All true scientists believe in evolution?

[nikolayevich]

I've replied here, rather than on the now 11 page debate thread on creation / evolution which has brought up numerous questions that on their own merit deserve further prodding. Note that the title of this thread is only loosely based on the subject of my response to a post and is a perception that this poster (yours truly) has gleaned from much study on the creation / evolution controversy.

I see theories of creation and evolution - which I guess, to generalise, represent the views of theologians v scientists...

Unfortunately it's not just a generalization but one that I think can be shown to be untrue. It is not people who have an understanding of God versus people who have an understanding of Science. This is a misrepresentation I think many creationists on this forum are trying to correct.

Most creationists (especially the debating kind):
1) Were taught and / or have taught science and related subjects
2) Love science

To say that creationists disagree with certain scientific [teachings] may be an understatement, but to show them as against "science" as a result is verging on tragic.

Yes, and of course:
3) Believe in God.

But how this makes the debate against science from the point of view of a creationist is confusing at best. It is true, there can be certainty, that much of the public sees this as creationists against scientists, but let's move to a better representation of both camps.

Creationists against science is likely one of the more prominent straw men out there, which is why we see evolutionists pose questions which start with that assumption. See A Fundamental Difference between Creationism and Science as an example of a statement which begs the question.

...as being like the vertical posts of a ladder with many linking rungs linking the two - between them we can climb to reach the truth. I can't see why so many people think the two theories are mutually exclusive, because to my mind, all they do is add weight and truth to one another.

The problem with the way this is couched is that you started by mentioning that you see things as theologians against science. You then proceed to mention that you don't see why the two [theories] can't go together.

They are not the same. The theories are different things, in a different way from theists and scientists. It doesn't mean that the theories or the people of varying persuasion can't cooperate. It's just important to delineate exactly what you "can't see why" about.

These are very different questions which both seem to appear in your post in a combined way, so makes it difficult to answer. (Thanks for your patience while I try here)

I think that few creation scientists would ever argue that theism and science can't go together unless they misunderstand their own position. I don't mean to pick your statement to death, but think think that in discussion about creation and evolution (and everything else in debate), terms carry a lot of weight and meaning. You may intend something here that is very different than what is being read.

If you meant to say creation scientists as being against science, then you can certainly say that, though I think it's a strange proposition. I don't know that that was your intention but since this argument is certainly appealed to in various circles, I thought I would make the point. When a scientific community embraces statements about creationists being non-scientists, what usually results are ad hominem comments and other things which have nothing to do with science.

One problem, I think, is that many widely accepted, 'text-book' explanations or interpretations (of each) are based on fundamental misapprehensions. I think that religious-minded - or 'spiritual', if you like - people have an intuitive, creative understanding of the truth in our universe, but frequently lack the scientific knowledge which would give their ideas credibility. They see the overview, or the holistic view, whereas scientists tend to look at the microcosm and to reduce things to their lowest denominator - experimentation usually involves separating out elements in order to produce an explicable, measurable result, which is not conducive to seeing the overall picture.

It may be true that many 'spiritual' people lack scientific knowledge to give their ideas credibility, but I would say the same about any group of people. I don't believe for a moment that people with faith are any less able to understand scientific concepts than any other people group of a particular persuasion. It seems, from much reading on the subject, however, to be a pervasive notion. It goes back to an implied belief that creationists are not within the realm of scientific understanding, have generally 'misapprehended' evolution or are pitted against science.

I am interested in seeing how evolutionists on this forum generally view, or have viewed creationists. As unscientific, or as simply scientific with an alternate view. I'm sure both are represented on the forum. Again, the subject of this thread is titled after my own experience with these things and rather than trying to pigeon hole all evolutionists, I thought it might spark some good conversation.

Also, have any of you had your perception of your opponents change since debating here? (not your views on creation, just your perception of your debate alternates' argumentation). Are creationists more unreasonable than evolutionists?

[rjw]

YEC METHODOLOGY

Evolutionary theory does not have a systemic problem of making assertions without evidence. How much scientific literature do you read? However, I am arguing that YEC does have a systemic problem and I provided evidence for this. Nor does the accusation of sloppy popularizations mean that bona-fide research is sloppy.

Obviously I have made some fairly serious charges at YEC. I provided a very brief synopsis of some of my encounters with YEC scientists as an example to which you responded:-

One only has to look at the history of the evolutionary quest to see the sloppiness of evolutionary science. It doesn't disprove it or creation science to say it's sloppy, but having come through the system, the "approved" texts and teachings, what I read and discover today, are countless times when evolutionists point to things I found were wrong or misguided, according even to them. Even fraud has found its way to the textbooks on occasion. So evolutionary teaching has hardly been without sloppiness. I'm continually fascinated when learning of brand new texts which promulgate yesteryear's science or present concepts which are highly questioned by evolutionists themselves.

You assert this but provide no evidence that your charge is one of a systemic problem. I am arguing that it is with YEC. Nor do you demonstrate that this is only a problem with respect to evolutionary theory and not other sciences.
I provided both a brief summary and references to support my claims. It may well be difficult for you to obtain those references to check things out. That is a pity because then we could easily discuss the real point of my argument. However with respect Nikolayevich, this paragraph above is hardly a response of the same kind.

I can point to many sloppy claims within evolutionary thinking too. But I can also point to this in physics, medicine, geology, anthropology, astronomy etc. So why is the inference that this is a problem peculiar to ToE and its conflict with YEC, when it is a problem with all science?

And you write that:-

… evolutionists point to things I found were wrong or misguided, according even to them.

Are you really suggesting that an evolutionist would print something in a text book, knowing it to be “wrong or misguided”? Is this endemic? You offer no hint that this is so. If it is so can you provide some examples?

You note that:-

Even fraud has found its way to the textbooks on occasion. So evolutionary teaching has hardly been without sloppiness..

But why suggest that this is a problem with evolutionary theory only or that it is symptomatic with evolutionary thinking. Fraud finds its way into many textbooks when scientific fraud goes undetected – e.g. medicine, geology, anthropology. So why is the inference that this is a problem peculiar to ToE and its conflict with YEC, when it is a problem with all science?

There is another aspect to this and it goes back in part to your suggestion that evolutionists print things they know to be wrong or misguided. Are you really suggesting that evolutionists print things they know to be fraudulent? Or do they print things they think are correct, only to find out later that they are fraudulent? There is a big difference because the former is sloppy to the point of being dishonest. The latter is not fraudulent and probably not even sloppiness, for the false claim may well appear to be reasonable – and you cannot then argue that its acceptance is therefore due to sloppiness, can you!

If you are arguing that fraudulent claims are being printed on the knowledge that they the claims are false or if you are suggesting that fraudulent claims are being printed that should have been seen for what they are, then how about some examples – rather than just the assertion? Then you would also need to provide evidence that this is a systemic problem. Is it?

And let us keep this complaint to similar things. I am arguing about mainstream research vs YEC research – their metaphysics, axioms and methodologies. It is this research that defines what is scientifically acceptable, not some commentary in a TV documentary or a glossy magazine attempting to popularize science.

You write that:-

I'm continually fascinated when learning of brand new texts which promulgate yesteryear's science or present concepts which are highly questioned by evolutionists themselves.

In one sense I presume you are describing normal science here. I find this happens in all fields of scientific endeavor. The authors of text books have their own theoretical bents and of course they will present those ideas they consider to be correct. In some text books consideration will be given to several competing theories. In other texts, consideration will only be given to the most commonly accepted theory. This is not just an issue with evolutionary studies, it is an issue with all science.

And again there is the inference that evolutionists are publishing things they know to be highly questionable. This is fine if it is stated that things are in dispute. It is not fine if it is stated that these things are fact. Which is it? Do you have examples?

Examples should be easy given that you imply this happens frequently. In what sense is “yesteryears” science being “promulgated”? Is it being written about because today’s science is still in a very uncertain and controversial state? If so then there is nothing wrong with yesteryear’s science. If this is not the case and today’s science is well established then why on earth would yesteryear’s science be promulgated?

So why is the inference that this is a “problem” peculiar to ToE and its conflict with YEC, when it is a “problem” with all science? And in what sense is it really a problem.

With this paragraph of yours which I quoted, some examples and references would be helpful. There is a chance that I could track the references down because I do have access to a well stocked university library.

With the brief examples I provided, I am not making claims that an occasional bit of silliness gets printed here or there. Rather I am claiming that AiG is methodological in this.

Thus, Williams’ (8)) charge against Compston and Pidgeon (9) is entirely without foundation. Compston and Pidgeon did not throw any data away when they made their claim for the oldest crystal on earth. In fact they reported all of the data and showed why they made the claim they did for the one particular zircon crystal. There was nothing sinister or incompetent in their article and methodology. Yet Williams states that there is.

There is a very big difference between Compton and Pidgeon the humans, with all the human foibles and the occasional ability to make mistakes, be unfairly biased etc. and Compton and Pidgeon the scientists who deliberately go out of their way to write text books and publish papers that are knowingly inaccurate and full of misrepresentations.

I am not accusing AiG of the former (normal mistakes and occasional biases). I am accusing them of the latter. Williams did a con-job on Compton and Pidgeon and AiG published it. And my claim is that this is not infrequent. Rather it is the norm!

If you doubt me on this then you have the references. It appears that you may have access to magazines such as Nature. If you do, then read Williams’ article by locating it on the web at AiG. Then read that of the two geologists. Get back to me and tell me what you think.

It is the same with Austin and Humphreys (A&H) and their “Salty Seas” article(13).

All of the scientists involved - Jolly (in the 19th century), Livingstone (1963) (14), Austin, Humphreys, Sarfati – and yourself and myself are guilty of those things you claim. We have our biases which can be unreasonable. At times we can tell fibs. At times we can be thoughtless and sloppy. At times we can make unfortunate mistakes. However, A&H “Salty Seas” model was a con-job on mainstream thinking.

Despite the claims of Sarfati and A&H, they were not being fair and generous to the mainstream. Rather they were misrepresenting it – badly. To say in the same breath that it was an evolutionary model and that they were being generous to evolutionists was simple propaganda, because, although the model may have been evolutionary in that it allowed for variations in inputs and outputs over time, no geologist would sanction the model given that it excluded a major parameter which is reasonably well understood, but hard to quantify. And A&H gave no hint of this and therefore provided no reason for its omission. In no way could it be argued that their model explained the data better given that it was a short speculative piece written at the end of their paper.

Austin has geological credentials. Are you really going to argue that this omission was an oversight? And if he felt he could not include recycling (because he is a YEC), why fail to tell his readers that his generosity to evolutionists was greatly tempered by this major omission?

It is this kind of distortion which is endemic to YEC methodology.

During the past 6 or 7 years that I have been engaged in this, I have not found a YEC research paper from AiG’s technical journal, TJ nor its family magazine Creation that has not engaged in this kind of activity and has not used it as a major part of its argument methodology.

[rjw]

Here is another example, of which I shall discuss only a few issues, hopefully to get my point across.

It demonstrates how mainstream researchers maintain a naturalistic interpretation for counting annual layers across the length of an ice core (110,000 years) while in contrast, the YEC researcher maintains a naturalistic interpretation for a part of the core (4,000 years) then switches to unsupported assertion and speculation for the remainder of the core.

Michael Oard, AiG’s glaciologist wrote an article titled “Do Greenland ice cores show over one hundred thousand years of annual layers?” (15).

Oard is critiquing a research paper of Meese et al. (16). From 1989 to 1993 two ice cores (named GISP2 and GRIP) were drilled in Greenland. From these cores, scientists claimed to be able to count annual layers going back 110,000 years (GISP2) and 250,000 years (GRIP). A series of papers were published in the Journal of Geophysical Research describing the results of these experiments. In those papers you will see a complete description of methods and results including discussions on errors and limitations. You will see an extensive series of references which allow you to trace the logic and rationale behind the results and arguments.

Naturally YECs disagree with the bulk of the interpretations given by the mainstream – hence the article by Oard.

He agrees that the interpretation of annual layering is correct at the top of the core but that the errors increase lower down in the core. Thus, the core is good for 4,000 years or thereabouts, but beyond that, the interpretation of annual layering is not correct. Rather the supposed “… annual cycles simply represent variations within a single year.” (p 39)

How does Oard build his case?

Well he does not by any reasonable means. What he does is the following:-

1) Alters his use of words. Thus, he agrees with the mainstream for 4,000 years then beyond that, mainstream ideas become “assumptions”, “beliefs”, “interpretations”, “expectations” etc. That is, for 4,000 years the interpretations are apparently good science then beyond that the science switches to something wooly. Oard provided so reason as to why the “interpretations”, “beliefs”, “assumptions” before 4,000 years ago are good where as those after, are bad. They just are.

2) Provides precious little basis for his claim for annual layering to 4,000 years then beyond that, oscillations within a year. It just is. He cites Vardiman (17). But Vardiman offers no more light on this issue than Oard. Whereas the GISP and GRIP researchers can show how and why they have confidence that they can count annual layers down to 110,000 and 250,000 years – and they do not go beyond that because errors and uncertainty force them to stop, Oard and Co. expect us to accept that the counts are good to 4,000 years then suddenly the counts are bad.

3) Offers a speculative model on which to base his opinion. In the mainstream articles you will read or find references to all of the relevant literature where by assumptions, models, and experiments can be checked. Thus you can understand the rationale behind their models of ice flow and compaction and how those models are constrained by actual observations. Contrast this to the pure speculations of Oard. On page 40, just above figure2, Oard offers his “post-Flood Ice Age” model. But there is no observational evidence provided to support his “could have” and “would have” statements. They are just bits of hand-waving designed to provide some rationale for his model – which is itself entirely speculative. Of what use are they though if they are only speculative assertions?

4) Omits relevant information from both points of view. Not only does Oard provide little justification for his own views, but he takes no account of mainstream evidence which address his very criticisms. It is on a point such as this that the difference between YEC science and mainstream science stands in sharp contrast. On page 42, Oard quotes Alley et al. (18 ) as recognizing that various local phenomena (storms, precipitation, snow dunes) can cause problems in counting annual layers. And this is entirely the point that Alley et al. address. Their paper deals with the reliability of and justification for visual counting of annual layers, given that previous researchers (some 20 years earlier) had shown that only some 200m of core could be counted with an accuracy of 10%. The paper is very detailed and it shows that visual counting can be traced back some 8,000 years. Deeper than that, the bubbles change form (to clathrates). However storage of the cores causes the bubbles to reform and the signal returns, giving researchers a visual count for at least the Holocene (the past 10,000 years). Using another (cloudiness), marker, annual layers could be extended back to 50,000 years – but with slightly less accuracy.

In fact a quote from a small section of Alley et al. and Oard will show the contrasting methods.

Alley – page 26368 of ref (18 ):-

In Holocene ice and firn at GISP2, the most useful and prominent visible variations are caused by changes in bubble and grain sizes which in turn affect light transmission and reflection. These are most evident in snow pits, as layers from roughly 1 mm to several centimeters in thickness, which group into larger patterns forming annual cycles of roughly 50-75 cm in length. During transformation of snow to ice, compaction and other diagenetic processes reduce the contrast between adjacent layers while reducing their thickness, but leave a weak signal of individual layers at the millimeter – centimeter scale and a clear annual signal at roughly 24 cm thickness. Strain thinning progressively reduces the thickness of these layers, but they remain visible as deep as bubbles are common in the core (roughly 1300-1400 m or roughly 8,000 years). In deeper ice, clathrates have replaced bubbles [Grow et al., this issue], but progressive exsolution of the clathrates to form bubbles, during core storage returns nearly the same signal as observed in shallower ice, at least for the Holocene.

Now consider Oard – page 41 of ref. (15):-

How do creationists explain the oscillations observed in these variables in the lower portion of the ice cores? Within the uniformitarian model, the amplitude of each variable within an ‘annual’ layer tends to be smoothed out by molecular diffusion over time as the layer is compressed. Within the creationist model, there has not been time for much diffusion. However, the climate during the Ice Age would have had warmer winters and cooler summers, which would lessen the amplitude of the annual oscillation. So, I would expect lower amplitude oscillations in ice core variables during the Ice Age, especially with the oxygen isotope ratio.

Furthermore, at the time the snow was building during the Ice Age, the elevation of the ice sheet would have been lower and the air temperature warmer. This would have produced more melt or hoar-frost layers (cloudy bands), which is one of the variables uniformitarians used to determine the annual layers. Therefore what uniformitarian scientists are claiming as annual variations are simply oscillations that occur within a single year.

Look at Oard’s choice of words. Clearly this is pure speculation and he has no data to confirm his ideas about the climate during the Ice Age. In reality, this is all speculative assertion designed to explain away the results of actual experiments and observations such as those described by Alley et al. above. Ditto his explanation of the weakening of annual layer signals. He has to be able to explain away the results of tests such as those conducted by Alley et al. which demonstrate that visual counting can go back to about 8,000 years, and the “annealing” of cores while in storage, can take that counting back to 10,000 years at least.

Oard wants us to believe that researchers are correct when they count these signals down to 4,000 years. No hand waving speculations and unsubstantiated assertions apply then. However, once we hit 4,000 years then suddenly the speculations and assertions are applied to explain away inconvenient data.

This is not scientists using naturalism for 4,000 years then switching metaphysics and methodologies for deeper parts of the core because YEC offends them. The geophysicists use the same principles all the way down the ice core. Rather it is YEC Oard using solid argument based on evidence for 4,000 years then switching methodology to speculation and unsubstantiated assertion when that point is reached, to explain what comes next – and behaving as if argument based on evidence is the same as speculation and assertion.

5) Oard is selective in what he chooses to focus on that could be relevant to his thesis. He is very keen on demonstrating (?) over-counting but is totally silent on undercounting – a problem recognized by researchers in the field.

5) Oard is cagey. He says things that are not necessarily correct thereby giving a false impression. For example he states that:-

Significantly, their interpretation of annual layers from these variables has been determined by the thickness of the annual layers that they expect, based on their model.

It is as if the researchers are applying circular reasoning in interpreting the data. Significantly, Oard provides no reference to support this claim. Nevertheless it is clear from a casual examination of the reports that, while this reliance on models for some interpretations may have occurred, in essence, much of the interpretation of annual layering did not rely on models. The above quote from Alley et al. illustrates this. Visual counts using the patterns seen at shallow depths (which Oard accepts) could be undertaken for some 10,000 years at least. No use of models to explain the data here. Just straight observation.

Oard writes that:-

Within the uniformatarian model, the amplitude of each variable within the ‘annual’ layer tends to be smoothed out …

Well uniformitarian models have nothing to do with it. The amplitude of mostsignals do generally become weaker with depth. It has nothing to do with models. It is a simple fact of life and it is logical that this should occur. However, as the reports show, the proxies for visual counting often gave good results right down the core until a point was reached at which they could not be easily recorded or interpreted. Then the counting was halted. “Smoothing out” of a signal does not mean that counting cannot be reliably continued. It just means that the pattern is less easy to detect, that is all. It does not mean that the pattern is not there.

7) Oard is disingenuous. He wishes to show that beyond 4,000 years the ice cores represent events within one year while prior to that they show annual layers. He does not argue his case directly. First he misrepresents the mainstream by the crude methods mentioned above. For example, before 4,000 years the mainstream correctly interprets things. Beyond 4,000 years the mainstream relies on assumption, belief, expectation etc. Then, having “disposed” of the mainstream argument beyond 4,000 years, Oard offers speculation as a suitable alternative.

Continued ...

[rjw]

IN SCIENCE RELEVANT DATA IS NEVER TANGENTIAL

You wrote:-

My preference is to debate whether God designed/created, rather than assigning a date. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy debating age assumptions as they abound, but I think the question of age sometimes tangents the argument away from the greater issues.

No matter what is being measured in science, assumptions “abound”.
Furthermore assumptions can be reliable or they can be unreliable. They can be sensible or wild guesses.

Dates, ages, times, counts, measurements are all fundamental to science. To be able to decide if the morphology of life has changed over time (a fundamental question in evolutionary biology), one has to be able to date things, either relatively or absolutely. Absolute dates are preferable.

If you cannot date things then there is much less you can argue about. If you can date things then theories are constrained and more quantitative and therefore testable arguments can be formulated. In science, constraining theories is of the utmost importance.

So while you may have your debating preferences, dismissing dating in geology or paleontology is like dismissing distance measurements in astronomy. You may choose to do so on the grounds that it is unimportant. All you are left with then is pure speculation. (And speculation is a mainstay of YEC argument.)

Consider the comparison between Oard and Alley et al. above.

Oard’s model is pure speculation. Alley and Co. actually went out and took measurements and made observations from which they built up their case. Using visual inspections the researchers saw no real change in pattern for 10,000 years. After that they could not reliably count layers using visual inspection, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Oard accepts their interpretation for 4,000 years then he wishes to introduce a different interpretation beyond 4,000 years which has no basis in observation – simply because his religious belief is offended.

If you think that dates are tangential to these debates, then why not also ignore any other data you may choose? The point is that scientists do not ignore inconvenient data. Rather, data constrains their models. It determines what can be said with confidence from what can be said with caution, from what is sound speculation from what is wild guess.

NAME CALLING AND SLOPPY RESEARCH ARE NOT THE SAME THING

I wrote:- I found AiG to misrepresent the mainstream terribly, that it was often evasive, used double standards, shifted goal posts to maintain its arguments, often used sheer sloppy arguments to make a point etc.
Followers of AiG accordingly adopt those methods, oblivious it would seem to what is going on.

You responded:- I don't doubt this is possible, however I have read much from AiG and have often seen them misrepresented. As an example, I watched a debate recently between Carl Wieland and Paul Willis, where an evolutionist listed a couple of things that AiG said on their web site that his AiG opponent, Wieland, "contradicted" in his statements. The problem was, it wasn't true. Having previously read exactly the documents to which he referred, it was clear that he had twisted his argument to make it appear as though the AiG representative was lying, when in reality, he was falsely accusing his opponent. Actually, numerous times, Willis tried to show his opponent as "hiding" or "keeping" the truth from the audience with accusations and just-so statements which were unfounded.

It is hard for me to comment on this. I have heard that Willis did perform better than Weiland on the science issues but that, Willis did himself no favors in attempting to blacken Wieland. It made Willis look a bit silly because Wieland was easily able to counter this. And why accuse Weiland of some deliberate mischievousness when his complaints are probably genuinely felt? (I shall touch on this issue again shortly.)

However, allow me to take you at your word.

In essence then, this is little more than name calling. While it certainly adds nothing to the argument, it does not address my point either.

I am not talking about the “bar room brawls” between our opposing view points where name calling is the norm. Rather I am talking about things that are important in science that is methodologies – arguing from evidence, consistency and coherency, accuracy.

We can easily make accusations against each other in the course of presenting our ideas. This is of little relevance however if the idea itself is speculative and has no evidence to support it; if the idea relies for its own veracity on misrepresenting the opponent’s idea; if the idea itself has a metaphysic and an axiomatic system that changes, depending on the circumstances etc.

A few documented examples concerning this exchange would have been useful too, otherwise your comments here become little more than unsubstantiated assertion. (I have spent a lot of money subscribing to or buying YEC publications over the past years. I am loath to any more. So links to articles, extended quotes (to allow me to establish the context) or references to publications I just might be able to locate in a library – would be most useful).

You then wrote:- Again, we will always find that evolutionist proponents and creationist proponents have in common their human tendencies, so I would urge people not to believe or disbelieve based on individuals unable or unwilling to defend their position.

Again, this is not the point I am making. Refer back to my “brief” comments on A&H, Oard and Williams.

Better still, get articles from AiG where a piece of mainstream research is being criticized and where that research is referenced. Locate the research. Read it and understand it (that can take a lot of effort. It generally does for me.) Then you will see what I am getting at. While access to journals such as Astronomy and Astrophysics may well be difficult, requiring a nearby university with a good technical library, journals such as Nature and Science should be far more accessible. I find those journals available in many public access libraries.

Name calling between both sides certainly occurs. Within the mainstream, fraudulent results can appear sound enough to be published and an author can engage in deliberate fraud himself. Name calling is not the issue. Fraud is not the issue (??). What is at issue is a systematic use of an inconsistent metaphysical and axiomatic system coupled with a dubious methodology that treats speculation as sound theory, misrepresentation of an opponent as sound argument, double standards as standards etc.

In the mainstream, fraud does not get propagated when it is detected.

And when it is detected, often severe recriminations follow. Within AiG, “fraud”/sloppy argument/deceitful argument does get propagated on a continual basis and it is impossible to convince AiG of this dubious practice – despite claims that it always corrects errors promptly then they are pointed out. (A good example of this is an attempt to get AiG (and Sarfati) to correct a mischievous piece of misquoting in an article about the distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy. See Clark and Caswell (21) for the original statement. See Sarfati (22) and Davis (23) for the misquote as to what Clark and Caswell really claimed. See (24) for the AiG claim to promptly correct mistakes. A letter on mine to AiG (25) was never answered – and the misquote remains. It is something of a joke on “The Theology Web” that Sarfati (alias Socrates) defended this misquote to the point of absurdity. In one sense this particular example is a storm in a tea cup. However it is symptomatic of AiG!)

I wrote:- Frankly I think that YEC science has to be so sloppy because it is backing a loser as far as science goes – hence it has no choice but to
adopt the dubious methodologies it does.

You responded:- I'd be happy to review some of these methodologies. To which do you refer?

Did you read what I wrote regarding Williams’ critique of dating methods? Williams’ argument rested on the false implication that researchers discarded data in order to make their claim. They did not.
Their claim was based on a methodology that was appropriate to the area they were working in. Williams’ claim that dating methods are flawed therefore demonstrated nothing of the sort.

What about my comments concerning A&H? Did you read these? A&H supposedly demonstrated that the earth was at most 62 million years old using a model they claimed was generous to evolutionists. It was not, simply because it ignored at least one parameter that no geologist could ignore – recycling. A&H gave no reason for this, even though they cited at least one paper (Livingstone) which included it. And what is more, their model which “better explained the data” was no more than a short piece of speculation contained at the end of their paper. In other words, their model did not demonstrate a constraint on the age of the earth that was deeply at odds with that accepted by the mainstream, using a mainstream type of model which was generous to the mainstream. It was nothing of the sort!

And consider Oard. His thesis rests his acceptance of mainstream argument concerning ice cores, providing that argument does not attempt to go beyond 4,000 years. Beyond 4,000 years his thesis then rests on unsupported assertion despite the fact that even good visual data can be obtained going back 10,000 years with high accuracy and to 50,000 years with less accuracy. Oard does not provide evidence for his switch in interpretation and his rejection of mainstream observations after 4,000 years. He offers unsupported assertion and speculation instead.

These critiques illustrate the YEC methodology. They are not isolated incidents. They are the norm. Nor are they in the same vein as name calling and heckling. Can you provide me with a good piece of YEC research that argues its thesis (Flood, Fall, Creation whatever) directly without misrepresenting mainstream thoughts and offering speculation in place of argument from evidence?

To re-emphasize, consider the GISP and GRIP ice core papers. They argue for dates going back to 110,000 years and 250,000 years respectively. The authors do not argue their case by setting up parodies of YEC thought (they may have been devout Christians even), then offering speculative hypothesis as to why they think they can count back this many years. They actually describe the experiments they undertook. You can read about the assumptions they made, the tests they did to check these out. The appeal to observations they made gave them confidence that they were actually counting annual events and not just events within a year. At no stage was their (presumed) distaste for YEC used to argue their case. Ditto for A&H and the paper by
Livingstone which they cited. A&H wished to demonstrate that the earth is at most 62 million years and so they set up a model which parodies mainstream thinking and do not justify why they ignore certain critical ideas. Rather they pretend that their model is generous to the mainstream. Then, having argued that, they offer a wee bit of speculation and pretend that it explains the data better. No justification is provided for this statement that the data is “better explained”. But then none has to be given. Any speculation can explain any dataset.
Livingstone on the other hand wishes to bring the salinity dating method into line with the radio isotope dating methods then being introduced into geology. He is well aware of the history of salinity dating methods and realizes there is a problem. He does not argue his case by first parodying religious fundamentalists. Religion does not get a mention. (Livingston may or may not have been a theist). Rather he sticks to data, observation and evidence. He argues from that. He notes problems with previous arguments and how, even when they included recycling, they had under-accounted for the amount of sodium returned to the continental crust. He includes the better accounting methods and shows how dates can be obtained which are more in line with those from the new systems being introduced. It is easy to see where Livingstone is speculating – he does not equate speculation with substance. It is easy to see where potential problems might lie with the argument because the argument is described in full. Etc., etc., etc.

THANKYOU FOR THIS

You wrote:- Absolutely not. I appreciate your candidness, and tolerance of people like me.

Nevertheless I do realize that I could well hurt some people. Obviously I think very badly of YEC – and it is very hard expressing this without straying onto other people’s feelings.

I DID EXPLAIN

I wrote:- This is only partially correct. YECs do horrible science when they criticize the mainstream on issues such as radio-isotope dating, the age of the earth etc. They do horrible science when they attempt to demonstrate that humans and dinosaurs were cotemporary.

You responded:- Please explain these first ones...

See my comments on Williams, A&H, and now Oard with respect to dating and the age of the earth.

With respect to humans and dinosaurs, I understand that AiG recommends that Paluxy River no longer be used and an example. Now that may appear to be AiG demonstrating “scientific progress”. I think it is more like AiG attempting to abandon what was a lousy argument in the first place and an argument which is now becoming embarrassing.

However, AiG still does not learn.

On the “No Answers in Genesis” Bulletin Board, I was recently presented with a “fact” regarding humans and dinosaurs (19). This fact turned out to be a link to an AiG article on the matter. The article was a reprinting from a Russian newspaper and was of such a quality that AiG put a warning at the end concerning over reliance on the article.

My point is this – if Paluxy is now on the nose, is AiG so desperate still that it has to keep an article of dubious merit posted so that the faithful can present it as “fact” that humans and dinosaurs lived together? Unless this has some propaganda value, why keep the article on the web?

If the evidence was so good, AiG would have it highlighted with bells ringing and lights flashing. They do not. Rather AiG just keeps the article there, tucked away, presumably to keep the faithful happy that there is evidence, but with a “health warning”, so that the rest of us know that they are not too serious about it.

This is not good evidence and it is not good argument. It is good propaganda. Clearly AiG is behaving as if it wants “a bob each way” on the matter.

Continued ...

[rjw]

AGAIN, I AM NOT ARGUING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL CASES. I AM ARGUING ABOUT OVERALL METHODOLOGY

You wrote:- I would not defend AiG's paper not having read it myself, however, that it is bogus based on the above is hardly a condemnation of overall creationist methodology.

But that is exactly what I am arguing. I spent 3 years arguing with creation scientists at AiG. It was very easy to argue my case – just pick an article from AiG’s research journal TJ where a piece of mainstream research was being critiqued and where references were supplied. I would obtain all the relevant articles, understand what both sides were saying – and see the difference. Then I would write a letter to AiG pointing out the misrepresentations, double standards etc. – and wait. A letter with more sloppy arguments and avoidances would be returned. And so it went on.

Notwithstanding the human foibles of all parties, the mainstream papers were coherent, consistent, and argued from evidence. The AiG papers and replies to my complaints were anything but.

This was always the pattern. That being the case then it does become a condemnation of creationist methodology.

WHAT IS GOING ON?

In the quote above you used the word “bogus”.

While I some within the mainstream are dishonest and likewise so are some YECs, I do not think that “lying” or “dishonesty” are exactly what is going on here.

Nor do I think that the AiG papers are exactly “bogus” – in the sense of dishonesty. Certainly they are “bogus” in the sense of sound argument and credible science. I fairly happily say that YECS practice a kind of science when they discuss creation, the Fall, the Flood etc. However their practice is very dubious and sloppy. And it is systematic. IOW, AiG goes through the motions of practicing science.

I think what is happening is this. YECs have a particular religious view point in which knowledge is infallibly imparted to us from outside (by God). It is also infallibly interpreted by us (YECs) since it is God’s word meant for us. Hence any idea which contradicts this particular interpretation is wrong. YECs live in a culture which prides rational, logical argument which is based on observation and evidence. They wish to join this culture in full. If their ideas are correct and those of their opponents are incorrect then this should be demonstrable using scientific methods. Hence they attempt this.

The outcome is that when the opposing idea is non-threatening then the YEC is a fully fledged naturalist. Once the opposing idea threatens the above mentioned belief, then metaphysics, axioms and methodologies are switched and a “kind of science” continues to be undertaken to defend the religious belief. And so the pretence is maintained that nothing has really changed.

(But of course it has changed. Consider what I wrote about Ken Ham and YECs who quote the ideas presented in his book The Lie: Evolution.
A new definition of science has been adopted that is muddled and confused. It leaves YECs happy with the idea that theories associated with evolution, Big Bang cosmology, ancient earth etc. cannot be science. What they do not understand though is that these same definitions also remove pretty well all science from science.)

It is sort of a split personality in operation.

I do not doubt that, by and large, A&H, Williams and Oard are sincere, but their need to demonstrate scientific respectability for their religious faith leads to this sloppy system of arguing.

IGNORING RESULTS

You wrote:- Scientists of all fields frequently ignore each other on parts of their findings while picking and choosing that which suits their suit, as it were.

While this is true to some extent, I suspect that you accept the atomic theory of matter, the germ theory of disease etc., notwithstanding the fact that this comment of yours still applies. So why do you see the difference?

If this criticism is relevant to the mainstream research that A&H, Sarfati and Davies, Williams and Oard critique, then it should be easy for them to demonstrate that this is so. But this does not happen, or when it does, you can bet that a shoddy claim is being made. In reality, ignoring results is the game played by AiG.

To underscore this, let me remind you of A&H’s argument whereby they present an “evolutionary” model that omits important mainstream thinking. Davies (23), relies on the concept of young supernova remnants to argue his case for a young universe. He makes the assertion that there are no stage 3 (“old”) remnants in the galaxy. He offers no reason for this assertion given that the scientific literature points to many stage 3 remnants in the galaxy. Davies just ignores that fact. He selects the data he needs to make his point and ignores the existence of other data. In responding to my point about the time taken for some remnants to grow very large, Sarfati (26) cites an occasion where new research had shown that one supposedly large (and therefore old) remnant was demonstrated to have grown to a large size in a short time. What he ignored was new research on other remnants which showed that supposedly young remnants had actually become old. IOW, Sarfati was very selective in his choice of examples from which to build his argument. It was as if the other data just did not exist.

If AiG thinks that the mainstream is “data mining” then it should be easy for them to demonstrate this in an unambiguous manner. They do not.
My claim is that AiG does “data mining”. It is very easy to demonstrate this. Just read the claims AiG makes then read the mainstream literature.

Theories ultimately succeed of fail based on the quality of their arguments and the ability of them to withstand testing. If scientists always did as you suggest then all theories would always fail. All one would need to do is “pick and choose” another data set, the alternative data that has been omitted, and “poof” the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease would immediately be called into doubt. Do you accept that germs do cause disease? Or do you choose another data set and argue that germs do not cause disease? I suspect that you are convinced that germs cause disease and so do viruses as well as genetic disorders. And this is despite the fact that your claim above is to some extent true.

The practice is not widespread enough to make your claim problematic to these theories. One drunk driver does not make all drivers of cars drunks, even though the potential exists for this to be the case.

This kind of argument is a bit like saying that some humans are dangerous and likely to cause car accidents therefore all humans should be banned from owning cars because they are all likely to cause accidents.

Well all humans are potentially dangerous. However, some are very safe drivers and despite the fact that all humans have foibles, we can all drive our cars relatively safely for most of the time – to the point that our road systems kind of work reasonably well. Certainly they work well enough to the point that we all drive without too much concern for our safety.

Hence, what exactly is your point here?

You wrote:- One clear example of this that comes to mind, and oddly sounds similar to the above, is recent recalculations of stratospheric ozone depletion leading to global warming. When doing the math which lead to estimations of sharp rising in overall climactic temperature, environmentalists once gave much more dire estimations of when the earth would experience the next natural global crisis. One main reason for this was that the supercomputers doing the crunching were not given the data based on natural ozone replenishment. Since the ozone layer naturally replenishes itself over time, though likely slower than it is depleting, it affects the equation. It wasn't for lack of knowledge, but perhaps these scientists too, were zealous for their cause.

Exactly how is this an example of scientists picking and choosing what they want? Or how is it an example of systematic sloppy science? It sounds very much as if the initial warnings were given on the basis of what was known then. Later research revealed that the situation was more complex and when the models were re-run, things were not as bad as had seemed. You say that this “wasn’t for lack of knowledge”. But you do not demonstrate this. It appears more like your interpretation of events.

Perhaps the scientists were over zealous for their cause but to show that this was the case you need to demonstrate that the scientists knew about natural ozone replenishment and that it was significant – thereby giving evidence to your suspicion that the research was sloppy and this was deliberate. At the moment your argument appears no more than assertion on your part.

But there is an even greater problem with your argument. My claim is that YEC science is methodically sloppy and my claim is based on 3 years of experience at arguing with YEC scientists about their technical literature.

Your claim is based on arguing from exception. You doubt ToE, based on exceptions. Now you appear to doubt some of climatology. So why not doubt all of climatology, based on this exception? Do you also doubt the atomic theory of matter and medical theory because exceptions can be demonstrated there as well?

IMO, you are confusing exception with the norm in order to argue your case.

In my experience with respect to YEC science, the “exception” is the “norm”. This is based on my 3 years of experience at engaging YEC scientists and YEC technical literature. This notion continues to be reinforced through ongoing debates with YEC.

You then wrote:- Oh, that was the other thing one saw plenty of in the aforementioned PBS documentary. Plenty of "it makes you wonder", "we think", "it's possible", "the most likely way these things formed"... Those are from my notes, but as you can see, whether God is in the equation or not, both sides can offer statements which are difficult at best to prove, though it's true that such statements and the name "God" is more offensive to some.

Again, this is not my point. In all science there is plenty of “it makes you wonder”, “we think”, “it’s possible” etc.

Allow me to say something a bit daring:- scientific theories are the best descriptions we have to explain things. But that does not make them unassailable facts. Hence the language you described is entirely appropriate.

But my complaint is not about documentaries and popularizations. It is about YEC science (with respect to origins) versus mainstream science (with respect to origins).

In what sense can you equate a scientific paper which describes a piece of research with a documentary in which the combined output of all that associated research is being presented in a candid manner for the public? They are two entirely different genre. And if that documentary had used the language of certainty in situations where uncertainty is still the norm – would not the charge of “dogmatism” have been appropriate?

As before, examples of where those words were used in that PBS documentary would have been most helpful.

Continued ...

[rjw]

OPERATIONS vs ORIGINS (HISTORICAL) science

You wrote:- The clear differentiator here is operational versus historical science. It certainly makes sense that scientists can respect each other's work in operational sciences when outcomes are less dissimilar than with historical science.

You make it appear that there is a sharp division in science. Is there?

Exactly what is the difference between the two sciences and what is it about them that draws this sharp distinction?

Given that some religious groups would argue that mainstream interpretations are kaput with respect to some operational sciences – e.g. mental health research vs demonic possession or spherical earth vs flat earth, whence the point you make now? Given that much historical science is accepted on naturalistic terms by both YECs and the mainstream, what exactly is the point you are making?

With respect to this notion of “dissimilar outcomes”, exactly what are you saying? With this notion of “less dissimilar outcomes” you appear to be claiming that there is a point at which you ignore the data and the argument and concentrate on the fact that two sides are in dispute. If so, and there is a point at which data and argument can be ignored, then what is this point?

”MAINSTREAM” = Christian, Hindu, Kalathumpian, Atheist, Agnostic, Male, Female …

I wrote:- I could continue but hopefully my point is made. You will find a lot of insults between creationists and the mainstream at the level of these bulletin boards – whether the correspondents are ordinary people or scientists. However, have a look at the research papers offered by both camps. Papers offered by the mainstream:-

a) are constrained by observations,

b) are clear about what is speculation and what is not,

c) stick to the point they are making. They do not “prove” their points by taking cheap shots at their opponents. They make their case by collecting evidence and arguing from that,

d) Offer logical and reasoned arguments for the point they are wishing to make,

e) operate within a consistent framework – the same framework as the rest of science operates in

You responded:- To which mainstream do you refer? Certainly not to the greater group of male and female scientists belonging to the human race. A race with good and noble, and lying and deceitful alike.

The mainstream is that group of theist (Christian (evangelical, conservative, liberal …), Hindu, Muslim, Jewish …), atheist, agnostic; male or female – scientists who accept in one form or another all of mainstream science ranging from quantum theory, to the germ theory of disease, to modern cosmology (Big Bang or otherwise), to the ancient earth, to evolution (macro and micro). That is, it is the group of people who apply the same naturalistic metaphysics and axioms and the same scientific methodology to whatever material system (process or structure) they are studying.

You continued:- This assessment is far too utopian for what we see in the world around us. And one doesn't have only to look for Christians to see individuals with motive to further their scientific ideas. Political, social, governmental and corporate agendas do much to sway individuals one way or another. "Publish or Perish" as has been discussed elsewhere on this board, certainly doesn't help to preclude bad science from hitting the journals.

I agree with this, but sooner or later, notwithstanding the pressures, motives and human foibles, the validity of a claim has to rest on evidence and argument.

You did the very thing I suggested you not do. You argued on personality grounds. I said compare research with research. I wrote “compare the research papers offered by both camps”.

Do you really doubt everything you hear because of what you just wrote? If so then why do you accept anything? If you do accept some things, then why write what you just did? It is “easy” enough the get AiG articles and the mainstream articles being critiqued and check these things out. (As I have said, the one problem is that it can take a lot of work to understand a mainstream research article. But the effort is worth it.)

You continued:- Discovery is a hallmark of scientific sage-dom.

And so it should be. Solid performance in any field of human endeavor – sports, politics, evangelism – is a doorway to “sage-dom”.

You wrote:- And how about the "limelight"? Do scientists need to submit good science to make it into the spotlight? Of course not.

Again quite true? But exactly what is your point in writing this? Bad science sooner or later gets weeded out. Sometimes it happens sooner (Cold fusion – this has only a minority of defenders these days, a notorious bird fossil from China). Sometimes it happens later (Margaret Mead and Samoa – although this is still hotly debated, Piltdown Man) Scientists have as many prima donnas as does the rest of society. As with anything else these prima donnas can make the spotlight and stay there for a long time. At other times they fall very quickly.

However, it also often happens that good science can also make it to the spotlight as soon as it appears. (And it is even true that some prima donnas are brilliant researchers who actually present good arguments.)
This too is no different to the rest of society.

Your argument is simply based on an (unfortunate) fact of life. But again you make the exceptions appear the norm without offering any more than assertion and guilt by association. Is all of sports corrupt because drug-taking is “rife”? Perhaps. But, to go beyond speculation and argue you case, you have to demonstrate that wide spread drug taking is serious enough to call the whole system into doubt. For all you know it might occur enough to be a problem that is not beyond redemption. For all you know the word “rife” may be a complete exaggeration. Assertion and guilt by association do not make for sound argument.

As with an earlier argument of yours though, you appear to be saying “one bit of bad science – all bad science”. But the world is not that simple – as you just finished saying. So why argue in the manner you do?

If science is methodologically sloppy then demonstrate that this is so. Argument by exception, assertion, and association do not give you a sound basis.

Then you said:- They need only be controversial, revolutionary, whacky or a host of other things which can cover much of the "mainstream" without necessarily touching any of the good scientists.

Again what are you arguing? There appears to be a confusion of concepts here. Newton’s theory of gravity was both controversial and revolutionary. Many thought it wacky. Action at a distance made no sense. So Newton should not have been in the spotlight when he announced his theory of gravity?

Allow me to take your argument on face value. Are you really arguing that only the wacky ones get heard?

There are several things wrong with this:-

1) The wacky ones are not the only ones to get heard. Often the good ones get heard also.

2) Often the wacky ones do not get heard – simply because the good ones speak up – quickly.

3) Good scientific ideas are judged by scientists as “good” or “bad”. That the experts deem ideas to be “good” or “bad” is not at all unusual. Generals generally judge military campaigns. Doctors generally judge good medical practices. Sports people generally judge who is the best. The public may have its ideas but in all fields of human endeavor, the experts have their own opinions. Hence even it the wacky ones always grab the spotlight, as the years pass, those who work in the labs, go out into the field and write the papers – soon cast a critical eye over the supposed revolution and it disappears. Sometimes this does not happen – and sloppy science can become the norm. Then your point is well made. However, by concluding that because this might happen, or does happen, therefore it always happens is simply an unsupported assertion.

4) Wacky movie stars “always” get the spotlight. Therefore no good movies come out of America? No sensible movie star ever gets the spotlight? Are these statements of mine credible, partially credible or exaggerations?

I wrote:- Papers offered by creationists:-

a) are often unconstrained speculations – e.g. “God could have” type statements,

b) mix speculation with fact and do not distinguish between them,

c) do not argue a case on its own merits. Often they make their case by taking cheap shots at their opponents – the mainstream,

d) do not offer logical and reasoned arguments. Often their arguments are misrepresentations of the mainstream, use double standards, shift the goal posts etc.

e) do not operate within a consistent framework. Naturalism is decried when YEC religious sensibilities are offended. Naturalism is enthusiastically embraced when religion is not offended. When offense occurs, often a mixture of naturalism and supernaturalism results in which there are no clear guidelines as to why the shift is made, other than the fact that religious belief has been offended. The YEC rationale for this peculiar “science” is inconsistent, contradictory and often incoherent. (A good example of this would be Ken Ham’s popular little book The Lie: Evolution (7))

You responded:- As sweepingly general as this is, I think it's simply a personality thing, and must be rejected with the former appraisal of the mainstream scientific community as too subjective.

Yes it is sweepingly general.

However, I engaged YEC scientists all those years ago, in part to see how good it really was, considering that religious fundamentalism had played a large part in my formative years.

Yes, I am subjective but given that I have compared YEC philosophies of science with mainstream philosophies of science, and YEC methodology with that of the mainstream by actually engaging YEC scientists, then hopefully I have demonstrated my case with both evidence and argument based on that evidence.

The mainstream may be subjective (a normal human trait) but generally it is not hopelessly blinded by that subjectivity. Given that it is on the butt-end of YEC scientific methodology, it ought to know.

And by “butt-end of YEC scientific methodology”, I am not talking about the insults and innuendo that pass between opponents in this battle. I am talking about the nuts and bolts of how research is done and the resulting argument presented. There is a big difference.

It would be good if you would avail yourself to some modern books on ideas as to what science is, and following that, read some of the research literature on the topics I have written about above.

SUMMARY

It is not necessarily good argument to substitute a word in another’s argument and think that a valid point has been made.

To confuse mainstream offence at YEC science with inconsistent application of metaphysics is essentially the same as arguing that Christian offence at idolatry is the same as inconsistent religious practice. That is, if a mainstream scientist takes offence at YEC then he/she is really switching metaphysics then analogously, a Christian taking offence at idolatry is the same as that person worshipping another god.

Not at all.

Nor is it good to argue from exception or association. If human foibles are the only real basis for comparing YEC and mainstream then I am surprised that you even accept that the earth is spherical given that some Biblical literalists argue otherwise and that both groups share the same foibles. Whether the earth is flat or spherical relies on observation and sound argument – surely. The fact that the mainstream calls flat earthers “wacky” and that flat earthers claim that only they do “true science”, has little to do with it.

In science, evidence and sound argument are generally the key to the acceptance of ideas – not withstanding the fact that all scientists have faults and at times, both individually and collectively they can be fooled and deluded. If you maintain that this puts all ideas on an equal footing then I am surprised that you accept any scientific theory. Do you? What about that list I supplied way back near the beginning?

Do not confuse mainstream scientist mouthing off with a piece of sloppy YEC research. Mouthing off may be bad manners but it is not sloppy research.

You can only compare research with research. That is, compare the writings, arguments and methods of:-
1) A&H with Livingstone and the mainstream;
2) Williams with Compton and Pidgeon
3) Oard with Meese, Alley et al.
4) Davies and Sarfati with Clark and Casswell.

Do not get me wrong either. I am not denying that scientists do not have foibles which often interfere with sound judgment. Nor am I arguing that as a group they cannot be deluded. I can think of one field, which spans both “operations” science and “origins” science, for which a strong case could be made for self delusion. Anthropology appears to be undergoing a lot of criticism these days. Much of this comes from anthropologists themselves who appear to make a good argument that the field has, for decades, been overtaken by wishful thinkers and sloppy methologists.

But as a science, evolutionary biology and evolutionists do not appear to warrant the criticisms you make. YEC certainly does warrant the criticisms I make.

Well Nikolayevich, this has been a very long posting. You may or may not care to comment on all of it or a part of it.
Hopefully I have been able to put more flesh around my argument and better make my point.

Regards, Roland




REFERENCES:

(1) Ham, Ken. “The Lie: Evolution”. Answers In Genesis Ministries. 2001
(2) “Hemi” – reply to rjw on “No Answers In Genesis” board, September 11, 2004
(3) “Jorge” to “sylas” on “Theology Web”, March 16, 2004.
(4) “Jorge” – reply to rjw on “Theology Web”, March 17, 2004
(5) “Vxer1000” – reply to rjw on “Christian Forums”, October 7, 2004
(6) “Paul” to unknown respondent on “No Answers In Genesis” board, August 22, 2004.
(7) “Chris” to unknown respondent on “No Answers In Genesis” board, October 14, 2003.
(8) Williams, Alexander, “Flaws in dating the earth as ancient”, Creation Ex Nihlo 18(1):14, Dec. 1995-Feb. 1996
(9) Compston W and Pidgeon, R.T., Nature 321:766-769, 1986.
(11) Ham, Ken, “Searching for the ‘magic bullet’” in <i>Creation</i><b> 25</b>(2):34-37, March 2003
(12) Ham, Ken, “Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’” in <i>Creation</i><b> 22</b>(1):39-42, December 1999
(13) Austin, Steven A. and Humphreys, Russell D., “The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists.”, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, 1990 Volume II. Creation Science Fellowship Inc., Pittsburgh, USA. Brooks, Christopher L., editor in chief.)
(14) Livingstone, D.A., "The sodium cycle and the age of the ocean", Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 27:1055-1069. 1963
(15) Oard, Michael, “Do Greenland ice cores show over one hundred thousand years of annual layers?”, in “Countering the Critics”, TJ 15(3) 2001, pp39.
(16) Meese, D.A., Gow, A.J., Alley, R.B., Zielinski, G.A., Grootes, P.M., Ram, M., Taylor, K.C., Mayewski, P.A., and Bolzan, J.F., “The Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 depth-age scale: Methods and results.” Journal of Geophysical Research 102(C12):26411-26423, 1997.
(17) Vardiman, Larry, “Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth”, Impact No. 226, Institute for Creation Research, 1992.
(18) Alley et al. “Visual-stratigraphic dating of the GISP2 ice core: Basis, reproducibility, and application.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 102(C12):26367-26381, 1997.
(19) “Paul” to rjw on “No Answers in Genesis” board, September 8, 2004.
(20) http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... osaurs.asp
(21) Clark, D.H. and Caswell J.L., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 174 267-305. 1976.
(22) Sarfati, J., "Exploding Stars Point To A Young Universe", Creation, 19(3):46-48, June-August 1997.
(23) Davies, Keith, “Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy”, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A.
(24) AiG "Ministry Newsbriefs" dated September 2000,
(25) Letter from R Watts to Editor of Creation, AiG, 13-October-2000
(26) Letter from Dr J Sarfati to R Watts, 11-December-1997.

[Lucifer]

wow...that's long...
Regarding creationism, I do think it's not a scientific theory, since it doesn't have any explained mechanisms. As far as I know, there hasn't been a scientific report about creationism that's been subject to peer review. As for why it's still occurring, I don't know. Is it still considered that people believe in creationism? Afterall, if evolution is a scientific theory, then you shouldn't need to believe in it. Leave that up to religion.

[rjw]

Gidday Lucifer,

I know what you mean and much/most from the mainstream would agree with you.

I call creationism a science somewhat grudgingly I guess, since YECs attempt to go through the motions (but can do little more.)

YEC would argue that it does have a mechanism – God, the Flood, the Fall. However you are correct because YEC does not go sensibly beyond “God did it”, “the Flood did it” or "the Fall did it”. I used the words “sensibly beyond” because I have seen attempts to model the Flood, bits of the creation etc. However these models are always totally unconstrained speculations, IOW wild guesses.

By refusing to allow that YEC is science, an argument develops at that point. By accepting it as science, YECs can then be brought into a discussion on methodology and evidence – two areas in which they are terribly weak.

And if they are so bad in those areas then their arguments amount to little as well.


Regards, Roland

[Lucifer]

Some redundant attempts, huh? We could tell them that, but they'll just sink deeper into their own (pardon the expression) "filth" and get nowhere. If they say creationism has a mechanism, then obviously, they don't quite know what a mechanism is or how it works. They could probably try to pass up something as a mechanism, but they wouldn't be able to explain it. Real strawman at that.

[Jose]

By refusing to allow that YEC is science, an argument develops at that point. By accepting it as science, YECs can then be brought into a discussion on methodology and evidence – two areas in which they are terribly weak.

This is an excellent point, rjw. It will be most useful if we can get beyond the argument and have some productive discussion. A way to do this in this forum, is to treat the YEC model as a scientific hypothesis, and see where this leads us. What are the predictions that this hypothesis makes? We can even build into the hypothesis a fair amount of "special circumstances" prior to the Flood (people lived longer then, after all, so the "rules" may have been quite different). After the flood, however, the "rules" became what they are today. This allows us to take a whole lot of things at face value. That's fine, since we are simply stating exactly what the hypothesis is, in a "fair test" of it as a scientific explanation.

It's an interesting thing...when we do this, the discussion often withers. It might not in person, but in a post-if-you-want forum, the number of posts often declines.

Lucifer--you might browse through later posts in the thread, should creationism be taught in the classroom, and see which of the creationist viewpoints have been suggested as candidates for scientific treatment. I chose the Flood as a good one, an entered my thoughts into the global flood thread, but there were several others that would be interesting to examine in the same way. Can you phrase one as a formal hypothesis, and make some clear predictions? Maybe we can bring more of the creationists in this forum into the discussion.