaski
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm always baffled how anyone with a knowledge of physics and/or philosophy could believe in any gods. Physics leaves only the possibility of an undetectable deistic god, and even basic logic or philosophy, that such a god is synonymous with non-existant.
This view is precisely what the author is trying to address. You are specifically cherry-picking the convenient aspects of science, the one's that give you electricity, mobile phones and cars, and rejecting the ones you find inconvenient.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is a cohesive process. The knowledge gained by science is not a platter of food for you to pick and choose from, but rather an intertwined carpet of knowledge.
You claim that evolution doesn't help turn on your lights and you're right. But what you are doing is undermining the entire scientific process. If the public as a whole has the ability to ignore science on any issue it chooses, what else can they ignore? They are certainly doing an excellent job of ignoring global warming. The problem with the public not accepting evolution is not that it will magically stop the electricity. The problem is it undermines science's ability to inform the public on pressing issues, because it gives the people the impression that they can simply ignore science if it's inconvenient for them. And evolution is also intertwined intrinsically with DNA, drug-resistant bacterial strains and more. Evolution has real modern impact, just because you choose to ignore those instances does not make them disappear.
In an attempt to undermine the author, you are in fact highlighting the problem the author is addressing. Your willingness to exploit or ignore science at your own discretion is precisely what the author is trying to fight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJReagan in reference to comment #217. “I'm always baffled how anyone with a knowledge of physics and/or philosophy could believe in any gods. Physics leaves only the possibility of an undetectable deistic god, and even basic logic or philosophy, that such a god is synonymous with non-existent.” Reply: Your comment suggests that you appear to see much more clearly and contrary to the legions of philosophers and scientists through the ages that have struggled with the concept of God. From the ancient Greek philosophers such as Paramindes, who challenges philosophers to this day with his assertion that nothing comes from nothing, through Bacon and Descartes; and though scientists such as Newton, Pascal, and Mendel; and though renowned living philosophers such as Rescher. Even Freud, an avowed atheist, struggled with the concept of God and noted the sometimes-convincing arguments for Christianity. These men stand against your clarity of thought. Please use this clarity of thought to educate us on how a universe with functional integrity disproves the existence of a loving God; educate us on the origin of the laws of physics; and enlighten us on why there is not nothing.
BobBurgess, regarding your comment #218.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is interesting how worked up and hot and bothered some folks get when there is any mention of Creation!
As I have pointed out before, I love science and I believe in evolution. As a crude analogy, may I say that I know that a pile of logs evolves into a pile of ash with the application of a match. I simply do not believe that a pile of logs ever evolves into a wooden house - even in the presence of an inactive carpenter with the right tools. I trust you can see the difference.
All the points you make are well taken but they ALL describe how things operate. That is the realm of science. However, none of those items speak of origins. That is the realm of philosophical hypotheses. Somehow for many folks, these two quite different concepts are mixed together like sugar in cool aid.
So, tell me again how doubting the PHILOSOPHICAL HYPOTHESIS of "something from nothing" by undirected chance and natural means, detracts in any way from the true study of real science.
If guys like Tanenbaum would stick to teaching real science and stop conflating that with unproven philosophical hypotheses of origins, we would not be having this discussion.
Just another thought: You have probably heard how supernovas seeded the Universe with the heavier elements that make life possible. I have, by the way, photographed several of these occurrences with my handmade telescopes. I am not arguing their distances or the time it may have taken for these flashes to reach my detectors.
My question is: If the universe was birthed in the biggest bang of all, why do we need puny supernovas to create the heavier elements that "make life possible"?
TO those who wonder about creation. There is a new book out by Robert E Ryan called "The Search". It explains creation on a scientific level and religious level. It will show you how science agrees, usings its own theories
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand logic, to show a creator formed the Universe. Useing the writeings of Steven Hawking to prove it. As stated in his book,The Universe in a Nutshell and a Brief History of Time, to have a begenning to anything, you have to have creation, thus a creator to do it. what ever you call him. Video trailer is on you tube. CHECK IT OUT.
People of religion are not environmentally irresponsible. Infact they believe that they are accountable for their life and will be questioned about their time here. It is science, and not religion, that has been indirectly responsible for global warming, acid rain and the erosion of the ozone layer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe people who believe that our existence on Earth is so tenuous should do something about it, rather than contenting themselves with just shouting about it. They should stop using cars, planes and electricity and stop producing atomic weapons.
The wonders of of modern technology belong to the whole of humankind and do not belong to any individual or group. From amongst the millions who invented, developed and manufactured the myriad of modern products; many, if not most, had religious beliefs.
Science has enabled a comfortable life and produced marvellous gadgets. It has gained a lot of respect in the modern world. Therefore, everyone wants to attach themselves to the name and some present their ideas, theories and research as science when they are obviously not.
Evolution is definitely not science. Ok, so fossils and bones have been found and dated. This only proves that at a particular time, a particular creature existed at a particular place. It does not prove that the creature evolved from a different species or evolved into a different species.
If mankind travelled to the planet of another star and discovered a dining table laden with a three-course feast, they would rightly conclude that some intelligent being must exist or must have existed. Here on Earth, archeaologists at a historical dig finding a suitably shaped stone, say that it must have been made by some intelligent creature. Human beings are much more complex, amazing and distinctive than the above examples. Yet, some people continue to insist that humans are not the creation of an intelligent being.
I guess I should not use the word "infused."But that
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod created man as body and soul. The way it is used
in Genesis.
All you evolutionists should read the book,"The
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin Myth: The Life And Lies of Charles Darwin."
By Benjamin Wiker, PH.D.Published by Regnery
Publishing,Inc. of Washington,DC
You have inadvertently misrepresented one detail regarding the AIG presentation at their Creation Museum: Noah saved all the "Biblical kinds" of animals from which all of today's species have arisen by natural selection. Since this would be an unacceptable rate of evolutionary development, the point is moot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough I do not accept Young Earth points of view as either Biblical or scientific, I would like to point out a few things:
1. There is a difference between the processes of experimental sciences, that can look for reproducibility of existing things, and origins science, which must extrapolate ideas about one-time events in the distant past, a science closer to forensic science than the kind of science that has produced airplanes, hot showers, etc.
2. Observations in science lead to hypotheses, which then leads to experiments to determine if accurate predictions can be made based on these hypotheses. A creationist hypothesis can lead to predictions regarding the nature of future findings, as may be seen in the work of Hugh Ross' "Reasons to Believe."
3. Your 5th paragraph characterizations of the logical outcome of literalist beliefs is not accurate, and as such is a "star-man" argument. Similarly, such assertions fall into the domain of philosophic or religious debate, not scientific. One could argue that creationists may as likely believe that our own failures in stewardship of the creation could bring about "the end of days."
Finally, I suspect that many scientifically minded creationists could agree with your closing sentence.
As a scientist I strongly disagree with his opinion that “creationists begin with answers and work to prove the answers are right”. I suggest the opposite is true and he is mixing “historical science” with “operational science”. Both the creation theory and the evolution theory is based on historical interpretations. Neither was observed directly and both require acceptance of a supernatural event to explain how Earth might have arrived at its current form in the first place. Operational science deals with current physical laws that can be readily observed, tested and understood. I also disagree with his statement “an ancient fossil record that shows that more than 99 percent of the species that once lived are now extinct”. Living examples from all genus and species of plants and animals have been found that match sedimentary fossils. However conventional science has given fossils different genus and species identifications suggesting many species thought to be extinct are still living. Many examples of fossils found in the Mesozoic layers match living species indicating they lived with dinosaurs. Recent geological events like the 1980 Mt. St. Helen eruption demonstrating extreme geological disruptions in short time periods and laboratory evidence suggest conventional thinking of slow sedimentary fossils formation cannot be supported. The geological column conventionality used to date fossils does not exist anywhere in nature and is only a linear interpretational representation based on opinions of geologists. Current science with discoveries of such items as short half-life C12 in diamonds and existence of Po and U238 radiohalos together in granite do not support ancient dates of sedimentary fossils and suggest ages of thousands not millions or billions. Darwin did not have the benefit of modern genetic research with its statistically impossible quantity of DNA information demonstrating life could not have happened by accidental mutation accumulation. Complex organisms have been found in all layers of conventional geological formations including the earliest Cambrian and Precambrian layers but no transitional fossils, contradicting evolution theory. Facts are stubborn things and ignoring them to avoid disruption of accepted theories will “threaten our existence on this old Earth”. Unlike its opposite, creation theory is supported by observable facts and not perpetuation of wishful theories taught as true science. The facts are there and as ethical scientists we cannot ignore them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert Bellin
Vangard Research Inc.
This article illustrates the fact that one can not even trust a teacher to be well informed and accurate about what they are talking about. Always be wary of the "know it alls". Most do not know what they are talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you Jacob Tanenbaum! Judging by the content of many of the comments it should be clear to anyone with an open mind that you have proven your point quite convincingly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are at least 17 billion earths in our galaxy alone. On a strictly linear chronological dataset there has been an earth created at least every 3 months for billions of years. There is a tremendous number of earths that are about 6,000 years old. There is an infinity of universes created by our Infinite, Eternal, Omnipotent God. An unimaginable number of universes were being created about 6,000 years ago. These universes among other atributes are parallel. Small boys play in one universe on one earth with dinosaurs on other earths in parallel universes grazing nearby. There has been only one ice age in recorded history prior to the little ice age of Europe from 1300-1600 AD, lasting a few hundred years as that one. The Black Sea was flooded by the waters rushing in. There was global warming, then as now, and the icecaps melted fast, then as now. Thanks to a few intelligent, enterprising humans, domesticated and wild animals, and crop seeds were saved, thereby enabling the agricultural revolution which started in the middle east about 9,000 BC to continue. Modern scientists are proving the Bible. Modern scietntists are like the Apostle Thomas who neede to put his hand into Christ's Side and feel the wounds in His Hands to believe. The Bible proves evolution. The Bible evolved. We should pay attention to the complete Bible not just Genesis. We may scientifically assume that on at least 1 billion Earths in the Milky Way there is multicellular, advanced, intelligent, potentially spacefaring life. God created us to be all over the place. This proves that we, all of us, on the billion Earths, are God's favorites. We are the species that is sensitive to the universe and the infinity of universes. Darwin discovering evolution was his discovering what the Bible has said, the entire Bible, not just the first few chapters of Genesis. THe Bible said numerous times there were more stars in the heavens than there were grains of sand in all the seashores of the world. THe Greeks said there were only 2 thousand stars. In the last 10 years scientists have estimated there are about 10X more stars in the observable universe through our most powerful telescopes than there are grains of sand in all the seashores of the world. The Bible is right on the mark. The Bible numerous times mentions mountains turning into deserts, deserts turning into seas, the earth's features changing over time. The Bible is right on the mark.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCommentary on the article by Jacob Tanenbaum
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Creation, Evolution and Indisputable Facts”
By Anna Nesterova-Liers, Ph.D.
Having been educated under completely atheistic approach to science in the former Soviet Union, and after a twenty year experience of teaching general biology at a variety of New York Colleges, I seem to have arrived to a working model answering the major question of this article.
Why struggle to separate the views of biblical literalists from the scientific theory of evolution when they exist in parallels and do not really intersect one another? I never inquire or object to any one’s beliefs in their own spiritual world, in what ever makes folks feel secure and inclusive into their social group, be it a unique religion, Harry Potter or Spaghetti Monster. Similar to how genetic variation provides for higher resilience of populations, diversity of backgrounds and belief systems accounts for a more exiting and receptive classroom environment.
The key of my approach is to spend enough time at the beginning of each semester to go over the specificity of scientific method, - how fundamentally it is different from any religion or philosophy, stands on its own and is shared by scientists of all countries and various theistic or atheistic backgrounds. Starting from which questions are based on observations of material world and which are not, which hypotheses are testable and falsifiable, and which are not, what gives credibility to scientific theories and how they are subject to change in the light of new evidence or within different system of coordinates, and how science does not accept dogmatic thinking. The students practice to induce their own scientific hypotheses and test them deductively, analyzing their predictions to either confirm or reject their original “educated guess”. In a way, there is no such kind of thing as “indisputable facts” in science, one of the scientific clues being to never stop questioning. Many examples are available and are included in the curriculum like the change in understanding of the atom from the smallest particle of matter to Rutherford’s Planetary to Bohr’s Quantum model.
Only after my audience feels relaxed enough and understands that science is not a danger to their inner world of beliefs, but an important method of manipulating the material world to benefit our survival as a species, we can safely move to discussion of the theory of evolution as the unifying theme in biology. Like any other scientific theory it stands true until proven wrong. Every evidence we’ve found till now and every new discovery, - be it a Devonian “fishapod” Tiktaalik, a unique biochemistry of Archaea, or a fraction of Neanderthal DNA in our own genome, support it again and again. They all fit perfectly into the modern theory of evolution like pieces into a jig-saw puzzle. The part I find stimulating and exciting is to provoke the students to induce any objections to evolution they can think of, and then train them to use their newly acquired knowledge to refute those objections.
With a passion I support Jacob Tanenbaum’s concern and the importance to educate the rest 40% of the American electorate about what science is and that our actions have global consequences. Science is the tool that allows the sustainable development and one day may save our habitable planet. In my lectures I like to mention the speech of Mr.President from the “Independence Day” movie calling for people to “forget our petty differences” and unite in the fight for humanity. Mentioning Will Smith (the actor) in the middle of scientific method discussion brings many smiles and releases the tenses in class if needed.
Another captivating topic I found helpful to introduce in class is evolution of behavior, especially the work on primates by anthropologists Dr.Jane Goodall and Dr. Barbara King. When the students learn to appreciate empathy and compassion shown by our closest living relatives and realize that our differences are not qualitative but rather quantitative, it becomes easier for them to extend this further and understand the unity and preciousness of life in all its forms: from African bonobos and Siberian tigers to unique ecosystems of “The Redwood forests and the Gulfstream waters”. One of the important aims of teaching evolution is to induce a sense of concern and responsibility of each individual for global environmental issues and consequences of human actions on the biosphere. . The problem in teaching the modern theory of evolution I see not as much in the conflict with various systems of beliefs, but rather in the lack of sufficient training of science teachers. It’s not just Darwinian evolution we should be teaching today. Natural selection is not the only evolutionary agent we are aware of, similar to as the fossil record is not the only source of hard evidence we have for common origin of life on our planet. I’ve been shocked quite a few times when friendly discussions of evolutionary topics with some college professors with creationist beliefs revealed their insufficient knowledge of both: scientific method and evidences of evolution arising from, for instance, developmental and molecular biology, virusology, biochemistry, proteomics, population genetics, as well as astrobiology and nuclear physics (isotopes).
Unlike Jacob Tanenbaum, quite a number of college level science professors either allow their beliefs influence their teaching or just simply require more training. I am going to conclude with a quote from Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer research published in American Educator in the Summer of 2012: “Teachers with creationist beliefs completed fewer courses in biology, were less likely to major in a scientific field, and were less likely to hold a graduate degree in a scientific discipline.” *
*Eric Plutzer and Michael Berkman, “An Evolving Controversy”, American Educator, Vol.36, No.2 (Summer, 2012):12-23.
In this forum Jacob has brought up an interesting thought. As sometimes occurs in such subject matter, is that the point being made reaches beyond what really matters to many people. As a retired ordained Pastor of over thirty years, I have tried to identify what will assist people on their journey of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour article is well constructed and here is my objective response. I believe that whether one can intelligently communicate how the creation account or the big bang theory add up, is not important to God. Faith in Him and His provision for mankind is not science but a reality to those who have chosen to accept it.
The problem is that man desires purpose and a hope that life has significance beyond animal existence. And such debates as stated in your piece, do not assist people in showing love for one another. As a substitute teacher I certainly appreciate your dedication to 4th and 5th grade science students.
The greatest challenge of the human species is our capacity to create multiple explanations for events, each one of which has functional value in one or more venues. Our conumdrum lies in our misstep of demanding a "one size fits all" agreement of purpose or style. A creative God is no less talented than a creative human.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEugene J. Webb
Houston, TX
Jacob Tanenbaum clearly does not recognize the difference between real science and real philosophy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll his fussing about how some Americans reject science point that out. What many folks reject is NOT real science but the philosophical notion that there is no God. Many folks believe the Bible to be the very Word of the Living Creator God.
If he would stick to teaching the real science of how the Creation works rather than his and others notions of how they imagine it came to be, he would be better off and so would his students.
As it is, he insists on trying to teach forensic science which is always a study of how things MAY have worked, NOT the study of how things really work.
Then he criticizes those who think more clearly than he does. The question is, "Why are atheistic notions being forced on students instead of teaching them about real, solid, experimental and provable science?"
The real questions today are NOT "how did the world get here" but rather, "How can we make the world a better place for all to live?"
Guesses about Origins have NO PLACE in any science class room!
The real battle being waged here is whether a man or woman can be one who follows Jesus' teachings AND be willing to accept the scientific process. I write this because Christian scientists need someone to champion their thinking. I propose that a person can have an occupation as a scientist (or myself as a science teacher) and be a follower of Jesus without creating an internal ethical dilemma.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific thinkers and religious people are looking for real answers to everyday questions. Scientific thinking accepts physical evidences, while spiritual thinking also accepts less easily measurable things in the mind and heart of a man. I disagree with skeptics who say mankind is a delicate framework of neurons that determine who we are. They might argue that the fact that I am able to conceive of God is simply the result of my enlarged cranium that enables symbolic thought. My cranium may enable abstract thought, but it did not plant the disatifaction with a the meaninglessness of a physical world inside of me. This would be of no benefit to my cranium, yet this thought helped me to survive to reproductive age.
I am a science teacher, and teach evolution without reservation because evidence consistently supports it. Christian science teachers, wise up and stop trying to discount physical evidence. It is shameful to see how some Christian thinkers distort evidence.
As a follower of Jesus, I have seen too much to discount God's hidden hand in the physical world. From what I have read, I note that God has gone from physically present involvement to a much more spiritual role. The physical involvement, such as miraculous healing, was capped with Jesus and those of his apostles. Why God chooses to remain hidden certainly is by his own design, perhaps so he can reveal himself to a select few.
Here is one of the constructs I have devised to best rationalize scientific thinking and Biblical creation. God can be involved in the evolution of species over time. This is untestable, so here is where a science-only thinker may stop. He certainly loves design and order, and had homonids in mind just as he had archaebacteria and the plethora of extinct species. Mankind must have existed before Adam, as Seth and Cain mentioned other people and married. Perhaps Adam was the first human to be given the imaging of God that stamps mankind as special. Another concept that helps me is that of God using language that his audience can understand. The intended Jews had no idea of DNA, BYA or a variety of other acronyms.