Irony award goes to…

| 93 Comments

Salvador Cordova (Young Earth Creationist)

Darwinian TE (Theistic Evolution) just doesn’t cut it scientifically.

What a riot, as opposed to the scientifically defensible Young Earth variant or the scientifically vacuous Intelligent Design variant?

93 Comments

I would guess that in a “reality” you construct for yourself, you are free to decide what “cuts it.” The scientific community is irrelevant in a fantasy world.

Anyway, I’m curious about what the YECs think about the ice cores that scientists drill to study the atmosphere of the ancient earth. These ice cores have annual rings, faithfully record past events (e.g. the eruption of Mount Vesuvius) and there are clearly more than 10,000 of them! Does anyone know?

-Karen

Of course, in Salvador’s defense, evolution leads to defunct journals which can’t find anything to publish for years at a time, while ID leads to thriving journals, bursting with new discoveries.

Sal’s remarkably insightful comment points to a much larger problem with ID proponents, namely their inability to sceptically address either their own viewpoints or arguments which undermine their viewpoints.

There are some interesting studies done in this area. However seeing how ID proponents seem to also fall victim to global warming denial, suggests that there is a common thread. Is it a general disrespect for science, or just the prevailing scientific findings? Or is it a much larger problem where people who are more likely to accept poor science in one area will be more likely to accept poor science in other areas?

Chris Mooney

Why does this matter? Well, the scientists whose views I detailed above fit firmly into the mainstream and were presenting consensus positions, not controversial ones. It would be a stretch to say that the theory of anthropogenic climate change has become as firmly established as, say, the theory of evolution, but there are telling similarities. Both views have won broad acceptance by the vast majority of scientific experts and now only come under fire from a small band of contrarian outliers. Moreover, the outliers aren’t contributing much real science at this point. With a few exceptions, they’re taking their case straight to journalists and public policymakers, an end run around the peer-review process. And of course, when the debate isn’t going their way, they cry persecution.

Source

I was reading the latest Vanity Fair, and there’s an article about global warming denial. It struck me as so similar to evolution denial, I’m having the guys at Kinkos scan it and email it to me. I’ll post it at After the Bar Closes when I get it.

I just started reading the new bio on Einstein (looks like it will be a great read) when a couple of things struck me. I remembered reading a few weeks ago Sal posting a comment at UD about how Darwin was not a real scientist because he did not develop any mathematical equations, whereas real scientists like Maxwell created a lot of them. Real scientists create mathematical equations!!

So here you have a 3rd tier patent clerk (Einstein) who decides to dispense with the theories of one of the greatest minds (Newton) and replace them with papers developed on the basis of some ‘mind experiments’ - no mathematical equations at all in his first 4 papers of his annus mirabilis, not even any ‘real’ experiments!. ID claims that Science will not allow ‘revolutionary’ theories to be heard . . the story of Einstein demonstrates everything that ID would like to be but never will be. It is possible for a ‘nobody’ with a fantastic idea that is testable and resolves open questions

Compare it to a 3rd tier mathematician who decides to dispense with the theories of one of the greatest minds (Darwin) and replace them with … well, need I go any further?

Darwinian TE (Theistic Evolution) just doesn’t cut it scientifically.

Well, OK. BTW, where are the dinosaurs? They got on the Big Boat. They got off the Big Boat ca. 5,000 years ago. They seem to have gone missing since then. Darn it, we miss our dinosaurs.

We also seem to be missing the 99% of life known but now extinct as well.

And not to be a complainer but when the supercontinent broke up a few kiloyears ago, why did Australia get too many marsupials and not enough placentals?

Looks like poor post deluge planning to me. I think I got it right on another thread. This is willing suspension of disbelief on a permanent basis. Entering into a fantasy world on a permanent basis seems sort of harmless and this is a democracy. But whatever it is, it isn’t remotely close to science and has no business in science classes.

Karen–Tree-ring dating has been used to calibrate radiocarbon dating back about 11,800 years. See, for example, Guilderson &al., 2005, “The boon and bane of radiocarbon dating” in Science 307(5708):362-364.

Young Earth creations definitely do not like theistic evolutionists:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/sea[…]%20evolution

Richard Dawkins on YEC’s:

“Believing that the Earth is only 6-10,000 years old is the same as saying that the distance from here (Belfast) to San Fransisco is only to the end of the street. That’s how much in error they (YEC’s) are”.

A good analogy I thought !

And not to be a complainer but when the supercontinent broke up a few kiloyears ago, why did Australia get too many marsupials and not enough placentals?

Here’s why:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/[…]from_aig.htm

AIG: Then we say, how many believe kangaroos once lived in the Middle East? All the hands now go up.

You see, when we think from a Biblical perspective, we know that all land animals must’ve once lived in the Middle East.

From the link: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/another_inani

Yes, this says kangaroos and everything are from the middle east including the dinosaurs. It doesn’t “explain” why various clades ended up on different continents when the supercontinent broke up and the fragments sped away a few thousand years ago.

It doesn’t matter. When you pile up enough ad hoc explanations known as miracles, anything can be explained. This isn’t science. This is cult thinking. It wouldn’t matter except that these guys want to force it on everyone else in.…biology classes.

Darwinian TE (Theistic Evolution) just doesn’t cut it scientifically.

(But Pagan TE does? How about Norse TE?)

As a separate branch of science, there’s no such thing as “theistic evolution,” “Darwinian” or otherwise; there’s just evolution, which DOES “cut it,” as long as scientists don’t let their religious beliefs compromise the quality of their work. If a scientist has an opinion about a God (or three), that’s a completely separate issue from his/her work.

My own belief in Gods does not make me a “theistic technical writer.” It just makes me a tech writer with a religion.

Mark Duigon Wrote:

Karen—Tree-ring dating has been used to calibrate radiocarbon dating back about 11,800 years. See, for example, Guilderson &al., 2005, “The boon and bane of radiocarbon dating” in Science 307(5708):362-364.

Thanks for your reply Mark, but I was asking about ice cores, not tree rings. Ice cores go back in time much further than tree rings, and they also offer much more information about the past.

I’m wondering what YECs think of these, since they go back in time much further than 10,000 years.

Darwinian TE (Theistic Evolution) just doesn’t cut it scientifically.

He’s right! Last time I checked, TE’s never claimed to be scientific, at least not like ID or YEC. Theistic evolutionist is more of a world philosophy, where science is accepted as is, while leaving room for God in the complete world view. You may agree or disagree with the philosophy, but the arguments for or against it are not going to be scientific in nature, which makes it much different from ID or YEC (who pretend to have scientific arguments).

The ID and YEC crowds hate TE so much only because they continually tell their flock that agreeing to evolution is agreeing to atheism, which is demonstrably false by the fact that there are TE’s. If they acknowledged that one could believe both in evolution and God, their argument (to their followers) would be much weaker.

Doug

PvM -

“However seeing how ID proponents seem to also fall victim to global warming denial, suggests that there is a common thread. Is it a general disrespect for science, or just the prevailing scientific findings? Or is it a much larger problem where people who are more likely to accept poor science in one area will be more likely to accept poor science in other areas?”

The short answer is “it’s politics”.

Thanks for your reply Mark, but I was asking about ice cores, not tree rings. Ice cores go back in time much further than tree rings, and they also offer much more information about the past.

I’m wondering what YECs think of these, since they go back in time much further than 10,000 years.

In my experience, they mostly just ignore them. One particularly irritating advantage of the Gish Gallop is that it allows the creationist to quietly drop lines of discussion that s/he does not like by selectively responding to critiques.

- JS

Never forget that Salvador is the fellow who was quoted in Nature as saying

The critical thinking and precision of science began to really affect my ability to just believe something without any tangible evidence

Sure thing, Sal.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 8, column 4, byte 459 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

So, let’s see if I follow that - doing actual thinking interferes with his ability to avoid actually thinking?

Huh. Who’da thought it.

I once read that an agnostic was an atheist without the courage of his convictions. I don’t agree, but it seems similar to what I think TE really is: Materialistic science (if that’s not redundant) with a crutch.

IOW, “I know that all of the evidence points to a natural, unguided process explaining all of Earth’s biological diversity, but I don’t care. Goddidit.”

Sal, nice to see you back. Are you ever going to go over to Mark Chu-Carrol’s blog where he shellacked your behind? You’ve left your entire point hang and swing in the wind while you hid out at UD.

How nice to see that you’re still brave enough to come here and get spanked again.

Has someone come up with a suitable name for this phenomena. It seems fairly common.

Somebody points out that ID is basically religion and ID proponents come back with some nonsense that evolution is a religion with Darwin as God.

Somebody points out that HIV “rethinkers” spout pseudoscientific nonsense and HIV “rethinkers” come back with sill arguments that most if not all of modern virology is pseudoscientific or that the “germ theory of disease” is pseudoscientific.

Among the list of “scientists” that doubt the link between HIV and AIDS there is an extremely high proportion of homeopaths, chiropractors, kinesiologists, orgone therapists and quacks like Hulda Clark.

Sure, there’s no evidence that HIV exists and causes AIDS but orgone and homeopathic memory of water are all really really scientific with lots of evidence.

It reminds me of the back and forth twittering of inane 12 year-old schoolgirls.

Hi Sal,

Glad you stopped by, because I have a question for you: as a YEC, what do you make of the annual rings we find in ice core samples? We can count the rings, and they go back in time more than 10,000 years.

Re:

Posted by John Krehbiel on April 17, 2007 5:12 PM (e) … what I think TE really is: Materialistic science (if that’s not redundant) with a crutch.

IOW, “I know that all of the evidence points to a natural, unguided process explaining all of Earth’s biological diversity, but I don’t care. Goddidit.”

As far as I’m concerned, as long as a TE then follows that with (verbalized or not), “I’m still doing science as if Goddidn’tdoit”, I’m OK with TE.

Lots of people have …um…unconventional… ideas. As long as they don’t insist that these ideas have physical validity in the real world, and as long as they don’t insist that these ideas are taught as part of (in this case, science), who cares?

Obviously, the preceding statement doesn’t apply to Sal. It was made in reply to the comment about TE.

IOW, “I know that all of the evidence points to a natural, unguided process explaining all of Earth’s biological diversity, but I don’t care. Goddidit.”

Actually, it’s more like: “Honest science, with no interference from any religious dogma (even my own) shows us the true nature of what, exactly, goddid.”

Hey, Sal, when are you going to apologize for equating my words with the surgical mutilation of innocent children? Does your Creator give you the strength to admit wrongdoing?

Sal, welcome. I appreciate your invitation to return to YEC but I respectfully return to those dark times where I was forced to reject both God and science. I understand however why Bill may feel more comfortable surrounded by YECers, since they are the least likely to be involved in critical thinking. As to the links you provided, I wonder why you believe that the ignorance of YEC of science, somehow improves at these sites. There is a vast amount of research and empirical data which shows YEC to be wrong about the age of the earth. As to their theological position. Well…

While there is less fertile ground for my self-selected calling (to provoke thought) than in the pro-ID camp, I will give it a try. How is it going to solve anything if the instant reaction to people like Salvador visiting here is to belittle and attack?

I am not suggesting any compromise on science and/or logic, in fact I am suggesting that a reliance on it. The Kangaroo scenario is a perfect example. I had a recent exchange with Salvador T. Cordova at Telic Thoughts where we tentatively agreed to explore a common OMA Truth (“OMA” being my term for a rejection of Gould’s NOMA). I think it was a positive experience. I made a presentation that stipulated most of ID’s base assumptions including an Intelligent Designer. I feel it is logically consistent and “possible”. This put Salvador in the position of doing the same. I think it made an impact. He started to see things from my point of view and began trying to address weaknesses in his arguments without me saying anything.

Unfortunately, stubbornness and my weird set of ethics prevent me from continuing this conversation at Telic Thoughts. UD is out since I am unwelcome there. Panda’s Thumb would be a good place if the peanut gallery could refrain from throwing things at the guest speakers.

Just a thought.

Anyone interested in more details on my presentation or my OMA/NOMA thoughts can see it at… http://dfcord.blogspot.com

Sal,

Where are you? Did you see my post (#170600), where I asked you a question?

Hi Raging Bee,

I didn’t answer directly out of politeness.

Which of your comments would you like to defend?

1. That if the NAS changed its definition of science it will mean the courts will “…exonerate criminals by saying their acts were really caused by incomprehensible supernatural agency…”

ane/or

2. That Pathagoreans were not religious in any way and never “…mentioned in relation to itrrational numbers (or anything else)…” higher planes of existence.

I considered your responses to be an emotional ones. If you would like to continue discussing either of them unemotionally, I will attempt to make the time.

Provoking Thought

Pity Provoker: I know that you know that you have grossly, and deliberately, misrepresented what I said. I’ll take that as an admission on your part that you have lost the argument, and are unable to respond to my arguments satisfactorily. Buh-bye.

Hi Raging Bee,

Or should I say good bye. I hope you learned more from our interchange than I did.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on April 16, 2007 6:08 PM.

Meet Orthrozanclus (down with phyla!) was the previous entry in this blog.

Flagellum evolution paper exhibits canine qualities is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter