thecountryshrink
dwilli58In Part II, I laid out an overview of Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and in Part III, I began addressing some of the controversy with YEC. I will continue addressing the controversy and potential problems with YEC in this post.
Radiocarbon Dating
Radiocarbon dating is used for dating the age of fossils or formerly living matter (organic matter) up to 60,000 years old. (1) This method of dating poses an apparent problem for YEC, because dates obtained from Carbon 14 dating are frequently greater than the 6,000 year-old age as purported to a literal biblical interpretation. The basic assumptions of Carbon 14 dating are challenged by YEC proponents. Namely, that the initial amount of Carbon 14 in organic materials can be known, changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, and the amount of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere was much higher before the global flood. (2)
Star Light and Time
If you look up into the sky at night you will see stars. The speed of light in a vacuum is a known rate (186,282 miles/second). So, the distance that light travels in a year is known (5,878,625,373,183 miles), and the distance to stars and distant galaxies has been estimated. The distance to the most distant objects in the universe is estimated in billions of light years. So, the assumption is that the light from these objects originated billions of years ago. YEC proponents do not question the distance to these stars and galaxies.
One argument is,
Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. (3)
However, it is also noted that,
It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument.
Again, YEC proponents challenge uniformitarian views. Although some creation scientists challenge the speed of light, others approach the challenge with respect to time.
Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea. (3)
And then there is the time zone argument,
Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility. (3)
Challenging the assumptions of naturalism is also an argument. It states that although God sustains the universe in a certain way presently, this tells us nothing about how He actually created things in the beginning.
It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale. (3)
Cosmology is also examined, and it is noted that there is a star light and time problem with current cosmological theories as well. This perspective forces a detente between the creationist view and the naturalist view by asserting that both perspectives are faced with the same basic problem.
… since the big bang supporters’ own assumptions, including uniformitarianism and naturalism, there has not been enough time in 14 billion years to get light from A to B; they are too far apart. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. (3)
The most distantly observable matter in the universe is said to be 46 billion light years away from the Earth. (4) If the universe is approximately 14 billion years, old, then it would be impossible for us to see things that far away. Naturalists invoke unverifiable theories such as “dark energy” to explain this problem. So the notion is that both the creationist viewpoint and naturalist viewpoint both have problems with star light and time. The notion is where you place your faith, in those things that are said to be ‘revealed by God,’ or in the theories of humans.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon
(2) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
(3) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_universe
A potential cosmological resolution to the star light and time problem is presented in the book, Starlight and Time.
Filed under: Creationism, Intelligent Design, cosmology, evolution, science, theology | Tagged: carbon 14, creation science, Creationism, evolution, great flood, naturalism, old earth creationism, radiocarbon, science, starlight, uniformitarian, YEC, Young Earth Creationism
“The most distantly observable matter in the universe is said to be 46 billion light years away from the Earth. (4) If the universe is approximately 14 billion years, old, then it would be impossible for us to see things that far away.”
If you’d just only read your own citations, you’d understand why this is true.
“Naturalists invoke unverifiable theories such as “dark energy” to explain this problem”
Apparently you haven’t been reading any other scientific papers either.
“The notion is where you place your faith, in those things that are said to be ‘revealed by God,’ or in the theories of humans..”
No, the problem is whether you place your faith in a long-discredited view of Genesis, or whether you accept scientific evidence.
Olorin,
I did read them, but since you are much, much smarter than me, I came to a different conclusion.
I’ve been following cosmology for about the last 16 years. Actually even reading the articles… But probably misunderstanding them?
Actually I have….as hard as that might be for you to believe.
You don’t happen to work in the academic field do you?? This is a common dysphemism employed by professors, particularly in a ’scientific’ field.
Olorin: “If you’d just only read your own citations, you’d understand why this is true.”
Your misunderstanding is that “light-year” is a measure of distance, not a measure of time. The Scientific American article cited in your Wikipedia reference explains this. Peering a _distance_ of 46B light-years is the same as seeing backward in _time_ 14.5B years, because of the expansion of space in the meantime.
“You don’t happen to work in the academic field do you?? This is a common dysphemism employed by professors, particularly in a ’scientific’ field.”
No. And i don’t have dysphemia either.
“since you are much, much smarter than me,”
Maybe, maybe not. But I have come up with several interesting extension to Intelligent Design Theory. Rattle my cage if you’d like to hear about them.
Yes! That much is certain.
I understand that. But, that is not how a light-year is defined.
And what concept(s) are invoked to explain the distance/time problem? One that is empirically measurable?
I’d love to hear them. You can respond here, or via private email if you’d prefer. thecountryshrink@gmail.com.
“And what concept(s) are invoked to explain the distance/time problem? One that is empirically measurable?”
What problem? Do you mean how the Big Bang could expand space faster than the speed of light?
For #1. I think you are referring to the notion of the initial expansion of the universe at a speed faster than the speed of light. That’s only part of the problem. For #2 is the currently apparent acceleratingly expansion of the universe attributed at least in part to “dark energy” which is is completely unmeasurable, and undetectable.
This goes to the basic issue of both Creationism and naturalism. Both invoke invisible non-measurable forces to solve problems that both have with the problem of starlight and time. And both have theories, although I don’t think either can be verified empirically at this point.
Wikipedia is wonderful tool. SeeComoving Distance.
It explains your confusion over light years as a measure of distance and of time as it applies to the age of the universe.
And speaking of Wikipedia as a handy tool to get an overview on a topic, from the entry on the Universe, it provides a an even easier-to-understand explanation for the age of the universe, as well as the overlapping lines of evidence that led to the conclusion:
Many YEC’s also cite RadioCarbon dating as evidence that the Earth is younger than claimed. Carbon that is older than 60000 years should not have any measurable amounts of carbon14 present, yet coal and other fossils that are supposed to be millions of years old has been found to contain significant amounts of C14.
http://creationwiki.org/Carbon-14_dating
http://ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
As natural C14 fades out at 40-60kyr, the effects of contamination and other artifacts make C14 dating highly unreliable. That’s why we use other dating methods at the limits of detectability You won’t find YECs using three-daughters dating of coal, becvause it is much more robust at multi-myr ages. And it has an internal error-correction mechanism.
Would you believe tree rings? Well, arctic glaciers have similar “ice rings” (layers) that are laid down every year. These are being used more and more to study ancient climate changes. And guess what—we can count individual ice rings down to 500,000 years old in Greenland.
Olorin,
There are creationist arguments about ice rings.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/icecore.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0730ngrip.asp
So, I am somewhat uncertain on these issues. I don’t yet know what the best explanation is.
Do you have a reference on the C14 assumptions related to 40-60kyr? I’d be interested to look that up.
Yes, there are creationist arguments about ice rings. None of them involve actual evidence, however; they are speculation. None of them have been corroborated or checked against other known dating methods. None of them have been subject to the criticism of publication with peer-review.
As to C14 dating, the most complete general review is the easiest to find: Wikipedia. I’m surprised that you couldn’t seem to locate it. A shorter source that includes many caveats is http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html
also quite easy to locate using Google. One important rule is that single samples should not be relied upon.. A recent news item in Science reported a new techniques for increasing accuracy, but I can’t lay my hands on it just now.
The mistake creationist soften make is to rely on some single observation or measurement or piece of evidence. Scientists always search for confirming evidence from other experiments, from other studies, even from other unrelated fields.
Note medical studies. No drug is even considered for approval after a single study. Multiple studies with different groups are always used. Data from studies are always cross-checked with other available information from multiple sources. Science views the whole megillah, not just isolated pieces of evidence.
I know I sound dogmatic on these things. Scientific theories are always provisional. But they are extended, modified, or even sometimes overturned only by evidence, research, peer review, and publication.
My fond wish is for a high-school course in science. Not physics or biology or chemistry, but in the methods of science. Perhaps using historical examples of how theories come to be, how evidence is gathered and analyzed, how models are built, how mathematics can validate results, and so forth. Even many scientists don’t fully understand these concepts.
As citizens of the 21st Century, we all need to be able to evaluate claims made by advertisers, government agencies, scientists. Here’s an example of what you might learn: You have tested positive for a rare genetic disease that kills 300 Americans every year. The test has a 95% accuracy rate. How worried should you be?
This is also done in the creation articles that I cite. The C14 article really didn’t differ much from ones I’ve read elsewhere. I cited wiki in the original post.
This is also an area of considerable interest of mine. More specifically in the area of psychotropic drugs. Bias is a pervasive problem in this type of research, with the research outcomes often supporting the drug of the funding source. Bias often creeps in to many types of research (including biology, archeology, and geology), not just medicine.
Agreed!
Agreed. You’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to have the disease.
Of course the sensitivity and specificity of the test are also important to know.
Shrink: “Agreed. You’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to have the disease.
Of course the sensitivity and specificity of the test are also important to know.”
You, as almost everyone else, could benefit from the proposed course. Here;s the point of the problem:
The disease strikes 300 out of 300,000,000 people. If the test is 95% accurate, 15,000,000 people (to a good approximation) will test positive. But only 300 of them actually have the disease. So your chances of having it, given your positive test result, are only about 0.002%. (Most people would estimate near 95%.) Would you worry about that?
If you think this is an unlikely example, recast it in terms of terrorist probabilities versus calls for widespread surveillance of telephone calls, and what you, as a citizen with civil rights, should think of that.
Olorin, did you even read my comment?? I said that you are more likely to be struck by lightning than to have the disease. I already figured out the likelihood….very, very low. And the numbers you present would likely be somewhat inaccurate if you do not know the sensitivity and specificity of the test. Although you may be surprised, the concepts you present are not foreign to me.
Yes, the probability of being hit by a terrorist are very, very low as well.
Yes, I read the comment. The point of the question is that the “95% accuracy” of the test is deceptive. The rarity of the disease is moot, because you have already been diagnosed as having it. Likewise, the sensitivity and specificity are irrelevant.
As Ko-Ko sang in The Mikado,
“The flowers that bloom in the spring, tra la,
Have nothing to do with the case.”
This is purely an exercise in statistics. That’s why it translates intact to other situations, such as terrorists. How would you like to be one of 15,000,000 bomb suspects because your telephone call passed a terrorist filter having, wow, a 95% accuracy?
BTW, I disapprove of teaching calculaus in high school, even for advanced students. High-schoolers would profit much much more from a discrete-mathematics course. Many of them will probably never use calculus for any practical purpose, but statistics can inform a continuous stream of everyday situations.
How about this one: A couple years ago, a study of cancer rates in US counties showed that low-population counties were significantly overrepresented in the group having very low cancer rates. The media began touting the benefits of rural living. Why did medical researchers laugh at this, even without knowing anything else about the study? What other cancer-rate finding would they predict from the study, even without looking at the any of the data?
(This example is one of a several from “The Most Dangerous Equation,” American Scientist, 85:249-256 (2007).)
I already told you I calculated the odds of being less than being struck by lightening. If you had the symptoms of the disease, that puts you in a different population, so the base rate is different. In that situation yes, I would worry. If I did not have the symptoms and it was a fishing expedition, no I wouldn’t worry. Maybe I’m missing your point somehow?
I had to take calculus as an independent study in high school. But you’re probably right that stats would have been more beneficial. I had 2 stats courses in undergrad and 2 at the grad level, so it worked out ok for me. But for my classmates, they didn’t have stats or calc.
Shrink: “Maybe I’m missing your point somehow?”
Yes, I think so. Forget everything else except that you have been diagnosed with a very rare disease by a test that has a very high accuracy. The question boils down to, how useful is such a test? The answer is, not at all. And this is contrary to what most people would think.
Maybe you know too much statistics for this question
My only formal training in statistics was a grad course in statistical mechanics. I have to keep looking up Bayes’ theorem, but I can regale you with many interesting facts about the quasi-ergodic hypothesis. (To paraphrase the Modern Major General)
Such as: the father of statistical mechanics, Willard Gibbs, was the first American theoretical physicist to attain worldwide acclaim. Germany had been the undisputed leader until Hitler drove out all the “believers” of relativity and quantum mechanics, because these were “\Jewish sciences.” This is what happens when ideology trumps science. Many of the emigre physicists helped the US develop the atomic bomb.
Perhaps! I’d say that most folks would be pretty worried about this. And they’d be wrong to be worried if they are not part of a sub-population with a different level of accuracy (in other words, the test is the only thing pointing to them having the disease). But, I agree with you that this would be a good thing to be taught in high school. I think that there should be a class on critical thinking that should be taught that would include your example among others.
Olorin, don’t get me wrong. I’m not a stats expert. I actually did not like stats (partly because of my teachers). I did well in it, although I didn’t enjoy it. I preferred a more pure math. I took math up to Calculus III in college and liked math more. Stats is very different, although there is an underlying math basis (that includes calculus). I was a physics major before I switched to psych (weird, I know). I agree with your view that ideology trumping science is a negative influence. However, I think there is plenty of ideology trumping science right now.
Don’t feel weird switching from physics to psych. A friend at IBM had a double major in physics and vocal performance.[0]
As to trumping science, it is ironic that the only reason there is such a thing as creation “science” is that science trumps religion. The church used to be the center of life, the most powerful institution. Science was subservient. Martin Luther felt he had sufficiently refuted Copernicus by quoting Scripture to the contrary.
From the Enlightenment, however, religion lost its central place. By 1815, people looked to science and technology to improve their lives.[1] Then a stunning blow: Darwin provided a naturalistic creation story that could replace Genesis.[2] Religion began more and more to seem somewhat backward, not “modern.” But people did want to keep their faith, and perhaps treasured it more as it seemed to lose worldly power..[3]
How could religion regain its former preeminence? Perhaps not by destroying science, but by claiming to be science. If God can be proven scientifically, then the two foes are united, and God is on top once more.
The reason I phrase this somewhat irreverently is that my personal theology does not require a chest-thumping king-of-the-hill God. If He cares for me—and for you and you and you—personally, then I’m happy. I don’t need God to spend all His time smiting people—even my enemies.[4] I believe that God works through us, not through arbitrarily rearranging the universe every once in a while.
Creationism asserts the primacy of the Bible. Their goals are straightforward . Creation “science” (and its stealth offspring, intelligent design) do not wish to advance science; they wish to replace it. The ultimate goal is political dominance.[5]
I am old enough to remember the McCarthy era clearly, and my father knew one of his minions, Sen Homer Capehart. That was a scary time, when fear reigned, and a whispered accusation of communist sympathy (“fellow traveler”) was enough to frighten off friends and ruin a career.[6] I felt the oppressiveness, even though I was on the “right” side. When ideology rules, we suffer. This is why the Constitution separates church and state.[7]
Well, that’s it for tonight. I’m footnoted out.
=============================
[0] His nae was Glenn, but we called him “Not-R”. His parents had planned to name him Robert. A cousin born a couple days earlier was given that name, so his parents chose another name.) He became enamored of Georgian music. He learned to speak Georgian and joined a chorale. Years layer, when I was in DC, a restaurant musician was Georgian. I asked him if he had heard the name of the chorale. Turned out he had heard them sing in Tbilisi.)
[1] Philosophical changes denigrated religion also, but science played a big part.
[2] Every society requires a creation story. There are some Native Americans who refuse to participate in genetic studies because they fear the ancestries might contradict their myths.
[3] Despite the fundamentalist credo that we are turning away from religion, the percentage of Americans belonging to a church has increased monotonically since 1840.
[4] As writer Anne Lamott said, “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
[5] In 2001, Creation Science Fellowship vice-chairman Bob Harsh said: “If you can successfully define knowledge in such a way that your convictions are knowledge ahd those of others are not, you get to determine policy to ditrect human life.” (“The Wedge of Truth,” in Origins Insights, March 2001) He was praising the Discovery Institute’s wedge document of 1996.
[6] Read Phillip Roth’s novel, “The Plot against America” (2005). It’s an alternative history in which Charles Lindbergh is elected President in 1940 and collaborates with Nazi Germany. The main characters are a Jewish family in New Jersey. You can imagine the outlines of the plot.
[7] The original purpose, however, was just as much to protect religion as to protect the state. If one religion could gain dominance by government action, all the others would suffer.
Orolin,
Before you ignore me, hear me out! I came to believe in God many years after I had accepted-fully-the basic tenets of evolution, and I know I’m not alone. In fact I was a God and Christian hater. Your points on religion, in my estimation, are right on the mark. I’m not accusing you here, but, quite often, to be a believer in God and creation, or intelligent design, is to be labeled a religious fanatic. I know this to be true from both sides of this issue, since I used to be all over Christians and their “ignorant, superstitious beliefs.”
Religion not only stands in the way of science, in my estimation, it also stands in the way of truly knowing and experiencing God. God, didn’t give us an intellect only for the purpose of attending church and being indoctrinated. If God hadn’t wanted us to seek knowledge and understanding, then He wouldn’t have given us the ability.
However, I wouldn’t have my current opinion of evolution and evolutionists (although I would still find evolution a false theory) if its proponents would be honest and stop acting like Christian fundys when they can’t produce substantial evidence to back up their beliefs. We teach this in our schools as fact, which is contrary to true scientific investigation: there’s not enough substantiated evidence and therefore, there should always be the disclaimer, “This is only a theory and no more.” What’s the difference between teaching our kids something as absolute, scientific evidence and some fundys teaching creation in our schools? Not that I’m for that either!! I was a teacher, and I firmly believe that school is for learning! Values, beliefs etc are for the parents and the family, not the schools or this government. In that same sense, I don’t want a scientific religion being preached to my child either!
Perhaps, there are some IDers out there who want to do away with scientific enquiry, but I haven’t run into one and I’m certainly not one of them!
Of course. And sheer consistency requires that we do the same with the theory of thermodynamics, or relativity, or the genetic basis of cancer.
Or, we could do the really difficult thing, the thing that no one wants to do, and teach students what a theory actually is.
DBW, calling something “supernatural”: does not ipso facto remove it from scientific inquiry; several studies have investigated whether intercessory prayer produces any tangible effects inb sick people. But science confines itself to studying phenomena that are repeatable and predictable. Prayer can be studied, for example, only to the extent that it produces some predictablr result that is not arbitrarily withheld.
Design of living organisms can only be studied scientifically if it can be shown with physical evidence: repeatble experiments, calculations from data, historical observations, etc. Not only that—scientific theories require models of phenomena. Even though there was evidence for evolution before Darwin, it was not a “theory.” Darwin made it a theory by proposing a mechanism: heritable variation, overfecundity, and selection.
Intelligent design not only has no physical evidence, it has no mechanism into which evidence could be placed. This makes almost anything consistent with ID. Proponents have predicted, for example, that “junk DNA” does have a purpose. Why? Because good designs do not waste resources. Proponents also say that backward wiring of the eye does is not inconsistent with design. Why? Because designs need not be good designs. In short, there is no there there. Nothing upon which to show how research should proceed.
Court cases have sequentially ruled that creationism, creation science, and intelligent design are religious viewpoints, not science. The ID case, Kitzmiller, is especially instructive, because the judge gave them all the time and resources they wanted. Plaintiffs made a case for evolution, defendants for ID, and both were cross-examined by the other side. In the end, evolution does not lose on a single disputed issue, and none of ID’s contentions survived. Beyond that, plaintiff’s witness Barbara Forrest documented ID’s genesis as a direct descendant of creationism, sowing that it is a religious viewpoint, not a scientific endeavor.
I’m not sure why you decided that the evidence for evolution is not sufficient. Of course, if tyou read only news reports and popular expositions, you can always find something to question. Mostof the time, the authors have little idea what they’re talking about, and of course newsies have a gene that makes them hype everything. Although not a biologist, I do read a number of the primary source papers, such as Science, Nature, PLoS One. (My last 5 years as a patent attorney exposed me to many biotech inventions, so I had to read up a lot. Also, since my background is in computer technology, I was on a bioinformatics committee that educated people about each other’s specialties.) My experience is that, although many gaps remain in a natural explanation of life, there seem to be no major obstacles to the basic tenets of evolution. More and more “gaps” are filled every week. Last week a paper in Science explained why some snakes have fangs in the backs of their mouths, and some in the front. A couple weeks ago, intermediate fossils were found showing haw flatfish evolved to get both eyes on the same side of their heads. 1,570 similar papers extended, advanced, and modified the “theory of evolution” in 2007 alone.
So, why do you believe that there is no evidence for evolution? Saying that “evolution is a theory and no more” betrays a lack of understanding of the concepts. Evolution is a “fact” in that there are many pieces of evidence form many field of study that support it. Evolution is a theory in thatr it proposes a mechanism or model that ties together many observations and inferences. Lok up “theory” in Wikipedia” for a good general introduction.
Although science is certainly not a popularity contest, you might also ask yourself why, of the people qualified to judge the evidence, 484,000 support evolution and 11 do not. Is there a world-wide conspiracy? DFo biologists have to swear a pledge to uphold Darwin, as all Discovery Institute fellows have to pledge to uphold ID? Are scientists worldwide really afraid of losing grant money if they do not bow to Darwin’s image? Ask yourself honestly whether you believe any of these things. If you go to a doctor who says you have appendicitis, you may go for a second opinion. If 484,000 dictions tell you that you need to get that sucker out, but 11 tell you that they can cure you by exorcizing your appendix demon, whbose advice wold you follow?
My ownn personal theological bent also sees absolutely no conflict between faith and naturalistic explanation for evolution. I try not to tell God how to manage the universe, or to tell HIm how I think He should have done it. A major point of Genesis, after all, is that storms, seas, planets, etc. are not themselves deities, as had been previously thought. No. They are natural objects that do not act arbitrarily. God is God. Nature is nature.
Carl wrote:
Yes. And go ahead and do that…I’m all for it. Teach ID in a maligned fashion if you want to in order to illustrate what a theory is. It doesn’t matter to me. But, if you believe in some degree of basic rationality of human beings, you’ll let them sort things out on their own. I don’t view folks as basically stupid. Even children and teens. They can think and reason through things on their own. Go ahead and teach your dogma of naturalistic evolution and even malign ID if you want, but at least give folks the benefit of being able to use their own brains.
Olorin wrote:
Do you believe God kicked things off in the very beginning, or just came on the scene later to love folks? If the former, then your views would be consistent with some who find ID compelling, if the latter, I’m a bit confused about the point or role of “God.”
Citation??? Where do you see ID folks following this pattern? Yeah maybe some crazy Christians might do this, but the vast majority would never consider it. This is a red herring argument.
Some relatively minor follow-up points:
1) Olorin is right to say that supernatural claims are testable, and this point is frequently ignored by all sides. Consider this (somewhat silly) example: “There exists a supernatural being who would have wanted above all to make everything purple.”
The point here is that the hypothesis must specify a set of conditions which, if actually observed, increases the probability of the truth of the hypothesis, and which if not observed, decreases the probability of the truth of the hypothesis.
Though it should also be pointed out that any hypothesis can be rescued if one introduces further ad hoc hypotheses which explain why a hypothesis didn’t pass some specified test. This can be seen from many examples in the history of science, and it’s also the main reason why Popper’s “falsification criterion” doesn’t work for demarcating science from non-science.
2) Regarding the legal status of intelligent design: I am not a lawyer, obviously, but my impression is that all that Jones did is rule that the school board’s policy violated the Establishment Clause. This was not a verdict against design theory per se, however much it has been hyped as such. Nothing stands in the way of someone devising a policy towards design theory which does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Likewise, Forrest’s much-touted link between creationism and design theory only concerns a particular textbook, Of Pandas and People, in which references to “creationism” and “creationists” and “God” were replaced with references to “intelligent design,” “design proponents,” and “a designer.” The notorious “cdesign proponentists” comes from an uncorrected earlier draft from the revisions. But again, nothing stands in the way of someone writing an ID text, entirely de novo, and completely free of associations with creationist literature. In fact, Demski and Wells have just done that.
If some school-board is more savvy and knows when to be quiet, recommends the new ID text, and hires a better legal defense team, I can easily envisage that the design theory could be taught without violation of the Establishment Clause.
I find this a very interesting response, and while I don’t have a fully-worked out response of my own, I have some intuitions.
Foremost of my intuitions is that education isn’t about conveying facts; it’s about training people how to think carefully and critically. The capacity to do so is “natural,” if you like, but the actualization of that capacity is not.
To use an analogy, I think of basic inferences and learning by trial-and-error as being like walking, but being able to design experiments that distinguish between competing theories — especially complex theories — as being like riding a bicycle or driving a car. Anyone can learn how to do it, but it requires instruction and practice.
For this reason, I think it’s a terrible mistake for teachers to only present both sides and let students choose for themselves, because students need to be taught somethings about what criteria are appropriate for theory-selection and what criteria are inappropriate or irrelevant.
I don’t think, honestly, that teachers should avoid advocacy or apologize for being advocates. On the contrary — I think teachers must be advocates — but without being dogmatists. And that ain’t easy, but it can be done. I saw it done by the many fine teachers and professors I’ve had in high school, college, and graduate school.
And what should they advocate? I think they have a responsibility to advocate the historical consensus, if there is one, in the field that they are teaching. Personal opinion does belong the classroom, but as a back-burner. An English teacher has the right to teach that Milton is a better writer than Shakespeare, and if her religious beliefs play a role in that judgment that’s OK by me — but that’s OK because there is room for legitimate disagreement over the merits of Milton and Shakespeare. Whereas if a lit professor were to say that Shakespeare is trash but Rowling’s Harry Potter books are great writing, one couldn’t help but feel that she has abdicated her responsibility.
The problem we face here is that design theory proponents think of the debate as being a legitimate one like that between lovers of Milton and lovers of Shakespeare, whereas proponents of evolutionary theory see it as an illegitimate debate, more like that between lovers of Shakespeare and lover of Rowling.
I think it depends on what the subject is and the point of the class. For example, reading, writing, and arithmetic have to do with certain facts and skills. Whereas when you enter the realm of science, critical thinking becomes more important.
I don’t think I even advocated that here. Go ahead and introduce what you believe the evidence best supports, and malign ID if you wish.
We seem to have opposite views here. You view naturalistic evolution as Shakespeare, whereas, I view ID as Shakespeare. So, who decides the appropriateness of the analogy and how it applies?
I don’t hold my views on ID because I wish to “malign” it, and to be honest, I’m surprised and a little disappointed that you’d think that of me. I hold my views on ID as a result of reading Dembski and Johnson, reading criticisms of their arguments, and reading a lot of evolutionary theory.
Now, perhaps I’ve not convinced you that I’ve given ID a fair shake. Fair enough; perhaps I haven’t. So let me ask: what would it take for you to be convinced that someone has given ID a fair treatment and has decided on that basis that it really is deficient, compared to evolutionary theory? What would such a person have to do that I haven’t done?
This is a good question, and it’s for this reason that the issue is a political one. (I think of political quarrels as basically disagreements about criteria and their application.) Who decides, indeed!
One of the reasons why I’m not averse to having design theory taught in schools is because I think having it taught can be a powerful way of generating insights on the part of students about criteria and their application.
The great danger is that students end up thinking that all theories or opinions are equal, and that there is nothing worth thinking carefully about.
Carl, I wasn’t speaking of you specifically. As to “you” I was referring to teachers in general. I know my comment came across as I was talking to you specifically, but I hadn’t intended it that way. I’m sorry if I came across that way and disappointed you.
I don’t really know Carl. What would I have to do to convince you that I’ve given naturalistic evolution a fair shake? I really don’t mean to imply that you haven’t. For all I know, you truly have. I can’t read your mind. How does one evaluate whether someone else has seriously considered different points of view? I suppose you can make a guess based on what they say, but I think that’s pretty hard to know for certain.
I don’t really think I mean to imply that, as I do not believe that myself. But, if you don’t mind me saying so, it seems like you think the only result of critical thinking is to conclude that naturalistic evolution is the superior way of thinking.
Thanks for responding! I think what the shrink is saying, or at least I think he is saying, is that ID will not be given an unbiased chance in the current, science classroom setting, because, as Orolin pointed out, the majority (484,000) rules over the eleven. I’m not sure where these numbers come from, since I know of at least 500 scientists, not all believers, who have questioned the validity of teaching evolution, as some kind of factual theory, in the schools.
The supernatural can be measured? I guess, in my ignorance, what comes to mind is, if the supernatural can be measured, then why would we rule out ID or creation as a viable explanation, since we evidently are admitting to the supernatural? I know that sounds like a run-around and maybe it is, and I’m just not thinking logically? I don’t know.
I agree with Carl that schools need to focus more on the process of learning, critical thinking and problem solving etc, than on the product, memorizing facts and standardized testing etc. However, the government will make sure this never happens. I just see the belief in evolution as standing in the way of ID getting a fair shake, much as if, as I said before, the fundys had control of the classroom.
DBW saith: “I know of at least 500 scientists, not all believers, who have questioned the validity of teaching evolution, as some kind of factual theory, in the schools.”
You should consult Thunderf00t’s video. In the first place, the Discovery Institute’s “question” is so vapid that even a strong adherent of Darwinism could sign it. Go look it up for your self. The only reason not to sign it is if you know it’s a trap. Thunderf00t actually queried this list (when it had only about 100 signers. He gfound that almost all of the signers were engineers, mathematicians, physicists—that is, scientists who had no qualifications to judge the biological evidence. In the end, only 2 of all the signers had a background in evolutionary biology. And one of therm asked to be taken off the list!
Shrink: “Do you believe God kicked things off in the very beginning, or just came on the scene later to love folks? If the former, then your views would be consistent with some who find ID compelling, if the latter, I’m a bit confused about the point or role of “God.”
I’ve been thinking about that question for a perhaps longer than you have been alive. I can only take comfort in this: “It is the mark of a great mind to be able to hold two completely contrary views without having to decide in favor of either.” If you boost that to a dozen or so contrary views, then I might be in good shape.
Sometimes I’m almost tempted to think God might be an emergent property of the universe—perhaps like a Botzmann Mind. But, just as I try not to tell God how to manage the universe, I try not to engineer the unseen world.
One thing does strike me, however. Christian doctrine tells us that the Christ was both fully God and fully man. That seems crucially important—that being more fully human is being more like God. Therefore, knowing God’s love and will is infinitely more important than knowing who did what when in the physical universe. Is that lack of curiosity not a strange view for a lover of science?