More evidence for the increasing YECiness of ID

| 311 Comments

Just last week over at the Thinking Christian blog there was a huge stink raised over the alleged inappropriateness of linking ID to creationism. After much argument the anti-linkage people more or less conceded that there were some good reasons to link ID to a somewhat generic definition of creationism (relying on special creation), but still protested loudly about how inappropriate it was to make the linkage, because most people (allegedly) would assume that creationism = young-earth creationism, and linking ID to young-earth creationism was oh-so-wildly unfair.

Well, it’s now a week later, and, what do you know, but right there on the latest blogpost on William Dembski’s Uncommon Descent is a big fat advertisement for a straight-up young-earth creationist conference. And who is endorsing the conference? Dean Kenyon, Discovery Institute fellow, coauthor of Of Pandas and People, and one of the most-cited inspirational figures in the whole ID movement, who is mentioned dozens of times in Stephen Meyer’s new book Signature in the Cell. Here he is, endorsing young-earth garbage:

According to US biophysicist Dr. Dean Kenyon, “Biological macroevolution collapses without the twin pillars of the geological time-scale and the fossil record as currently interpreted. Few scientists would contest this statement. This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”

…proving that, yep, he’s still YEC, as has been his consistent position since at least 1980, even though this was widely doubted over on the Thinking Christian blog, and even though Stephen Meyer and all other ID advocates systematically obscure this fact.

So who is the one confusing ID and YEC? Not me. They do it themselves.

311 Comments

This is from a previous conference by the same people, the Kolbe Center (catholic YEC group).

I’m really quite sorry I missed this:

The afternoon lectures examined the evolutionary hypothesis from an historical and philosophical perspective. Dr. Alma Von Stockhausen, the foundress of Gustav Seiwerth Akadamie in Germany, exposed the roots of evolutionary thought in the theology of Martin Luther […]

.…exposed the roots of evolutionary thought in the theology of Martin Luther […]

Well sure: Luther’s anti-semitism is well known (well, except among those evangelicals who like to ignore the embarassing bits of history), and everyone knows that evolution is the root of racism, so.…

Nick (Matzke) quoted: Dr. Alma Von Stockhausen, the foundress of Gustav Seiwerth Akadamie in Germany, exposed the roots of evolutionary thought in the theology of Martin Luther […]

The roots of anti-Semitic / Nazi thought are also exposed in the theology of Martin Luther - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the[…]d_Their_Lies

But Nick,

(Begin channelling Tom Gilson) Just because one creationist thinks there’s a link between ID and YECism, doesn’t mean there is one. I mean, he’s only the the primary author of the flagship ID textbook. Its clearly not logical on your part to give his personal opinion more weight than, say, that of a relatively unknown blogging priest who says they aren’t related. (/channeling)

Nick (Matzke) said:

This is from a previous conference by the same people, the Kolbe Center (catholic YEC group).

I’m really quite sorry I missed this:

The afternoon lectures examined the evolutionary hypothesis from an historical and philosophical perspective. Dr. Alma Von Stockhausen, the foundress of Gustav Seiwerth Akadamie in Germany, exposed the roots of evolutionary thought in the theology of Martin Luther […]

So Dr Von Stockhausen discovered that Charles Darwin stole HG Wells’ time machine in order to influence Martin Luther?

I’m curious how they reconcile this with comments like those of Behe. In “The Edge of Evolution” and elsewhere Behe makes quite clear that he accepts both common descent and an old earth and thinks that not accepting an old earth requires a certain degree of silliness. I wonder if Dean Kenyon and Michael Behe ever talk to each other.

Joshua Zelinsky said:

I’m curious how they reconcile this with comments like those of Behe. In “The Edge of Evolution” and elsewhere Behe makes quite clear that he accepts both common descent and an old earth and thinks that not accepting an old earth requires a certain degree of silliness. I wonder if Dean Kenyon and Michael Behe ever talk to each other.

I figure that they consider him an ally for the time being, but, after they’ve conquered everything for Jesus, they’ll probably force him to recant his pro-evolution statements, or be put to death.

Dean wrote:

“This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”

Great Dean, some recent research. Let’s see it. Where is it published? Man you must be famous for overturning two hundred years of research in establishing the geologic time scale. Or maybe you have evidence the the fossil record is all wrong. Yea, that must be it. Everyone else for the last three hundred years is wrong, but you finally got it right. Of wait, it’s not the fossil record that’s wrong, it’s the “interpretation” that’s wrong. Well now, how does having a different “interpretation” constitute research? Man, no wonder you haven’t published anything.

Here is a news flash for you. No one in science teaches any theory as a proven fact. If that is your goal then all you have to do is enforce the current teaching standards. Now why does that require research or interpretation or anything else? Oh wait, you really meant … never mind.

Great Dean, some recent research. Let’s see it. Where is it published? Man you must be famous for overturning two hundred years of research in establishing the geologic time scale.

Pfft! Forget that, Dean! Scientific publications don’t pay squat.

But image what that information is worth to people like energy companies!

All these years their exploration model has been wrong! It’s always assumed organic deposits accumulating in shallow seas and warm swamps millions of years ago.

But you, Dean, You see that there was no “millions of years ago”!

For years the entire exploration strategy of these companies has been based on finding these long-lost seabeds and swamps, now inconveniently buried under eons of camouflage.

But you Dean, you are ready to blow the lid off this thing!

Only you truly understand how geology works - those legions of petroleum engineers laboring in remote locations with their test bores and echolocation and satelite tools for decades - ignorant pikers.

You Dean, you are poised to be a freakin zillionaire, bro!

Paul Nelson is also a YEC. If you had asked me a year ago I would have thought that most IDers were OEC but reading the Uncommon Descent blog lately, I think that most of them are in fact YEC. In fact I have a hypothesis that there are very few OEC people out there.

I wonder if once you accept the earth is old that it is a slippery slope to becoming a theistic evolutionist.

What *I* would like to know is: Are they now admitting they were lying (YECs pretending to be OECs), or is there some “evidence” that changed their minds? What a colossal farce! The term I learned here at PT a few weeks ago comes to mind: pseudoskepticism.

There was a time when the YECs and OECs argued, then they said ‘Let’s not argue now, get creationism into the schools, then we can discuss the age of the earth.’ Does this represent another change to circle the wagons for political purposes?

Ten years ago Nick, was basically wrong to equate YEC and ID, but consistently since then ID has become more YEC.

Consider the YEC bias of Uncommon descent and the way many YECs appeal to Design as they do in Britain.

I now see them as very similar on the age of the earth though some like Behe still accept an ancient earth

Few scientists would contest this statement.

Dawkins does - in his most recent book he is adamant that without the fossils, the genetic evidence alone proves evolution.

But image what that information is worth to people like energy companies!

All these years their exploration model has been wrong! It’s always assumed organic deposits accumulating in shallow seas and warm swamps millions of years ago.

You Dean, you are poised to be a freakin zillionaire, bro!

In fact, he may be too late! Someone’s beaten him to it!

The only surprising thing is that there hasn’t been an exclusive ‘investment circle’ among church groups based on this wonderful discovery (all for the benefit of Our Mission in Pikyah-Pokit, of course) which has run into unforeseen problems that will nevertheless be resolved if we can just raise a few more bucks from the rubes ^h^h^h^h faithful…

Nick Matzke Wrote:

most people (allegedly) would assume that creationism = young-earth creationism, and linking ID to young-earth creationism was oh-so-wildly unfair.

If anything I have always thought that linking ID to YEC, if done hastily, is too generous to the ID activists. YECs at least make testable statements regarding “what happened when,” while IDers increasingly pander to the big tent, whatever they believe. YEC just happens to be the biggest market, so ID language has to be YEC-friendly, even if most ID activists have made it clear in the past that the find no evidence to support YEC or anything close to it (e.g. old-earth-young-life). I’d bet that ID would be much more OEC-friendly had the Bryan-era creationism not been replaced by the Morris-era version.

Joshua Zelinsky Wrote:

I wonder if Dean Kenyon and Michael Behe ever talk to each other.

If they do, it’s probably only about all the “weaknesses” of “Darwinism” they agree on, and nothing about their irreconcilable differences. Besides, Behe has admitted that, although he accepts common descent, some IDers (unnamed of course) who reject it are, in his opinion, “more familiar with the relevant science.” If he hasn’t yet made a similar pathetic disclaimer about YEC, give him time.

That’s it…there is clearly no consensus on this. I mean…if they can’t even agree amongst themselves then the theory of creationism must be full of holes. I demand that they start teaching the YE/OE Controversy in Sunday School.

vhutchison said:

There was a time when the YECs and OECs argued, then they said ‘Let’s not argue now, get creationism into the schools, then we can discuss the age of the earth.’ Does this represent another change to circle the wagons for political purposes?

To those discussing Uncommon Descent:

I haven’t lurked there much in the past 2-3 years, but it would not surprise me if UcD commenters are mostly YEC or old-earth-young-life. IOW some sort of Genesis-literalist. Few others (e.g. Raelians) take ID seriously.

As for the “leaders,” IIRC, DaveScot, who defended common-descent, is still banned (his banning had nothing to do with his acceptance of CD), and Denyse O’Leary is one of those YECs who got on the “don’t ask, don’t tell what the designer did when” bandwagon. Dembski has consistently conceded old-earth-old-life, and has been “agnostic” about CD (though strictly against any Darwinian version). But he has made it clear that his political sympathy lies with YECs. But as Behe did with CD-deniers, it wouldn’t surprise me if Dembski has complimented some YECs for being more familiar than he is with the relevant science.

If my thoughts above require some updating, I’d appreciate it. But note that I’m not interested in what anyone might believe, only what they are trying to promote, and what strategies they are using to do it.

At least one of the current contributors/moderators at UD, Clive Hayden, is clearly a YEC, as evidenced by this recent comment:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte[…]-start/#comm ent-337843

I believe the same is also the case for Cornelius Hunter, and it is clearly the case for a large number of regular commentators. Pick almost any thread and read down through; you will find many of the regular commentators expressing views that are clearly those of committed YECs. Over the past year, there have been threads at UD that have eventually degenerated into nitpicking arguments between a small cadre of YECs, who argue about arcane details of the YEC creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 (and related versions).

This is not to say that the two most notable contributors at UD, Michael Behe and William Dembski, are YECs. Behe has consistently and repeatedly denied that he is a YEC (indeed, he says he “strongly” believes in common descent). Dembski has asserted repeatedly that he is strongly sympathetic to the YEC viewpoint, but cannot adopt it because the empirical evidence for an old Earth is so “strong”…at least he cannot adopt it publicly, and still retain any credibility as a scientist.

BTW, in searching for the names of contributors and moderators at UD, I discovered that there is no longer any publicly accessible link to such a list. This means that the only way anyone can figure out who is a contributor/moderator at UD is to pay attention to the background color of a comment; those that appear against a white background are those of a contributor/moderator, while the hoi polloi’s comments appear against the usual olive drab background.

I find this very interesting; why don’t the contributors/moderators at UD want the public to know who they are? The contributors/moderators at Panda’s Thumb are quite publicly listed under the button in the right menu bar labeled “Select an Author”. Do the contributors/moderators at UD have something to hide?

Several posters here have noted that both Dr. Behe and Dr. Dr. Dembski have denied to one extent or another YEC, yet have expressed sympathies for it.

I’m trying to imagine an actual scientist saying something along the lines of, “I acknowledge that all the evidence points to the existence of atoms as the constituents of matter, but my sympathies lie with those who say that Earth, Air, Water, and Fire are what matter is made of.” Or, “Of course, I accept the data that show that the Sun is at the center of our solar system, but I concede that there are Geocentrists that know more than I do about the topic.”

This, as much as anything else, shows that these self-identified scientists have no idea what science or the scientific method is, and are totally out of touch with reality.

Over at Thinking Christian, Tom Gilson has picked up on this posting. But incredibly (or perhaps not…) he doesn’t comment on the substantive issue of Kenyon’s explicit endorsement of YEC; instead he moans that this is all the fault of the anti-IDers, and that we’re really just hurting ourselves.

I’ve dumped the steaming pile of his hypocrisy into the comments thread; it will be amusing to see where this goes. Watch him twist, watch him feint…

(I tried to include a link to the TC thread, but Movable Type doesn’t seem to like hyperlinks.)

Jimmy D said:

I demand that they start teaching the YE/OE Controversy in Sunday School.

What makes you think this doesn’t already occur? Since {YE or OE} is clearly scriptural, while {OE or YE} is clearly a misinterpretation, it’s a fine topic for discussion “in house.”

Frank J -

If anything I have always thought that linking ID to YEC, if done hastily, is too generous to the ID activists. YECs at least make testable statements regarding “what happened when,” while IDers increasingly pander to the big tent, whatever they believe.

Here’s how I resolve the relationship…

All modern, educated creationists of any sort are being dishonest or are deeply misinformed and ignorant (possibly due to emotional bias). I know that sounds almost like a quote from Dawkins, but it is clearly true.

Openly YEC types who make testable statements, although dishonest and/or severely ignorant, are less dishonest than types who stick to ID babble.

However, a major point of creationism in the US is ultimately to support an authoritarian social/political agenda, by claiming that “the Bible is literally true”, and then further claiming that unpopular or inhumane policies are required because a “literal” reading of the Bible shows that God commands them.

“OEC” has very little appeal to anyone, for an obvious logical reason. If parts of the Bible metaphorical or symbolic, then it isn’t contradicted by evolution. (But then, it’s useless for the advancement of a harsh social agenda.)

OEC does appeal to a tiny subset of narcissistic cranks who want to prove their “genius” by either independently overturning a powerfully established scientific theory, or “logically proving the existence of God”, or both. Behe, Charlie Wilson, and possibly “the Thinking Christian” fit in this category, as surely do a few dozens or hundreds of others, but they should be seen as akin to deniers of relativity and the like. As Stanton mentions above, they are tolerated by other creationists now only because they are fellow “critics” of evolution.

The real red meat is advancing a “literal” reading of the Bible, because that is claimed to support, indeed command, a brutal social agenda. The vast majority of people who support “ID” do so as a coded and (it was once hoped) “court proof” way of signaling support for Biblical literalism and harsh social policy.

(*I should add that the “average” American claims, in polls, to believe that bacteria and plants evolved, but to question, in relatively large numbers, that humans evolved from hominids, and generally refuses to “contradict” any statement that is presented in a religious way, regardless of their underlying beliefs. On the other hand, juries and electorates of the same people consistently reject creationism in schools. This relative incoherence is unsurprising in polls of the general public on complex topics - an emotion-biased set of responses that reflect inhibitions, but are broadly supportive of science. Under no circumstances should we conclude from this that the majority of Americans either have a full understanding of the theory of evolution, or support ID/creationist denial of evolution. This is important, because this is a large part of what motivates the DI and other creationists - although arguably they are more about taking money from the believers who exist now than about making new believers*)

Update: Tom doesn’t like my comment, and announces that he will edit it. Just for the record, I wrote:

Good grief. I cannot believe that you linked to that post without commenting on the substantive issue that it raised. Let’s get the rest of the post on the table:

[Quoted text from Nick.]

So let’s get this straight. A prominent figure in the ID movement endorses a YEC conference. This isn’t “careless, unspecified linkage to creationism”, it’s deliberate, specific and enthusiastic linkage to creationism – isn’t it? But do you criticize Dean Kenyon? Of course not; according to you, Tom, the fault lies with “ID opponents” like Nick being “careless”, and that “ID’s opponents are the ones being damaged.”

It’s amusing to compare your treatment of Dawkins from that of Kenyon. If you can twist Dawkins’ actions into a lack of commitment to science, how do you feel about Kenyon’s? Don’t be shy….

Geoff (in Shenzhen, trip extended for another two weeks)

Tom Gilson’s apparent tactic is to edit out any comments that address the increasing YECness of the (rapidly failing) ID movement. Not surprising, I suppose, but unfortunate, especially as it simply reinforces the impression that ID supporters (such as himself) are not interested in actual debate, but rather in “arguments by assertion”.

SWT Wrote:

What makes you think this doesn’t already occur? Since {YE or OE} is clearly scriptural, while {OE or YE} is clearly a misinterpretation, it’s a fine topic for discussion “in house.”

I’d bet that it’s very rare, but for a different reason that anti-evolution activists hate to debate their differences. YEC and OEC are, like ID, mainly arguments against evolution, so it’s bad for the big tent to show weaknesses and/or contradictions in any anti-evolution position.

OTOH, with exception of the most radical fundamentalist ones, Sunday Schools probably just ignore evolution (why call attention to it?), and discuss Genesis mostly as it applies to humans, which means that most events occurred in the last ~6000 in OE or YE versions. Plus most of the non-fundamentalist ones might approach Genesis in the same politically correct way that TV treats flying reindeer - state it as fact, knowing that the older children will take it as an allegory.

Geoff Arnold said:

Over at Thinking Christian, Tom Gilson has picked up on this posting.

I think any post that begins “Thank you, Larry Fafarman…” can safely be ignored.

Having said that, I won’t. :) Tom’s argument seems not to have changed. He demands everyone limit debate to his definition of ID without any consideration of how the term ID used in the actual world by others, and historically.

To the extent that his argument is sound, its also irrelevant: it is the real world use and understanding of the term ID that matters for court cases, biology classes, etc… Not Tom’s personal definition.

I’d bet that it’s very rare, but for a different reason that anti-evolution activists hate to debate their differences.

After we get rid of the Romans, with their hated working sanitation systems, efficient agriculture, and practical transportation, well, then the Judean People’s Front is finally gonna get what’s coming to them!

harold Wrote:

“OEC” has very little appeal to anyone, for an obvious logical reason. If parts of the Bible metaphorical or symbolic, then it isn’t contradicted by evolution. (But then, it’s useless for the advancement of a harsh social agenda.)

I agreed up to that point, and maybe with that too if you mean the more “progressive” old-earth-old-life versions (with or without common descent) as having very little appeal. But there’s nothing special about YEC, other than it being the first attempt to sound scientific. I’m not sure about flat-earthism, but if you really want to be literal, I think you’d have to go with at least geocentrism.

It could be that, if the activists ever get their theocracy, they’ll all embrace geocentric YEC, maybe even flat-earthism. But I think it’s much more likely that they’ll keep the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach and do what they do now - subtly encourage the audience to believe whatever it’s comfortable with, as long as it’s not “Darwinism.”

I got kicked out of TC last week or so (after having posted criticism there for more than year) over exactly this issue. TC seems to want to ignore the recent history of ID’s strategy of deception and to (in a way that seems typically a case of psychological projection) while branding the IT antagonists as the ones who are using imprecise language to disguise reality.

When I brought up the false summary he posted following the initial discussion, and cited the contradictory instances of his defining ID scientific but not a science, etc., he booted me out. (I join a select company, so it’s really quite an honor.)

For a nutshell summary of the reality-denial (and psychological projection and authoritarianism) that it appears ID proponents must adopt in order to argue their case, I’d look at this post ( http://www.thinkingchristian.net/20[…]-postscript/). The discussion is in comments: 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27.

If this is the kind of conduct we can expect from the most “thoughtful” of the ID proponents it doesn’t bode well for the movement broadening its reach anytime soon.

Jonesy, it’s neither a lie nor a literal truth, nor, if you insist, an allegory either. (I prefer the last, since I do not attribute infallibility to the Apostle Paul, and understand that neither would the Christian Church generally, but hey.) Rather, the story of Eve is an attempt by a writer sometime around, probably, the sixth century BC to transmit an earlier story that was extant then. I propose, therefore, that it falls into another category: fiction.

Fiction is not lies. I should know, I write it for a living, and would resent the statement that I am a professional liar. Rather, it is truth presented in non-literal terms.

You are perfectly familiar with the concept of stories told to make a point. They are not lies. Are the parables of Jesus lies, just because they are fictional? No, of course not. They contain mighty and beautiful truths.

Now, in the story of Eve being made from Adam’s rib, there is a truth being told: that Woman is part of Man. That she is flesh of his flesh, as Jesus said. She is therefore not to be separated, not to be alienated, not to be excluded, not to suffer separate treatment. That she often has been is wrong. It would be, in your terms, a sin against God. In mine, it is a social injustice. That’s why, in writing of the unnamed PhD in my post above, I was careful to specify “he or she”, “his or her”. I hope that in my other conduct I live up to my own ideals. If not, my wife, a staunch feminist, will, I trust, correct me.

Paul went further, and said that, being created second, she was subordinate. That doesn’t follow, and Paul was dead flat wrong. (I told you I didn’t regard him as infallible, didn’t I?)

But if we can regard the story of Eve as a parable - and parables are perfectly respectable, found, as they are, in the words of Jesus himself - then there is no difficulty. Only if you inconsistently insist that this story must be taken as literal truth, while allowing that other stories in the Bible need not be, do you make a problem for yourself. But in that case, it is a problem that you have made for yourself, jonesy.

Leading Intelligent Design advocate Dr. William Dembski uses the Bible to illustrate a scientific point while speaking in the R.G. Lee Chapel.

This, too reminds me of “Bored of the Rings”. On the back was a list of What People Are Saying About This Book:

“Here, kill it with this.”

“That’ll be a dollar fifty, sir.”

and so on.

Every time I tried to read any of the epistles I find myself annoyed by how much Paul fucked up the works and words of Jesus. He just grabbed the ball and ran with it, making shit up as he went. And what a mess.

It’s easy to reconcile faith and knowledge, Jonesy. Just Let Go Of The Orange (i.e., literalism)*

*Oddly enough, the first link to this phrase on Google is a spiritual website that compares the orange to worldly goods. I guess the orange is whatever you want it to be. :-)

Jonesy said:

Were Adam and Eve real? The Bible, both Old and New, assume that they were. In fact, the lineage of Jesus is listed all the way to the first human, Adam. Another problem is that Genesis reports that Eve was created from the rib of Adam. This is a special creation, not an evolutionary creation. If evolution is true, I either throw away that section of the Bible as a lie (and all other portions that refer to it) or I try to come up with an alternate theory. Maybe this: Adam was descended from apes, but Eve was a special creation by God.

Descent from apes diminishes the idea that humans are a special creation, separate from the animals. God gave Adam the task of naming all of the animals, which indicates his superior status. He is even told to rule over the animals.

So, I think atheistic evolution has problems, but theistic evolution has even more problems.

I would love to hear from a Christian evolutionist who has solved these dilemnas.

It’s quite telling about how creationists, like Jonesy, will parade about like peacocks, loudly, and shamelessly confessing about how they’re such humble, meek, good Christians, yet, when confronted with the evidence that humans are actually primates, these same meek and humble Christians get flustered and hurt, and wail about how it’s so unspeakably undignified and deathly embarrassing to even think of being related to apes, in that, it’s somehow more dignified to be descended from a pair of disobedient troublemakers who literally got all living things cursed forever and ever with death, pain, and old age.

And then there’s how you want to “save” our souls as though we were nothing but stamps on a stampcard for a free cup of cosmic coffee, or the fact that you dismiss actual scientific evidence as being mere “gobbledygook.”

In other words, Jonesy, your words scream of your hypocrisy, and it’s my opinion that anyone would dare to trust their souls with a hypocrite like you is an idiot.

fnxtr said:

Every time I tried to read any of the epistles I find myself annoyed by how much Paul fucked up the works and words of Jesus. He just grabbed the ball and ran with it, making shit up as he went. And what a mess.

It’s easy to reconcile faith and knowledge, Jonesy. Just Let Go Of The Orange (i.e., literalism)*

*Oddly enough, the first link to this phrase on Google is a spiritual website that compares the orange to worldly goods. I guess the orange is whatever you want it to be. :-)

Ever notice how the vast majority of Biblical literalists are always admonishing, if not screaming, that the only way Jesus will grant anyone salvation is if they were to take the English translation of the Book of Genesis as word for word literally true, and yet, these same literalists are in no hurry to explain how one can produce striped livestock by showing unstriped livestock a striped stick, or why these literalists have very little desire to see rowdy children, or people who eat pork, and shellfish, who wear polyester, or who work or ride a car on the Sabbath rounded up and stoned to death.

Jonsey wrote:

“Descent from apes diminishes the idea that humans are a special creation, separate from the animals.”

Says you. I feel very special being a unique product of 3.5 billion years of evolution.

I would not feel so special if I actually believed that I was descended from some guy who was fooled by a talking snake and gave up immortality for a bite of an apple. What a moron!

In some ways we are even more miraculous if we are an accident. To me, this is more a cause for awe, wonder, and humility than believing we were poofed into existence because That Was The Plan.

Kattarina98 said:

Chris Falter said:

This post appears to be the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of how Google Ads works. When I clicked over to Dembski’s blog post, I did not say *any* advertisement for any conference, much less a yount-earth conference. The only ads I saw were the Google Ads.

You realize, of course, that the author of a blog post has no control over which ads Google places?

And that those ads change over time? As they evidently have since October 29?

Chris, please read the opening post. There is a link which leads you to an opening post - not a Google ad - on Uncommon Descen.

Yes, I did misread the post, and I thank you for correcting me. Let’s play a little logic game to understand this post:

Obama ran a campaign for president. Bill Ayers, a convicted felon, endorsed Obama. Therefore I should have voted against Obama.

McCain ran a campaign for president. One of my neighbors, who is a racist, endorsed McCain. Therefore I should have voted against McCain.

The Vatican (which has already endorsed an old-earth, theistic evolution view which readers may or may not agree with) is giving some scientists an opportunity to present data that may refute the standard model of fossilization. Dembski encouraged us to consider the evidence, and Kenyon gave a ringing endorsement. Therefore I must reject the scientists’ presentations and conclude that Dembski believes the YEC hypothesis.

How are these 3 scenarios any different from each other?

For that matter, what’s wrong with listening to these scientists present their findings? Maybe they have something valuable to say. OTOH, maybe a careful consideration of their data and models will lead us to conclude that they’re full of it. Until the scientific community analyzes their data and models, though, we won’t know, will we?

For that matter, I do not see that Kenyon is necessarily endorsing the YEC theory. He says that the standard evolutionary theory rests on 2 geology pillars: 1. an old earth 2. a fossilization mechanism that allows us to accurately date fossils

If a scientist can refute #2, you might reject the evolution theory without also rejecting #1 (an old earth). Admittedly, Kenyon did not express himself with such clarity, but I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone who reads my blog knows that I have completely rejected the YEC theory. But the lack of scientific inquiry, the almost complete groupthink, that I see in this thread does not impress me one bit. Many folks in this thread are *taking offense* that some scientists are presenting data that might challenge their presuppositions. Instead of evaluating the data, they reject it without even listening. That’s not the way science should work.

JoeG | October 31, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Edit

SWT,

Evolutionists use the term “Darwinism”.

In order for populations to change first individuals must change.

Natural selection “acts” on individuals. Mutations occur in individuals.

And as I said if we use Nick Matzke’s “logic” the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because Richard Dawkibs sez so.

Reply: Mutations occur in individuals,natural selection acts on populations. If you don’t understand that key concept of evolution then we can’t help you.

As others have said: Scientific theories are neither “atheistic” nor “theistic” simply because science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. All scientists can do is explain the universe using natural laws.

Science does not have anything to do with belief. We don’t “believe” in gravity, we know about it because we can see its’ effects on the world around us. Science cannot deal with beliefs because it is too hard to change those beliefs when new evidence is found. Instead, science focuses on ideas, hypothesis, theories, and eventually laws. All of these things (even laws) can be accepted as an explanation, but never a belief.

Scientists understand that the universe is vast: we may never have all the answers,and the ones we do have could be wrong. They know that nothing in science is ever proven–only supported. In fact the only thing that can be proven is math. You cannot use the opinion of a scientist to prove your point. What Richard Dawkins says as his opinion is just that–his opinion. His research is a whole different matter. We cannot use his opinion to support anything scientific–we can use his research to find new scientific insights.

Chris: Yes, I did misread the post, and I thank you for correcting me. Let’s play a little logic game to understand this post:

Obama ran a campaign for president. Bill Ayers, a convicted felon, endorsed Obama. Therefore I should have voted against Obama.

McCain ran a campaign for president. One of my neighbors, who is a racist, endorsed McCain. Therefore I should have voted against McCain.

The Vatican (which has already endorsed an old-earth, theistic evolution view which readers may or may not agree with) is giving some scientists an opportunity to present data that may refute the standard model of fossilization. Dembski encouraged us to consider the evidence, and Kenyon gave a ringing endorsement. Therefore I must reject the scientists’ presentations and conclude that Dembski believes the YEC hypothesis.

How are these 3 scenarios any different from each other?

For that matter, what’s wrong with listening to these scientists present their findings? Maybe they have something valuable to say. OTOH, maybe a careful consideration of their data and models will lead us to conclude that they’re full of it. Until the scientific community analyzes their data and models, though, we won’t know, will we?

For that matter, I do not see that Kenyon is necessarily endorsing the YEC theory. He says that the standard evolutionary theory rests on 2 geology pillars: 1. an old earth 2. a fossilization mechanism that allows us to accurately date fossils

If a scientist can refute #2, you might reject the evolution theory without also rejecting #1 (an old earth). Admittedly, Kenyon did not express himself with such clarity, but I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone who reads my blog knows that I have completely rejected the YEC theory. But the lack of scientific inquiry, the almost complete groupthink, that I see in this thread does not impress me one bit. Many folks in this thread are *taking offense* that some scientists are presenting data that might challenge their presuppositions. Instead of evaluating the data, they reject it without even listening. That’s not the way science should work.

Reply:It’s not that the “scientists” of ID are presenting data that challenge modern evolutionary biology. The problem is that all IDers seem to do is try to poke holes in evolution. They cannot seem to come up with a coherent hypothesis. They cannot answer the questions: Who, what, when, where, why, or how. ID is not a theory. It has no practical use, it has no predictive ability, and it is unfalsifiable.

A recent “debate” i had with an ID proponent went something like this: ME: What scientific evidence do you have to support ID? IDer: The evidence is that there is a universe, when I look at the world I can see that it must have been created.

Needless to say, the exchange gave me a headache and made me feel sad that this person did not understand what “scientific evidence” is.

In 20+ years of “research” and “study”, IDers have come up with no coherent hypothesis or testable predictions for ID. Scientists have a problem with it because if you can call ID science then so is astrology. It is disrespectful to call these IDers scientists while real scientists go out and do all of the real work and research.

Amyc, please please please click on the “reply” tag of a quote that you are responding to, or make sure the quote or blockquote tags are in there. I’m not trying to be mean, but it is much easier to read when I see the quote that you are responding to in a different color and block when you do so. It gives me plenty of visual cues that tell me what I am reading.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on October 29, 2009 2:02 PM.

Blogging Live from Darwin / Chicago 2009 was the previous entry in this blog.

(Very) brief Freshwater update 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 4.381

Site Meter