Jun 12 2005
Prev/Next Posts: « What’s eating you? || The Amazing One »
The Fort Sumter of Creationist Astronomy?
Note added June 13, 2005: I will be busy over the next few days, and may not be able to update the blog during that time. Given the furor this latest entry has generated, I’m inclined to keep it up a while anyway!
I have been saying for years that creationists would soon be turning their attention to sciences other than biology. Evolution may tick off creationists (because it has the unfortunate aspect of undermining their pre-conceived beliefs on how the Universe should behave, rather than how it does behave), but to them, other fields of science can be even worse.
Well, a shot across the bow has been fired. Sure, they’ve made dumb claims about astronomy before, which are easily debunked (I also debunked these claims in my book). But I consider this one more serious because it comes from a group which is more organized, and which has already started a concerted attack on science.
Specifically, it comes from the critters at The Discovery Institute, an unfortunately influential group of anti-scientists, even though the very basis of their existence is wrong. They have made it clear that biology is merely the first call of creationism, and it won’t be the last. On their blog (which rarely comes within a glancing blow of reality), they have this to say:
From http://www.evolutionnews.org/, to which I refuse to hotlink
Although much of the public controversy over intelligent design has focused on the application of design to biology, it’s important to remember that design theory itself reaches well beyond biology, and that some of the strongest evidence for design comes from such fields as physics, astronomy, and cosmology.
Evolution rankles them because it contradicts the Bible which says God made man in his own image and describes specifically how God did it. But cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is even worse for them, since it clearly contradicts the very first passages of that Bible. If you take the Bible literally, then you have to reject everything we understand about science, and vice-versa. Most Christians in the US do not take the Bible literally, but those who do are a very squeaky wheel indeed. A lot of legislators (like say, in Kansas) think that wheel should be oiled. To push the analogy further, I think the air should be let out of it.
Many people like to say that science and religion are compatible. I find that to be a monumentally naive statement. Perhaps science and some religions can be reconciled, but if your religion says that Jupiter is really made of pixie dust, or that the Earth is flat, or that 1+1 =3, then your religion is wrong. It’s really just that simple. The Universe knows what it’s doing, and the reality of it is what science seeks. If your religion cannot be reconciled with that reality, then your religion is wrong (and I would certainly say the same thing about any science which incorrectly describes reality). Perhaps not all religions contradict reality, but certainly creationism does, as does Intelligent Design.
The effect of this on young-Earth creationism is obvious. I will be very clear here: If people read a book and use it to interpret reality, and it contradicts the way the Universe works, then either that book or their interpretation of it is wrong. Again, it is really just that simple.
There is no room for debate with young-earth creationists like those at the Discovery Institute (who, despite their bluster, have made it very clear that’s who they really are). Their ideas are absolute, and there is no shade of grey. If you are a Christian, and not a fundamentalist literal-Bible Christian, then you should be aware that these creationists are not on your side. To them, you are just as wrong as Muslims, Jews, and atheists. They may paint scientists as evil atheists who want to steer your children from The One True Way, but remember that this is their “True Way”, and probably not yours. They have no problems distorting the truth, egregiously and often if it so suits them.
Young Earth creationists have let slip the dogmas of war. In the ensuing battles they will use a host of weapons, including misrepresenting facts, mining of quotes, belaboring outdated theories, and dancing around to avoid answering direct questions. Mark my words: their history is clear.
They may have fired the first shot, but we have plenty of ammo on our side as well. And we also have many, many scientists willing to accept this call to arms.
I’m one of them. Over the course of time, you’ll be seeing more rebuttals — no, debunking — of creationist claims here. I’ve had enough, and this threat is real. They want to turn our classrooms in a theocratically-controlled anti-science breeding ground, and I’m not going to sit by and watch it happen.
Couldn’t agree more, clear thinking minds is the way of the future.
I sometimes wonder if they really believe it them selves. Some of the bullpucky they come up with must require a fair bit or rational thought, yet result in such utter insanity. (The probe fixated alien abduction crowd have stronger arguments.)
Are we seeing orwelian doublethink in action? Creationism is doubleplus good.
Phil,
It’s just not scientists who need to enter the fray, ordinary laymen need to get involved also. For instance, I write letters to the editor in our local paper refuting creationist claims whenever possible (were limited to two published letters a month). I attend school board meetings when creationism is on the agenda. And continually point people to your site, Randi’s site, and talk origins among others. While those creationsist may be the squeaky wheel, enough people fighting their misinformation with facts will be the “oil” that gets rid of the squeak.
Ah, the irony. From your Google Ads:
“New Discoveries
Prove Everything On Earth Is Intelligently Designed”
Sorry, you can’t prove anything without at least a basis in logic. So, at a minimum, you can’t accept as your fundamental axioms statements that are either immediately and obviously false or supported by an infinite recursion of “the Great Mojo Jojo willed it to be so!”
One debate technique that sometimes works with people who might someday open their eyes is the endless “Why?” Ala, “Why is the sky blue?” “Because Mojo Jojo willed it to be so!” “Why?”
Another is the “What if you’re wrong?” question: if science finds that a fundamental theory is false or incomplete, we’ve all learned something and can use that experimental result to develop a broader understanding. A result that contradicts any purely literal unyielding framework SHATTERS the entire chain of half-truths and poor reasoning.
My own attempts to write about this sort of thing: http://racross.blogspot.com/2005/06/science-requires-math-blind-belief-is.html
I do tend to forget that there are people who use this “debate” purely for their own political gain. “This issue really pulls in the ratings! Let’s make some politcal hay!”
Excellent entry! =D> =D>
I’m going to show it to my friend who thinks that atheism is evil, I was so sick of it, I just said “FINE! you’ve just made me an atheist” as I was sick of rebutting his claims, so much so I was driven away from religion.
A new recruit
The Discovery Institute is doing a fine job of raising the visibility of creationism and focusing the attention of their enemies. They say things like this: Although much of the public controversy over intelligent design has focused on the application …
Give ‘em hell, Phil!
They see it as a war. I think rational human beings, which constitute the vast majority of people, should fight back as thought it were one. The prize is our kids, and I can’t think of a better reason to do battle. They are counting on obfuscation, vagueness and general public apathy to gain power. Our weapons are vast amounts of scientific evidence, the huge majority of people who believe in science, and most importantly, the harsh spotlight of the light of day. Creationists and anti-scientists count on doing their work in small niches and dark corners. No more. It’s time to give them a rude shove into the blaring spotlight to be exposed for the fallacy they are.
It’s time to embarrass them. It seems that fundamentalists hate to be embarrassed more than anything – they see it as the ultimate defeat. It can also work in our favor on the other end of the spectrum. Embarrassment was the ONLY reason Kansas changed course after they first de-emphasized evolution in science standards in 1999. Important Kansans were suddenly embarrassed to the outside world, and they took swift action to restore their reputation.
We can win this – only if each and every one of us stands up for what we believe. No more sitting on the sidelines.
I’m not quite sure how we’ll ever be able to educate them. It is quite obvious they don’t want to be. And, they (and, President Bush) are attempting to bankrupt the system along with the Department of Education, i.e., the public school system with the “No Child Left Behind” unfunded mandates.
First, however, I’d wish that all of those different fundatmentalistic creationistic groups (Islamic, Christian, Hebrew, etc) would first decide on
a “cohesive”. logical (boy, that’s tough), cosmology, be totally honest as to who they are (the ID guy is a “god”), their agenda, and then provide the extra-”holy book” evidence for their cooperative “vision”. I mean, without a religious war.
Isn’t it interesting how the Old Testament “Genesis” is a Hebrew cultural/tradition taken literally by modern “creationists”. Have any of them actually drawn the world as described in the Old Testament?
Interestingly, I just started reading a book by David Park: “The Grand Contraption–The World as Myth, Number, and Chance”, Princeton University Press, 2005.
Of course, there’s Arthur N. Strahler’s “Science and Earth History–The Evolution/Creation Controversy”, Prometheus Books. This is a very good read and educational tool as it explores both very well.
And, please, Atheist is A-theist.
You know… is it about time we raised the profile of one Trofim Lysenko?
IIRC, here’s the lowdown on this nitwit. He was a Soviet biologist (~1950’s? 60’s?) who advanced a highly mistaken version of genetics and evolution. While his ideas were easily proven as incorrect by scientific evidence, he advanced them because (in a way that doesn’t make sense to me, but apparently did to Stalin!) they were consistent with Marxist doctrine. So while he didn’t have science on his side, Lysenko did have political influence. And in the USSR of the time that meant a lot worse than just snuffing out the >ideas
(hmmm… I seem to have cut off part of that post…)
As I was saying. Just as Lysenko devastated Soviet agriculture and biological research in the name of appeasing the political zeitgeist, today America has the religious right. They may not have evidence on their side, but they have political power. And so, science - in policy and education - the cornerstone of our economy, our national security, our health - is in jeopardy. All because America may lack the guts to stand up to the whacko notions of some fundamentalist religious nuts. Somewhere in Hell, Lysenko is smiling.
Bravo, Phil! Well said. It seems that the IDots are striving more and more these days to get their ludicrous message into the schools. Unfortunately folk like (shudder) Governor Rick Perry of Texas are all too willing to help them. Keep up the good fight!
Part of the message that is sometimes missing is that there IS a place for religious (but not fanatic) people to stand on the correct side of the “debate” and that is on appropriate use of curriculum funds, especially as it involves federal money for public schools.
Science class is for science. No philosophy, no religion, no stories that can’t be backed up with some sort of experimental result.
Philosophy class is sometimes an appropriate place for comparative religion discussions. These are sources for the origins of certain ethical systems, history, literature, etc.
Focused religion discussions already have their own tacitly federally-supported forum: Sunday School (or the religion-specific equivalent). Churches of many flavors enjoy a variety of tax breaks. If you feel that it’s critical for your children to believe that trees were created from the eyelashes of Mojo Jojo, there’s already a place to have that discussion. If you feel that other children would benefit from the discussion, invite them along (with parent’s permission, of course).
So, maybe what public schools need is an active philosophy department where all of these bodies of literature are open for critical discussion. At a bare minimum, it would reduce the pollution of science classes. It might even open closed-minded people (of all flavors) just a crack.
Welcome to the war, and my sympathies go out in advance for what you will discover. You’ll find yourself missing the assembled menagerie of woo-woos you’ve grown to love/hate. ID is well-funded, has significant governmental connections, and panders to any number of groups/individuals whose agendas are truly frightening (Hint: examine the connections between California billionaire Howard Ahmanson and the Discovery Institute). But, waiting in the wings is the whole wacky cast, licking their chops at the prospect that their pet controversies will gain exposure as creationists force public schools to ‘teach the controversy.’ –kdn in Kansas
“But cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is even worse for them, since it clearly contradicts the very first passages of that Bible.”
No, I doesn’t. It contradicts only the YEC view.
Keep in mind when you argue against cosmological ID, you will be on the same side as the YECs.
Three groups that I know are opposed to cosmological ID: YEC and the likes of Ken Hovind, the Panda’s Thumb crowd, and the Ayn Rand Institute.
Welcome to most frustrating hobby you could have chosen to pick up Phil. Fighting this sort of ignorance takes an amazing amount of patience that many of us who have been doing it for a while have unfortunately lost.
It’s too bad that we can’t accept the fact that we were designed. I guess it’s psychological. It is fairly easy to prove that evolution is a fairy tale. Much, much more difficult to get anyone to admit it.
David Heddle makes the odd suggestion that just because YECs oppose cosmological ID
Yes, evolution is a fairy tale, and the reason race horse sperm is more expansive than your house is because those horse breeding guys believe in magic.
David Heddle makes the odd suggestion that because YECs oppose cosmological ID scientists should take that as a reason to support it.
YECs oppose cosmological ID because it violates their interpretation of the bible. Scientists oppose it because it has no empirical content.
Get it?
It’s too bad I can’t accept the fact that Santa Claus exists. Then I could get a new Porsche for Christmas!
And there’s a hell of a lot more evidence for Santa Claus than there is for ID.
-Andy B
Excellent blog entry, Phil. Glad to hear you’re defending the heavens (excuse the pun). Isn’t it funny how some people consider science a “fairy tale” and yet see the stories of the Old Testament as literal truth?
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=3 is a bb in KS which has been a front line in the Kansas Theater of Operations so far, even attracting a fair amount of flaming from prominent ID partisans (some of whom apparently operate behind the scenes). For PX fans, there’s even a thread entitled, “Adam, The Missing Link.” –kdn in Kansas
“Teach the controversy” is just doublespeak for “Create a monopoly” (i.e. for creationism). Have a look here for the top ten signs someone is trying to underhandedly eliminate any theory that competes with creationism, as opposed to engaging in a legitimate scientific inquiry into intelligent design.
“It’s too bad that we can’t accept the fact that we were designed. I guess it’s psychological. It is fairly easy to prove that evolution is a fairy tale.”
While this was clearly a trolling statement (the effective equivalent of “you guys suck!”), this is a good example of a place where an eye for logical fallacies can help disarm a content-free poster. Here are some that I think I can recognize in these three sentences.
Prejudicial Language: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.php
Anonymous Authorities: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/anon.php
Begging the Question: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/begging.php
and, of course,
Non-Support: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/nonsup.php
“It is fairly easy to prove…” Okay, then, proceed!
David Heddle claims that cosmology does not contradict the opening passages of the Bible, but only the YEC interpretation. This is plainly false.
I don’t have a Bible in front of me, so I can’t quote directly. But the rough account of creation is as follows.
In the beginning [that part I do remember!] there are three things in the universe: water, God, and a wind from God. (Interesting point of literalist theology: God didn’t create the water–it was there at the start.) God then parts the waters by creating land and the dome of heaven. So now we have earth, covered by the dome of heaven, and surround by water *all* around–not just left, right, in front and behind, but above and below, too. God then populates the land, sets the sun in the sky, etc.
Leave aside that current cosmology provides a different account of the origin of the sun. I don’t know of any cosmological theory according to which the earth is bobbing along under water.
Strictly speaking, some of these creationists, I mean “Intelligent Design” guys, appear to be old earthers, in the fashion of Hugh Ross with his “Reasons to Believe” ministry. However, in public, the Discovery Institute guys are cagey about the age of the Earth, wanting both the support of young-earthers and the ability to deny that they are young-earthers.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis;&version=31;
The story of creation in the Bible is interesting in that it looks like a metaphorical description of the Tao, which basically states that all of existence is driven by the tension between yin and yang, which is ultimately Allness and Nothingness.
Seen through a philosophers eyes, the Bible states that the universe was created through making divisions. Making black and white out of grey. Like space and matter coalescing out of plasma.
Whoever wrote that down, I bet that was what they were trying to say. That reality is built on contrast.
Good luck Phil. I’ve had it with christians and their intelligent design/creationism blah blah blah junk for a long time. If they want to believe that stuff in their churches and bedrooms, fine. I dont’ have to listen to it, but it’s becoming much more public and they are getting it out there so easily(for example: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520:). It’s exhaustive trying to argue with them. It’s really not possible. They aren’t willing to open themselves to the fact that they might be wrong. Hard to debate someone in that mindset. They also have ton of money on their side. On the other hand, the more stuff out there showing how stupid and wrong they really are, the better. The threat is very real and so far they are winning the PR battle…That can be changed though…
Patrick
Jesus Christ, Heddle spams his unfunny, moronic brand of ‘humor’ *here*, too? Is there no sanctuary from his crap anywhere?
Andrew exclaims “Jesus Christ, …” reminding me of one of the many many funny Terry Pratchett quotes. From Men At Arms,
Yay! (And “let slip the dogmas of war” is perfect.)
Great post. I’ve been beating up on intelligent design on my site for a while now. I quoted you and linked you in a new post of mine - hope you don’t mind.
[…] tionism is a load of crap Philip Plait, over at the Bad Good Astronomy Blog, is seething over statements made by The Discovery Institute - Statements that some of the “strongest […]
Great to hear about your site. I’m a physicist, but have been lurking/posting to http://www.pandasthumb.org of late. I’m sure you are pretty up on the dirty side of creationism, but since many connecting to this site might be kinda new, I thought I’d offer some pearls of wisdom. ahem.
1) Arguing content doesn’t matter much. The response to Kansas was ingenius and effective — arguing about the content only gives them evidence that they are a valid “scientific” movement. Better to focus on the motives, techniques, and vacuity of the movement.
2) This truly *is* a sinister movement. The “Discovery” Institute is supported by Howard Ahmanson, who embodies everything the Taliban ever held dear. But one evil millionaire kook isn’t much of a threat. There is a very large (tens of millions) number of Americans who are part of a movement called “Dominionism”, or “Reconstructionism”, who literally believe that it is a “good” christian’s duty (note : only “good” chistians need apply) to take over and effectively dismantle *all* secular instututions in America, then the rest of the world. This is to prepare for the second coming. They believe this in a *very* literal way, and they have been working steadily and effectively towards this end. One small tentacle of this strategy is to dismantle public education, or at least purge it of anything that smacks of “materialism” (i.e., goes againt their twisted view of christianity). So it is important not to let them divert your attention just to the details of one silly little piece of their drivel — they really don’t care if its “good sciene” or not — but keep in mind the larger view of who they are and what they’re trying to accomplish. A great place to learn more is theocracywatch.org, or just google “Dominionism”.
3) It’s very important to remember who is *not* the enemy here. Most christians are good and kind people who really do strive to live according to the best principles of their religion. And likewise, people from all sorts of backgrounds have beliefs about the world that do not strictly match a rationalistic scientific world view. As scientists, it shouldn’t be our goal to shove a scientific outlook down their throats, no matter how “right” we feel we are. The real enemy here is those whose religious extremism fuels a stealthy, dishonest and sinister effort to sway public opinion against (science, democracy,tolerance,intelligence,…) to further their grab on power.
4) Given that we know who the enemy is (2) and is not (3), we should always frame our discussions, debates, letters, postings, etc. in this light. We should avoid any actions that a) reinforce the claims of creationists that they are legitimate scientists, or b) lend any credence to their patheic claims that they are persecuted for their beliefs as christians (wow, that’s a biggie !), or c) tend to offend people whose beliefs do *not* spur them into evil lunacy.
5) In communicating about the issue, keep the message simple : “Scientists do *not* disagree with creationism because of a preference for a different theory, they disagree with creationism because it is *not* in any respect valid science.”
Dang, seems like I been a-stewing on this just a little, don’t it ?
Beware of the attacks coming from Creationism. We must stand against its influence in our life. There is a concerted attack from different sources to erode the scientific and critical thinking. Sometimes, I wonder if we are on the verge of a new Middle Age era, full of darkness. Science should be our gospel.
David Heddle said :
“ID is no more synonymous with the Discovery Institute than evolution is with “Panda’s Thumbâ€?. ”
Well, if he said it, it must be true…. But wait !!! Maybe we could actually *think* about this statement for a moment, and try to *see* if it makes any sense ! Maybe someone could do a google search and come up with a list of the “bright lights” of Intelligent Design theory. It shouldn’t be hard : there’s what, 4 or 5 of them ? (But that was at last count; I hear its a “growing number.”) And someone else could go the the web page of the “Discovery” Institute and get a list of it’s “Fellows” (i.e, people who take money from Howard Ahmanson to advance his agenda). I wonder what we might find …..
In all fairness, we should probably do the same for evolution vis a vis the Panda’s Thumb. But then again, they don’t have an evil psycho millionaire handing out cash to phony scientists. And since tens of thousands of competent scientists have been submitting work in support of evolution to reputable scientific journals for public scrutiny for a century and a half or so, it would be quite a task to produce an inclusive list…..
David Heddle said:
“Keep in mind when you argue against cosmological ID, you will be on the same side as the YECs.”
Wow, you’re right! And since Hitler liked chocolate chip cookies, and I like chocolate chip cookies, I must be a Nazi!
Nice try at logic there, Mr. Heddle, but like everything I have seen that you’ve written, it’s fatally flawed.
And I have Hugh Ross’s book book about the Day/Age apology, and it’s some of the silliest backpeddling I have yet seen from creationists. He wants to stand in the middle ground between religion and science, where there is not enough faith to justify religion, and not enough facts (none, really) to justify science. His ideas are worse than straight creationism; he’s arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin. I’ll write up something about it someday.
Jeff S., as a concept, ID is broader than any one organization. It may be true that the major proponents and most vocal publicizers of that strategy are pooling their resources in the Discovery Institute, but that does not mean the Discovery Institute holds the intellectual property rights to ID. After all, William Paley is one of the charter members of ID (back before it was called ID), and he surely isn’t a member of the Discovery Institute (being dead).
This is really a pointless thing to argue over, anyway, because the original comment was from Loren Petrich, who referred to both “Intelligent Design” guys and Discovery Institute guys. I don’t think it a given that he intended to imply the two were identical. It seems to me he refers to IDers in general, and Discovery Institute in particular. Heddle apparently found the statement more ambiguous and interpreted it differently.
David Heddle:
All of the following quotations are from the NRSV translation.
“In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1.1-2).
“And God said, ‘Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.’ So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky” (Genesis 1.6-8).
“And God said, ‘Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.’ And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas” (Genesis 1.9-10).
“And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth” (Genesis 1.14-17).
I fail to see how I mis-remembered or mis-represented the biblical account of creation.
In my post I pointed out two aspects of these passages that are contradicted by contemporary cosmology: the origin of the sun and the claim that there is water above “the dome of the sky.” I could have added more; for example, according to the biblical account (even on the “day-age” interpretation) the earth and life on it pre-dated the sun.
I didn’t, as you suggest, raise the point that Genesis and cosmology posit entirely different time-scales on which all of these events happen. I didn’t do so precisely because of the “day-age” interpretation.
I must say, though, that this is getting perilously close to substituting a metaphorical reading of Genesis for a literal reading. And of course, if we allow ourselves enough leeway in constructing metaphorical interpretations, Genesis can be made out to be consistent with *any* set of statements. Indeed, it seems that the motivation for the “day-age” interpretation and other metaphorical interpretations of Genesis is precisely the fact that, taken at face value, the creation account in Genesis *is* contradicted by our best scientific evidence.
Lastly, you misinterpreted my point. I didn’t assert that the creation account in Genesis was plainly false. What is plainly false is *your* claim that modern cosmology does not contradict Genesis but only young earth creationism. Please do read this post more carefully than you read the last.
to me, the most intensely frustrating thing about those who believe in ID or YEC or any other non-scientific description of the origins of the world is that they give other religious people a bad name in certain circles.
just as an example:
the Catholic Church (to which I no longer belong, but my mother does) has accepted evolution over a literal interpretation of the Bible for over 50 years. sure, that’s a major chunk of time shorter than evolution as a theory has existed, but given how long it took them to pardon Galileo, not bad, right?
alternately, I’m a devout Pagan. have been for years. I believe in a Goddess, but the preponderance of evidence is with science–and that’s fine. I can believe in Her and accept science as the way the world works without damaging either mindset. how small is the God of the YECs that they must understand everything He does?
Well, if they “let slip the dogmas of war” then we can assume the dogma, or axiom, that says the first casualty of war is the truth. This may work for their side but should not for your side. Some have suggested here that the battle should not be against ID or YEC ideas but should be against their tactics in attempting to manipulate society. However, this would tend to lead away from an affirmative defense of science into a negative attack against religion. As one of your previous blog entries mentioned the psychological impact of framing and lead you to call your opponents “anti-science”, so may your opponents pick up the opposite and call you “anti-religion.”
From your blog it seems clear that you are trying to avoid indicting all faithful people as being anti-science, yet sometimes it is less than clear. Saying that the statement “religion and science are compatible” is naive is one of those less than clear remarks. There are theologies that claim that a literal reading of Genesis does not support YEC. For some who are both faithful and scientific-minded evolution and physics are the mechanisms of creation. How do you debunk that? Would you debunk that? Why?
If I were you, I would avoid using the term “literal interpretation” as it is framed by YECs. Call it the the YEC interpretation (or misinterpretation) so as to remove their assumed authority over biblical literacy. If you grant them that authority then you’ve granted them half their argument already. It’ll take twice as much time and effort to debate them on their home turf (base assumptions), but anything less is a half-fast job.
I have considred becomming a pagan. It makes alot more sense than christianity.
Take Pan for example. God of pretty scenery and naked women, plus, bad ass flute player. Praying to him could pay off bigtime. Or Dionysos, ruler of sex, drugs and rock and roll.
Some of them pagan gods know what makes for good clean fun. Can you say the same for Jehova?
Cheers, Phil. I am long time foot soldier as well, writing letters to the editor of the paper, going to school board meetings, and, in return, receiving annonymous religious tracts in the mail pointing out how misguided I am.
In college, my friends and I used to say, “We don’t care if you are a ________ as long as you keep it in the bedroom”, making fun of the attitude people took toward gays and lesbians (and some still take toward gays and lebians).
So, I don’t mind if you are a YEC or ID as LONG AS YOU KEEP IN THE BEDROOM!
Rob
Gee… Phil, this is going to outgrow your server space….
BA,
Welcome to the war! You’ll need a weapon. I believe the other side are using swords or lances or whatever. You get a razor. Don’t worry, it’s a good razor - it’s Occam’s Razor.
Interestingly, this isn’t the first time that the young earth movement have expressed their true goals. Kurt Wise was interviewed by Harper’s back in 1996. He said (and i quote)
“First we’ll have to develop an epistemology - a philosophy of knowledge - that will tell us how to to look at teh scriptual and physical world data. We will need a philosophy of science and a philosophy of philosophy. Then each field of science will be examined in that new light - a new geology, a new paleontology, a new cosmology, a new archaeology, and a new history of the origin of language, culture and history.”
Nov 1996 (vol 293, no. 1758) Harper’s Magazine p 58.
The entire article is fascinating, if stomach turning, reading. Dr. Wise graduated with a degree in geology from Chicago and a PhD from Harvard. So much for those student loans going to a good cause. I keep the magazine around the house to remind me that we are still closer to the middle ages than the future.
John
God Existence’s is something I used to wonder, like anyone do at a point of their life. Thus I have been thinking for a while on the said subject, and I have reached a conclusion, my own conclusion (For now! always open for proofs.)… Thus my mind is clear:
If the G-Man Who Art in Heaven wanted me to worship him, he would’ve made a better job and made SURE I wouldn’t have been stuck to do my forementioned wonder. The Bible would be Rock-Hard proofs of facts and not “This guy said that”. That said, I must admit that if the author, or Author, was still on Earth to sell the thing, he’d be a billionaire.
But MY problem is when someone comes into my life and disturbs me with his religion. I have made my choice, don’t try to change it! It’s a matter of PERSONAL BELIEF! My spiritual quest has been settled to a thought that I need BETTER PROOFS to begin any worship. I don’t tell you “What IF nothing happens when you die?”, so don’t tell me “YOU SPREAD LIES! YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE! YOU DON’T FOLLOW THE BOOK! YOU WILL GO TO HELL!”. (”Fine with me if I do, at least I won’t be stuck in Heaven with you” is the mean reply I give them when they pull this on me.)
I have a lot of problems with “Down right to the book” churchies. It seems to drive the people extremely mad, mad enough to wish to exterminate whatever goes against their religion, to cut away their freedom… even when their religion tells them to be loving and all-forgiving.
I would like to quote Carl Sagan’s “Contact” book if you do not mind…
“Look at how clearly authentic the Message is. It’s being picked up all over the world. Radio telescopes are humming away in countries with different histories, different languages, different politics, different religions. Everybody’s getting the same kind of data from the same place in the sky, at the same frequencies with the same polarization modulation. The Muslims, the Hindus, the Christians, and the atheists are all getting the same message. Any skeptic can hook up a radio telescope - it doesn’t have to be very big - and get the identical data.”
“You’re not suggesting that your radio message IS from God,” Rankin offered.
“Not at all. Just that the civilization on Vega - with powers infinitely less than what you attribute to your God - was able to make things very clear. If your God wanted to talk to us through the unlikely means of word-of-mouth transmission and ancient writings over thousands of years, he could have done it so there was no room left for debate about his existence.”
Nice article Phil, keep fighting the good fight with your astronomy know how
Wow Phil! EXCELLENT hissy fit!
Here’s the scoop, pal. This isn’t about science anymore. It’s about politics. Scientists are outnumbered at least 100 to 1 by non-scientists. Your opinion now means as much as your vote. Scientists still get one vote each just like morons that didn’t graduate high school last time I checked. I look forward to reading your comments as you come to grips with the political facts of life. Get madder. I love it.
Oh by the way. Don’t bother with the YEC crowd. Your fight is with the IDers that accept common descent from a unversal common ancestor some several billions of years ago. Read the statement “Dissent from Darwinism” that was signed by 400 brave scientists willing to risk ostracism from chance worshippers like you to simply say “We the undersigned scientists are skeptical of the ability of random mutation plus natural selection to explain the diversity of life.”
That’s what you gotta fight. That’s where the stake is driven in the ground. Let me know which part of “skeptical of random mutation + natural selection” you don’t understand. It seems few of you chance worshipping Darwin apologists have understood it yet. Or maybe you understand but you know you can’t fight that so you’re cherry picking - going after the low hanging fruit represented by the YEC crowd? Hey, be my guest. I think they’re a little off the deep end myself. Unfortunately for you it’s people like Mike Behe who’re the real threat. The YECers are just hangers on.
I have been expecting this move ever since I heard a Christian Radio station (at my local Net Cafe!) announce a talk on ‘evolution’ but then describe the contents as being Cosmological (eg the Big Bang).
I would like to suggest that you start with the [url=http://tinyurl.com/c8×88]Setterfield Hypothesis[/url], this is a Creationist claim that originated in Australia, it states that the speed of light was infinite and then declined to its current value from the moment of Original Sin!?!
The whole argument is based upon selective quoting of speed of light measurements starting from the original measurment back in the 1600’s
Well, at least you guys won one battle today - Micheal Jackson was acquitted on all charges. Please remember to have a designated drivers at your places of revelry tonight.
No serious IDers are coming within miles of biblical creation science. That’s a straw man. It’s your only hope too. Good luck with that one.
I’m pleased to see that you, Phil, have weighed in on the question–or, is there really a question?–of science vs. creationism. As a Christian (who also minored in Physics), I’ve always thought that the writer of Genesis was on a “need-to-know” basis with God. How important were the facts of the origin of the universe and of our species when the goal, at the time, was to establish the idea of a single God (i.e. monotheism vs. polytheism) who was truly interested in our wellbeing? It’s a shame to be so dedicated to a literal interpretation of the opening prose–some of the most sublime in the English language–that we miss the rest of the Bible’s message of God’s love for us.
Good post Phil, and good comments everyone. I’m very happy to see this thread so active - it really speaks to how important this issue really is. Some points…
1. Keep an eye on your local papers, state legislatures, and school boards. One of the common tactic of the creationists is to sneak stuff past an unsuspecting public. And if you see a goofy creationist letter in your local paper, respond!
2. Don’t argue logic or this-or-that specific point. Most folks will get lost in the details. My favorite tactic is to point out why ID-creationism is NOT science, and then to issue a challenge. Something along the lines of…
“Through evolutionary biology, we cured polio and a host of other diseases. When was the last time a creationist used their ideas to come up with a cure or treatment for any disease?”
I really like this particular line of argument because it is pragmatic; it shows the practical, everyday benefit of teaching evolution. By making this connection, we build our case among the public - stating that progress in the fight against cancer or HIV/AIDS is entirely due to the underpinnings of evolutionary biology is a very strong argument indeed.
Another of my favorite arguments…
“Often, creationists like Slater and Behe state that by not allowing the
teaching of intelligent design in science classes, students aren’t presented
a “balanced” view. By those same arguments, we should give just as much time in science classes to teaching our students that there are only four elements (earth, air, fire, water) in nature, as opposed to the Periodic
Table of the Elements. How about that the Sun orbits the Earth? Hey, it’s
only fair to include all of these other views, right?”
That one just gets people thinking…
3. Organize with like-minded folks in your area/state. I’m on a listserv that addresses the evolution issue directly, and I make sure that the science faculty at my school are kept up to date on the matter. You may actually already have an organization in your state that deal with this, such as in Kansas.
In addition, even if there’s no group in your state, I strongly recommend becoming a member of the National Center for Science Education, a nationwide organization that specializes in this topic. Check them out at…
http://www.natcenscied.org
NCSE has been very active in the past year, and they have a lot of work ahead of them. Please give them your support.
4. Don’t alienate religious folks who are not fundamentalists. Many people who buy the ID stuff are just ignorant and can be won over, but not if you dismiss them as idiots. Seek out allies who are religious, as they deflate the creationists’ claims that you can’t accept evolution and believe in a god or gods.
5. Take a deep breath - it’s going to be a long fight, but one we can win.
Cheers - Mattus
An example of a rational person of faith: “The Skeptical Deist?” By Hal Bidlack, Ph.D. http://www.randi.org/jr/050903.html
Nowhere in his post does he pretend that false = true, that contradictory evidence is somehow trumped by Divine Deceit. He also has gentle criticism for reactionary atheists.
The more you click on the “intelligent design” google ads, the more those knuckleheads are out of pocket.
We should win this one, reality is hard to argue against in the long run.
But, only if people show up when needed to fight the good fight,
Science can still lose if we’re all apathetic until it is too late.
About HIV/AIDS:
Take note of the large number of HIV-causes-AIDS “dissenters” among the ID crowd (Phil Johnson, take a bow!). Most recently, an ID sponsored online “magazine” promoted a series by yet another quack who asks us to “rethink AIDS”.
What if it turns out that the Bible was just an ancient gamer’s manual, and Jesus was just somebody’s D&D character?
Anyway, I’m glad to see that you’re stepping up to the plate on this one. Sometimes, I wish I had the kind of voice and recognition you currently have so I could tackle such antiscience nonsense as well, but I’ve got my work cut out for me before I ever reach that point. Still, I do my best, and at least I’ve got a good bad astronomer to look to for inspiration!
Read it and weep. Good lord.
I live up the street from JPL. They recently had their “once a year Open House” and there were some grumbles about budget cuts and all….
http://www.flickr.com/photos/santabarbarian/sets/344622/
wonder what they would say about this new “wrinkle”
As a Science Student (Physics and math) who is also a christian, What I find really annoying is that these people don’t even know their bibles beyond the cliff-notes. Many passages aren’t even internally consistent, and make little sense in a literal reading. Several key stories are told multiple times with conflicting details. For example, One account of Noah’s Ark says they had 2 of every animal while another they had 7 of the clean and 2 of the unclean. Moreover, the two accounts of creation don’t correspond with each other. In the first account plants were created on the 3rd day, 3 days before man. In the second man was made first. There are many of these inconsistencies that were included to indicate that a particular story was not necessarily to be taken accurate and complete depictions of real events. Instead they are meant to depict deeper truths of the event. A belief in God in the Bible should not mean abandoning reason. The same God who created the world gave us that ability to reason.
If people chose to have beliefs that contradict observed reality, that is their right. They should not be allowed to call teach their beliefs as science. They should also understand their beliefs lack any logical sense.
BA,
The Discovery Institute is not a YEC organization though a few of their people are YECs. A good number of their people do support a 4.5 billion year old earth. The DI is guilty of not being willing to condemn the young-earthers though. And I think that they should have that shoved into their face aften and hard. Until the DI is willing to condemn young-earthism in no uncertain terms, the DI has not credibility as an organization interested in truth. And as someone else pointed out they are HIV deniers which is another thing which we should never cease to point out. In this respect they are even more backwards than the YEC organizations like ICR, AiG, and CRS since those groups do accept that HIV causes AIDS.
DaveScot,
The Michael Jackson bit is really low. You should be ashamed. I guess you have nothing of substance do you?
You cite the following statement signed by 400 “brave” “scientists”:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Without exception, every single genuine evolutionary biologist in the world could sign that statement in good faith if they were so stupid not to realize the anti-science agenda of those distributing the statement. A big hint: evolutionary biologists do recognize things besides mutation and natural selection had a role in the history of life. Every last one of those “scientists” either did not know squat about evolution or was being dishonest. It is as simple as that. And do note that the DI list is light on biologists. And of course, there are easily more people named Steve who signed a powerful statement than the DI got of people of any name to sign their rather vague antievolutionary statement.
Sickem Phil GRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!
kick their asses Phil!
i think all rational thinking people should rally behind your cause and set these people straight
Beware Phil,
You have started an avalanche. “Friends” with radical ideas may try to take advantage.
Made me stand up and scream “BRAVO!”
HIV - does it or does it not cause AIDS.
It probably causes AIDS in the same manner that burning jet fuel caused the World Trade Center to collapse. Technically, quite likely IMO although I don’t care enough about AIDS to dig into the merits of any controversy over what causes it.
That said, in another sense, inanimate objects aren’t the cause of anything! Hammers aren’t the cause of nails holding boards together. Burning jet fuel wasn’t the cause of the WTC collapse - terrorists were the cause. HIV isn’t the cause of AIDS - homosexuals, prostitutes, and intravenous drug users cause AIDS. Any other victims are irrelevant as the disease would never have spread to them without the three major risk groups above.
You may now return to your regular beliefs that inanimate objects are causes. One of my favorite loony left beliefs is it isn’t people that kill people but guns that kill people. Oooooooooooookay… and HIV causes AIDS. Right. Got it. Message received and duly noted.
Great! Needham/Spallanzani part II. I bet on science! Go get them Phil!
Good fight Phil, and good luck. We, from Europe, are observing you, curious and a tad worried.
As an aside, what about the two ads by google on top of the page? Ones says “G*d is love” and the other “Prove Everything On Earth Is Intelligently Designed”. Any way to get rid of them?
P.S. Who is this G*d though?
Hey Phil
Heres a good one to start with concerning the millions of light years problem with YEC.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
If there is a middle wouldnt you be able to figure out where it is from galaxy distribution or somthing ?
I’m glad I’m good for something.
Well done. What is wrong with these religious freaks? I’m in Texas and just by being here my partner and I unsettle these misinformed people: my partner is a lesbian evolutionary biologist!
Heh. The crazies never cease to amaze me.
HIV isn’t the cause of AIDS- homosexuals, prostitutes, and intravenous drug users cause AIDS.
Not to get off topic, but this is a great illustration of how anti-science people think. A little bit of jargon, a whole bunch of moral supremecy, one cup of hate of hate, 2 quarts of prejudice, and WHAMMO - you’re an anti-scientist!
Unfortunately, this kind of religious voodoo has spread to the upper eschalons of power. I remember recently Bill Frist defending his views on TV (and being totally flustered) that HIV was spread by sweat and tears, and that condoms fail 15% of the time. It seems that only a grilling on “This Week” made him reluctant to spread what he knew was misinformation.
We need more daylight on these people. The general public need to know there’s scientific “controversy” over evolution. It’s just hated by religious zealots, who don’t want science taught to our kids.
Heh - the above typo was meant to say “The general public need to know there’s NO scientific “controversyâ€? over evolution. “
Wow, that’s a lot of replies… no, I didn’t read them all, but I did make it through about half before skipping to the bottom and reading the more recent things.
Anyway.
Science and Religion can co-exist. Here’s why. One is reality, the other isn’t. One is the real world, the other is your imagination.
The problem isn’t that they cannot co-exist, the problem is that religion wonks want to either make them one and the same, or make the religion, the fantasy, override the reality, the science, and won’t stand for it any other way… my way or nothing sort of thing.
I’m well versed in science and critical thinking, and I also make a hobby of theology. If it makes you sleep better at night to think that all the things, ALL OF THEM, that science has, and will eventually describe emprically has a root in a supernatural being. Fine. Knock yourself out.
There isn’t any argument to be made here, except a philosophical one. No one can find definitive proof of Gods existence, one way or the other. That doesn’t mean It doesn’t exist, or that It does. Science couldn’t prove that virii existed for a long time either… they didn’t pop into existence the day one researcher shouted “Eureka! A Virus!”
Again, there isn’t a point at arguing this. Here’s the thing, if the IDers are right, and I’m not saying they are, who cares? If doesn’t invalidate ANYTHING scientific that anyone has shown. They’re not saying that black is white, or shouldn’t be anyway, they’re simply saying that, underneath all the particle physics and biology that make our brains intrepret the image reflected in our eye as a thing that is white is God. They’re not saying that the science is wrong, they’re saying that the science was created intelligently, that the universe is a huge table of quantum bouncy balls that in the beginning, God dumped out of a bucket the size of a singularity, or maybe that God was the singularity… whatever.
Anyway… I’m not saying I believe any of that, I’m just restating the point. Personally, I think religion is a bunch of hoopla designed to make miserable ignorant people sleep better, but stay miserable and ignorant, while giving 10% of their money to way-of-life wonks who don’t know how to acutally work for a living… but that’s just my personal opinion…
-mike
Dave ( IQ153 “write that down”) Scot:
You’re slipping fast. Get some help. Please.
We humans have something that other animals don’t: Intellect. Other animals are driven by basic instincts out of which fear is the most important. If it were not for fear, species wouldn’t survive. We are driven, in addition to instinct, by intellect. Creationism (and religion, in general) has taken birth when humans were ignorant - fear was the predominant reaction to natural phenomena. Couple this with intellect or thinking, and voila, we have supernatural beings at work! Since humans have spent most time in ignorance it is natural that the concept of God and hence religion and creation are more deeply imprinted upon our minds. Not to pardon creationists, but these people have a fear of the unknown that stops them from accepting reality. They would rather attribute everything to God than go out and investigate. They are miserable in their fear - and as they say - misery seeks company. These people only want to increase their numbers because of their fear and insecurity. I wish and hope that creationists are defeated by science.
[i]Technically, quite likely IMO although I don’t care enough about AIDS to dig into the merits of any controversy over what causes it. …HIV isn’t the cause of AIDS [/i]
Excellent example of antiscientific thinking that is to be faced in this public debate. ‘Forget the facts, I’ve already got the conclusion.’
[i]You may now return to your regular beliefs that inanimate objects are causes.[/i]
And what social group causes the ocean tides, earthquakes, volcanos, weather, thunder, radiative energy, plate techtonics, etc.?
p.s. Phil - you gotta block those crackpot Google ads!
Re: Dave Scott’s comment that inanimate objects can’t be causes.
True, but is a virus really inanimate? It may not crawl across the street on its own, but it is self-replicating. Seems pretty animated to me.
Viruses are a fairly primitive life form, but they are life, as compared to an inanimate object such as rock.
I have no problem accepting the concept of evolution; we may not know exactly how it has led to our current world, given the length of time, random forces, gaps in the fossil record and so on, but that’s the beauty of science & discovery–finding things out. An understanding of the concept can help us better describe the world (or universe, on a cosmological level) AS IT IS, rather than as some people think it SHOULD BE.
Hey, I WANT there to be something beyond our physical realm, some carrying on of our individuality after death. But I don’t let that get in the way of my acceptance of the physical universe as it is. If anything, the idea that this might be all there is lets me appreciate life even more; it is something to be cherished. (As opposed to many religious beliefs that command the killing of “enemies” and destruction of all who oppose.)
We can never know “all there is to know” about the universe, but I see no problem in trying to know all that we CAN know about it.
It’s nice to know that I’m not the only one who is appalled by the current political/religious/media trend toward anti-science, and the “dumbing down” of education & society.
Good post. Your record speaks to your ability to tackle this.
[…]
Bad Argumentsby Krauze
Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy Blog is mad as hell and he’s not gonna’ take it any more: “[The creationists] may have fired t […]
This is probably old news to most of you but…
You’ve heard of the creationist theme park, right. I don’t remember which of the states it’s in but it’s an amusement park based upon teaching kids that people and dinosaurs co-existed, until the flood, etc.
I’m in shock.
Keep swinging that hammer BA,
We all must do what we can but I’m just in shock, at the moment. Every time I think they’ve become as much of a cartoon as they can, the hits keep coming.
What’s next, “Apostle donuts,” collect them all. (Everyone would forget that there were two James’ and keep buying them…)
Off topic? Yes but not by much.
rodney
Great entry! In addition to the Discovery Institute there are, of course, numerous other groups pushing the creationist agenda. They tend to pop out of the wood work in every corner of the globe. One international group that I think may be tied to the Discovery Institute is “Answers in Genesis” based in Australia (AnswersIn Genesis.org). These people are YECs.
I attended a lecture given by their spokes man, Ken Ham. As Sun Tsu said, know your enemy. Though charismatic, the guy is an apologist nut. BE WARNED! You will find quickly that most of them truly think they are doing the right thing and protecting us (who are obviously to weak to run our own lives) from the dangers of immorality.
Another such speaker at the same lecture used a novel approach that I had not seen before. He went into detail about the anatomy of the human eye and ear to “prove” to the audience that something that complex couldn’t have arisen by chance. He also attacked the statement made some years ago that human eye is poorly engineered, at that the designer should have been fired for incompetence. The kicker was that the speaker was reading his notes through wire framed glasses. I guess some of these people really can’t see the truth right under (or in this case, on top of) their noses.
In regards to the comment by one “Bishop Usher”, does the date 4004 B.C. mean anything to you. If you were a YEC, it certainly would.
For the Young Person: Fable A: Babies are brought by Storks
For the Adult Person: Truth: Adult people cause babies through censored acts.
For the Young Society: Fable B: God created the world.
For the Mature Society: Truth: Well, we don’t really know for sure yet, do we. Best guess, though, Billions and Billions of years ago, a really big and quick expansion occurred from something very tiny, very hot, and very massive and became something much larger, cooler, and still massive and within that grew the stars and planets and amino acids and mitochondria (or was it Metaclorians) and RNA and eventually some of these were able to replicate and thus was life.
I believe nearly all the New Testament can be interpretted as allegory, I subject that the Old Testament is also. Thus a fable for a young society. I think we’ve outgrown the need for the fable.
jbs
That last “subject” was supposed to be “submit”…
By the way, there seem to be a bunch of posts that no longer list, I see responses to a certain raving luna… individual but none of his originals.
jbs
By the way, to further illustrate my feelings…
Today, after a brief rainstorm, I witnessed an incredibly beautiful full rainbow in the evening sky, which a few minutes later became a double rainbow. Not just the hint of a second rainbow on one side of the first, but a full double rainbow. (Luckily for me, I even had my camera along with me, though it took four shots just to fit the whole huge thing!)
It was astounding, but no less so just because I knew scientifically what was causing the effect (sunlight from behind my vantage point refracting through zillions of rain droplets in front of a backdrop of clouds). In fact, knowing what caused the rainbow, knowing that the conditions had to be just right, and knowing that I had to be in just the right place at the right time to see it, enhanced the beauty.
Another example is aurora (in my case, aurora borealis). I know scientifically that they are the result of ionization in the upper atmosphere, but that doesn’t ever make them any less stunning to me, even if the display is not overly spectacular. (By “spectacular,” I mean intense brightness and/or multiple colors, long duration, pronounced motion.) Knowing what they are lets me appreciate them more.
Science isn’t just about cold, hard facts. It’s about understanding, and understanding can lead to appreciation. In short, there can be beauty in science.
Somehow, this site seems fitting - http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/ - laugh, it’s funny.
What a coincidence!
A web-debate has just started here:
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/
It’s discussing whether creation or evolution is true. Starring for the evolution side are some scientists and a member of the Australian Skeptics. Starring for the creationists are four members of Answers in Genesis.
First time on the Blog, What can I say. go for it Phil!
CR’s comments are wonderfully true!
Even at 55, I still hike the woodlands, marshes, swamps, meadows, and beaches of New England admiring the amazing varieties of the evolved adaptations of biological species all around.
You want to see evolutionary adaptations in action: observe the transformation of catepillars into moths or butterflies; tadpoles into frogs/toads/newts; a sandy patterned toad on sand/pebbles change skin color into a dark pattern on soil and humus; or, Figure 3.2 of the macro-mutated toad with eyes in the roof of its mouth in Dawkins’s great book “Climbing Mount Improbable”; etc.
And, observing stars/planets that are forming within dust/gas clouds of the Eagle Nebula or any of the daily astronomical wonders in the Astronomy Picture of the Day website. Or, the year that comet Hale-Bopp was so observable and so marvelous a sight. Or, a meteor shower.
I am an Atheist Secular Humanist Naturalist that does have “ultra-human” natural endorphin “highs” with goosebumps and chills and…
with anything “beautiful”.
Stay curious!
Just wanted to say thanks to Phil and all of you for this wonderful thread.
I like CR’s summary: “Science isn’t just about cold, hard facts. It’s about understanding, and understanding can lead to appreciation. In short, there can be beauty in science.” Anybody who reads the BA Blog, even a non-scientist word geek like myself, can see that shining out from every post.
Please, Phil, do keep up the good work!
It’s hopeless. There is something wrong with humanity. Maybe it’s memes. Maybe it’s something else. Ideology? Carl Jung called it a blight.
There is a degeneration occurring in the individual intellects of human beings all over the world. I used to be able to chat about current events with my friends and coworkers, but I can’t anymore. Everyone’s mind is so mired in monochromatic absolutes that they cannot see any shades of grey anymore. The extremists are NOT the fringe any longer.
Three years ago, a coworker was so patently wrong on one topic I was able to quickly show him several web pages that refuted his ideas. He looked at the page, and I swear I could almost see his mind desperately trying to preserve his original POV. He made comments that clearly indicated that the words on the page were being actively changed/filtered in his mind. It was like some sort of bizarre ideological dyslexia. It was one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen. This was an educated man with science and engineering advanced degrees from a prestigious university.
Since then I haven’t discussed any current events with another person outside a couple friends who are too apathetic to possess strong ideologies.
JPax2003 Says:
As one of your previous blog entries mentioned the psychological impact of framing and lead you to call your opponents “anti-science�, so may your opponents pick up the opposite and call you “anti-religion.�
Yes, that is true, but they already equate anyone who supports evolution as being anti-religion, so what’s new there?
Saying that the statement “religion and science are compatible� is naive is one of those less than clear remarks. There are theologies that claim that a literal reading of Genesis does not support YEC. For some who are both faithful and scientific-minded evolution and physics are the mechanisms of creation. How do you debunk that? Would you debunk that? Why?
Depends on the context. If we’re talking about science education, then there’s no need to argue with them because they already support science. If we’re discussing justifications for belief in a deity and whether or not I should join their religion, then that’s a different matter.
If I were you, I would avoid using the term “literal interpretation� as it is framed by YECs. Call it the the YEC interpretation (or misinterpretation) so as to remove their assumed authority over biblical literacy.
Calling it a “literal interpretation” does not grant any authority whatsoever. “Literal” means “taken at the face value of the words”, as opposed to a figurative interpretation. Biblical literalists do not accept that the creation story might be a symbolic myth, but insist it is an accurate depiction of real events. Some go so far as to state that when Jesus teaches in parables, those parables actually occurred at some time. The word “literal” in that context has no connection to “literary” or “literacy” referring to scholarship and study.
DaveScot said:
HIV isn’t the cause of AIDS - homosexuals, prostitutes, and intravenous drug users cause AIDS.
No, homosexuals, prostitutes, and intravenous drug users spread HIV/AIDS. And so do heterosexuals practicing unprotected sex with multiple partners, and the patrons of prostitutes. But the key here is that people do not cause the disease, any more than they cause tuberculosis, or the flu. You get the flu from other people, too.
You may now return to your regular beliefs that inanimate objects are causes.
Such as when a tree limb blows in the wind, the wind is an animate object? Wow, I never knew the wind was alive. And when an apple falls from a tree, it’s not gravity that was the cause? Then what/who was the cause?
Avian Said:
Heh. The crazies never cease to amaze me.
Careful, that’s bordering on violating Phil’s rules - no name calling.
Roadtripper Said:
Dave ( IQ153 “write that down�) Scot:
You’re slipping fast. Get some help. Please.
That one, too.
Phil, thanks throwing down the gauntlet.
Over here in the UK - and in Europe in general - we see very little of the “Creationists” (I use this as a generic term for all the deniers of evolution) and their influence on education and legislators is less than insignificantly small. However, the global nature of the www makes their presence and influence in the US extremely visible.
My own small encounter with the insiduous creep of the “it’s only a theory” disfunctional logic was with a friend who I had always thought to be reasonably intelligent (if a little dogmatic). When I grumbled about how “Creationism” seemed to be everywhere there days (on the www) and wondered at the mental capacity of those who subscribe to those ideas, he said (words to the effect) that “not all intelligent design theories are useless” and “you shouldn’t confuse intelligent design and biblical creationism” and - you guessed it - “evolution is onlly a theory”. My reaction was simply to say that he was talking absolute bull in a tone of voice that suggested, without question, that a debate was not on the cards.
I don’t know if it’s a good idea to debate “Creationism” versus evolution: such debates only give “them” credibility. I’m glad I don’t have to face people like this very often, it makes me profoundly sad for the human race.
Keep up the good work.
Irishman, thanks your your input, but I really wanted Phil’s response.
The issue with calling the YEC interpretation a “literal interpretation” *is* a matter of granting authority. If that claim is ignored then it is a slap in the face of other believers who feel the literal interpretation is different. The Scofield Study Bible on my shelf claims to interpret genesis literally, and the conclusions are almost diametrically opposed to YEC. Genesis 1:1 is a literal indication that the universe existed before the acts of creation that are later described. The literal interpretation of the 4th creative “day” indicates that there were no previous 24 hour days with which they could be measured before or after, indicating that the YEC argument of “a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day” does not apply to creation. You, the BA and other debunkers would do well to study theology that supports them and opposes YEC. Or are you anti-religion afterall?
As an Evolutionary Biologist, I have spent the last 5 years fighting the anti-science ignorance that persists through every avenue of life one looks at. It’s not just religious zealots who distort the truth, but most of the ignorance comes from the lack of science in our educational system.
There is cause for optimism however, because every once in a while, with enough perseverence, it’s possible to get through to some people. When one comes to realize the benefits that proper scientific reasoning can provide, some may come away with a different point of view.
Patience is not our greatest virtue, but I believe with enough persistence, we can end this unscientific stranglehold that our current administration, along with countless other institutions have instilled in the general population. The truth is anti-scientists are extremely threatened by proper reasoning and the scientific method.
Few fundamental changes have occured in a quick and sweeping fashion. It took over 400 years for Americans to begin to consider everyone equal, to grant women suffrage, allow African Americans the same freedom as everyone else, and a host of other things. It’s impossible to expect overnight changes, when the lack of science reaches such fundamental and ignorant levels. We must be diligent and patient; ready to provide our tools, methods, and POVs to those who are ignorant and need guidance. It wasn’t always like this.
My personal theory on the backwards trend in science is the threat from Nuclear Annhilation that hung over our heads for a half century. Back in the 50’s and 60’s, science was accepted much more readily, considering Einstein’s status, the Space Race, and subsequently the successful landings on the Moon. Everyone was in awe at the capability we posessed with the simple tools of science . However, with the nuclear threat growing, hyped coverage of how our brilliance in science would eventually prove our undoing, and countless other recent shifts, science has garnered an aura of negativity. People fear what they cannot understand — especially true with science. We must be in the center stage reminding the public on the benefits of stem cell research, the greater understanding of our physical world, the positive inmpact on humanity through vaccinations, the improvements of our living standards and quality of life, etc.
Phil, you are not alone in this multifaceted fight. We (those of us with rational thougths) are the “desciples” of truth, and no faulty reasoning, or illogical persuasion can stand in the way. It’s all a house of cards, and it’s our duty, right, and privelage to topple it.
Phil,
welcome to the fight. Glad to have you next to us.
Mike
Citizen Of Trantor >> Thats the way our mids work. Our cognitive space is separate from the real which has many interesting side effects. The mind filters all input.
Anyone who has dabbled in photography has probably experienced his/her brain adding a new mode of interpretation to the visual input. The photographer sees, not only the conceptualized image, but a 2d representation, an answer to the question “how would this look as a photo”.
Artists pratice drawing nudes to overcome this. To learn to recreate the visual input rather than draw what the mind knows is there. Thats why its hard. Google for “The ghost not” (with quotes) for an interesting example of this effect at work.
We all suffer from this effect, which is why peer review is a cornerstone of science.
“and HIV causes AIDS. Right. Got it.”
HIV : Human Immunodeficiency Virus
AIDS : Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
Well, I don’t know about you, but I tend to think there’s some connection.
Needless to say, I agree wholeheartedly with the Bad Astronomer.
Mike Said:
“I think religion is a bunch of hoopla designed to make miserable ignorant people sleep better, but stay miserable and ignorant, while giving 10% of their money to way-of-life wonks who don’t know how to acutally work for a living…”
That’s fine that you believe that Mike…but at least try to keep your religions straight. The only religion I can think of that has a 10 percent tithing would be the Mormons. Your fight isn’t with them (or me), but with other groups that are indeed blinded to anything that Science (I capitalize because science is God to some here) has discovered and elaborated upon. Mormons are very strong in science and many other studies, so leave them out of it. Also, Mormons do not have a payed clergy. Everything that is done is done by volunteers, so the remark about “not knowing how to work” shows some obvious ignorance about religion, which undercuts your whole ability to argue against it. As a Mormon I too am appalled at the ability of some people to completely deny what science has found. Of course the earth is more than 6000 years old…its more like 7 or 8 thousand years (it’s a joke people….try laughing).
JPax2003 Said:
> Irishman, thanks your your input, but I really wanted Phil’s response.
Hey, you get what you get. I can’t make Phil respond.
> The issue with calling the YEC interpretation a “literal interpretation� *is* a matter of granting authority. If that claim is ignored then it is a slap in the face of other believers who feel the literal interpretation is different.
Interesting. I was unaware there were other “literal” interpretations. Thanks for the enlightenment.
>You, the BA and other debunkers would do well to study theology that supports them and opposes YEC. Or are you anti-religion afterall?
That’s really two different issues. Being aware of other interpretations is of interest to some extent. As for whether I’m “anti-religion”, depends on what you mean by that. I value reality and truth. I find religions, at best, to be more interested in describing the world the way they wish it were rather than how it is. The mythologies of religion can be intriguing for story value and for exemplars of moral lessons, teaching tools, etc. But religions push their myths as truths, and that I don’t agree with. I find religions (in the organized sense versus the personal belief sense) to be more concerned with control - control of individuals, control of societies, control of power and wealth. However, I don’t go around calling people idiots for being religious. I try to practice tolerance - you can believe whatever you want to believe. But if you try to push that belief on me or hold it up as superior, be prepared for me to point out the flaws I see.
HawaiiArmenian is right… with persistence, we will win this fight. There may be minor setbacks here and there, but we’ll win.
Case in point, the national debate on embryonic stem cell research. Five years ago, a majority of the population would’ve easily supported banning all such research in our country, and the radical religious fundamentalists were pushing hard in that direction.
But cooler heads prevailed, scientists, medical researchers, and patient advocacy groups all organized together to educate the public about the science behind embryonic stem cell research. The result? Now the majority (well over 60% - including a majority of conservatives) support expanding the federal funding for the research. Even the House of Representatives passed legislation on this…
We’ve come a long way on this issue, and we have further to go. I feel strongly that the organization between scientific societies, teaching groups, and concerned citizens is the beginning of a similar movement on the issue of evolution & creationism. And, like the issue of stem cells, we will, over the long term, have a similar effect — that is, science will win.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Cheers — MattusMaximus
Heh! Not a single person that jumped on me for saying homosexuals etc. cause AIDS quoted me in context.
I began that comment by saying that HIV probably causes AIDS the same way burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the World Trade Center. I then went on to say in another sense, it’s terrorists that caused the collapse of the World Trade Center. Never being one to under analogize something I went on to say that hammers aren’t the cause of nails holding boards together and guns don’t kill people.
Hammers, jet fuel, guns, AND HIV are mere objects. It requires affirmative action by people to cause them to do things. I’ll admit that HIV is a bit more animate on its own recognizance but I stand by the assertion that without homosexuals, prostitutes, and intravenous drug users spreading HIV there wouldn’t be an AIDS epidemic today.
I freely admit I made that comment to rile up the bleeding heart liberals just for the sport of it.
Astronomy rules, dude. For the past 400 months when I get my Scientific American in the mail if there’s an article on astronomy or cosmology in it I turn straight to it before anything else. After reading that I usually go from front to back reading everything else. I can’t pay a higher compliment to your profession than that. If there hadn’t been a lot more money in computer science and a Mt. Palomar scope the size and cost of an Apple II 25 years ago I’d be an astronomer today. I even took an astronomy course in college, didn’t drop it, and got a 4.0 unlike almost all the rest of the class. By that time of course there was nothing in an introductory astronomy text I hadn’t already learned by age 10.
I gots a question for ya. I’m an agnostic when it comes to religion but it sure looks to me like there’s intelligent design in the machinery of life. I don’t who or what was responsible but the design jumps right off the page into your lap if you don’t rule it out on ideologic grounds. I’m a retired computer design engineer with a patent portfolio and everything so I knows design when I sees design. My question for you is what on about ID (Michael Behe’s type of ID which acknowledges a 14 billion year old universe and a universal common ancestor) do you think threatens astronomy? I’m a huge fan of SETI, astrobiology, space exploration, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and all that Star Trek generation stuff. If you separate out the concept of intelligent design from the religious beliefs of bible thumpers I think you’ll find it has no bones at all to pick with astronomy. Evoluntionary biologists might rightly feel threatened but no one else should.