This [TIME PERIOD] in Intelligent Design - 10/02/12

| 115 Comments

Intelligent design news, commentary and discussion from the 17th of December, 2011 to the 10th of February, 2012.

Huh? Intelligent design, what’s that? Oh, oh, yes. Yes, you’re quite right. I’m sorry, I’ve been out of the loop a bit and I’d forgotten this little movement I like to keep an eye on from time to time. Well, it’s actually supposed to be a weekly thing, but… things have been crazy around here. Leave me alone, I’m a university student on holidays, I have no time to do anything.

Anyway, what has the intelligent design community been up to online since we last saw them? Not a huge amount, actually, although certainly more stuff than is feasibly possible to fit into one blog post. So, like normal, I’ll skim off the cream floating at the top of this ID think-tank and have a peer into the beaker I used to do it.

This time we’ll be looking at speciation, the glowing past and future of ID, ID as a default assumption in science, appeals to historical authority, and the Discovery Institute distancing themselves from a creationist bill in Indiana.

115 Comments

In one of Luskin’s tirades you re-posted there, I was stuck by this:

“First, it’s highly improbable: getting a chain of 100 left-handed amino acids for a small protein without design would be like tossing a coin and getting 100 heads in a row…Even one wrong-handed amino acid can destroy a protein’s function. Accordingly, living cells actively maintain homochirality by repairing wrong-handed chiral molecules or rejecting them.”

So living cells are the designer? Or does he lack basic reading comprehension?

Helena Constantine said:

In one of Luskin’s tirades you re-posted there, I was stuck by this: So living cells are the designer? Or does he lack basic reading comprehension?

Yes. /snark

–W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Now that Santorum has floated to the surface of Rethuglican politics (and if you’re in on the joke, you know how disgusting that particular word-picture is), I am happily writing comments to internet news items about him reminding folks about the infamous “Santorum Amendment” - about how his support for the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism renders his candidacy (for anything!) utterly inappropriate for the 21st century. (Or the 20th or 19th or 18th centuries…) I would urge all of you to do the same.

Helena Constantine said:

In one of Luskin’s tirades you re-posted there, I was stuck by this:

“First, it’s highly improbable: getting a chain of 100 left-handed amino acids for a small protein without design would be like tossing a coin and getting 100 heads in a row…Even one wrong-handed amino acid can destroy a protein’s function. Accordingly, living cells actively maintain homochirality by repairing wrong-handed chiral molecules or rejecting them.”

So living cells are the designer? Or does he lack basic reading comprehension?

What is there about gods/intelligent designers that makes it more probable that they would choose left-handed amino acids? Couldn’t they accomplish their purposes with a mixture of right- and left-handed amino acids (or, for that matter, with any chemicals - let’s say amino acids with helium atoms replacing carbon atoms - is God constrained by the laws of chemical bonds)?

TomS said:

… is God constrained by the laws of chemical bonds)?

Apparently so–in all circumstances, in all aspects of nature. One has to wonder why that must be so when miracles are so readily available.

Paul Burnett said:

Now that Santorum has floated to the surface of Rethuglican politics …

In achieving top management positions, this is sometimes referred to as “The Septic Tank Convection Principle of Successful Managers.”

Is that why grass is greener over the septic tank?

Luskin said: “…ID should be the default position till demonstrated otherwise.”

I.e., God did it, so let’s go backwards in time and disregard anything that’s been discovered since, say, 4004 BC(E). So kids, bring your Bibles to science class.

Little movement? Here in Toronto I talked with a new student in York university in biology class who mentioned to me that ID (I don’t think YEC) came up and was addressed completly by the teacher. The teacher was hostile and made the usual main points of why ID is not true and not science and not true etc etc. Yet the point is they must introduce this and deal with it in entry classes on biology when they could avoid it.

No way around it. iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time. Its a great idea and greatly shaken the roots of the old guard. It really is famous despite the fewness of those who reach large audiences promoting it. The power must be that it gives “scientific” legs to very popular creationist opinions and tendencies and general skepticism of evolution etc. ID works upon existing creationist ideas and is not just the achievement of a few people.

Truly either ID and YEC will prevail or fail to prevail or be squashed and this in our time. Therefore its very possible in our time evolutionary biology or anything denying a creators fingerprints in nature will be overthrown by this movement and some these names behind it. They may be the future celebrated agents of change in these ‘sciences”. Not their critics. Gentlemen place your bets.

Robert Byers said:

Little movement? Here in Toronto I talked with a new student in York university in biology class who mentioned to me that ID (I don’t think YEC) came up and was addressed completly by the teacher. The teacher was hostile and made the usual main points of why ID is not true and not science and not true etc etc. Yet the point is they must introduce this and deal with it in entry classes on biology when they could avoid it.

No way around it. iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time. Its a great idea and greatly shaken the roots of the old guard. It really is famous despite the fewness of those who reach large audiences promoting it. The power must be that it gives “scientific” legs to very popular creationist opinions and tendencies and general skepticism of evolution etc. ID works upon existing creationist ideas and is not just the achievement of a few people.

Truly either ID and YEC will prevail or fail to prevail or be squashed and this in our time. Therefore its very possible in our time evolutionary biology or anything denying a creators fingerprints in nature will be overthrown by this movement and some these names behind it. They may be the future celebrated agents of change in these ‘sciences”. Not their critics. Gentlemen place your bets.

LOL! Great creationist/ID parody, Robert! You have a great ear for their baffelgab.

Robert Byers said: Truly either ID and YEC will prevail or fail to prevail or be squashed and this in our time…Gentlemen place your bets.

There is an easy way to keep track of the progress of ID and YEC, and to know when they have prevailed. You won’t find out by watching academic debates, or by keeping track of the bills introduced in legislative bodies, or by following court cases, or by reading public opinion polls. No, the real way keep track is by going to Monster.com.

The wonderful thing about looking at job openings is that business and industry are completely unbiased. They have no incentive to stifle YEC and ID. They have no reason to take sides in ideological debates. Their only incentive is to make a profit. And any idea that will help them make a profit is, to them, a good idea. That’s really the bottom line. Does an idea work? Can we put it to use to turn a buck?

So how are YEC and ID doing in business and industry? Well, if you go to websites like Monster.com, and you put in keywords like “biology” or “geology” you will find there are literally thousands of jobs available for people in those fields. Those jobs are at pharmaceuticals companies, agribusiness firms, biomedical companies, petrochemical companies, mining firms, environmental firms, and so forth.

But if you search on the terms “creationism”, “creation science”, and “intelligent design”, you will not find a single job anywhere with any company for anyone with expertise in those areas. There are no petroleum company advertisements saying “Need Young Earth geologist to use Flood Geology for oil exploration.” There are no pharmaceutical company advertisements saying “Need experienced Intelligent Design scientist to apply ID Theory to cancer drug development.” There are also no venture capitalists seeking to invest in Creation Science-based biotech start-up companies.

So far, ID and YEC have borne no fruit for anyone who actually applies science for the purpose of economic productivity. And you know what they say: “Watch out for false prophets…by their fruit you will recognize them…and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.”

Keep your eye on Monster.com.

Robert Byers said: iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time.

Please describe this idea in positive, substantive terms.

Other than, that is, “something, somehow, is wrong with evolutionary biology.”

Tell us what happens, when and where an ID action takes place, and what, where and when it does not. (How about an example of something which we can tell is not “intelligently designed”? Maybe the precursors of vertebrates with eyes or of bacteria with flagella?)

I’m also curious about the fact that the change in anti-evolution over the last several decades has been in the direction of saying ever less. ID is different from its predecessors in not making any commitment about the age of life on Earth, and insisting on not identifying the “intelligent designer(s)”. Some of the ID advocates even tell us that ID is fully compatible with common descent.

Paul Burnett said:

Now that Santorum has floated to the surface of Rethuglican politics (and if you’re in on the joke, you know how disgusting that particular word-picture is), I am happily writing comments to internet news items about him reminding folks about the infamous “Santorum Amendment” - about how his support for the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism renders his candidacy (for anything!) utterly inappropriate for the 21st century. (Or the 20th or 19th or 18th centuries…) I would urge all of you to do the same.

You can tell if it cream floating to the surface by the color and smell.

DavidK said:

Luskin said: “…ID should be the default position till demonstrated otherwise.”

I.e., God did it, so let’s go backwards in time and disregard anything that’s been discovered since, say, 4004 BC(E). So kids, bring your Bibles to science class.

For hundreds of years ID was the default position in Western science, and it never amounted to anything. There hasn’t been a single ID success in the entire history of science. If this were not the case we would already be teaching the junk and science would have a modified set of rules. Laws of nature are based on less data than that.

You can’t go to the Discovery Institute and get a list of ID scientific successes because there hasn’t been a single one. This is one fact that the ID perps can’t deny, or if they do they can’t put up the example when they are lying about it.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

Robert Byers said: Truly either ID and YEC will prevail or fail to prevail or be squashed and this in our time…Gentlemen place your bets.

There is an easy way to keep track of the progress of ID and YEC, and to know when they have prevailed. You won’t find out by watching academic debates, or by keeping track of the bills introduced in legislative bodies, or by following court cases, or by reading public opinion polls. No, the real way keep track is by going to Monster.com.

The wonderful thing about looking at job openings is that business and industry are completely unbiased. They have no incentive to stifle YEC and ID. They have no reason to take sides in ideological debates. Their only incentive is to make a profit. And any idea that will help them make a profit is, to them, a good idea. That’s really the bottom line. Does an idea work? Can we put it to use to turn a buck?

So how are YEC and ID doing in business and industry? Well, if you go to websites like Monster.com, and you put in keywords like “biology” or “geology” you will find there are literally thousands of jobs available for people in those fields. Those jobs are at pharmaceuticals companies, agribusiness firms, biomedical companies, petrochemical companies, mining firms, environmental firms, and so forth.

But if you search on the terms “creationism”, “creation science”, and “intelligent design”, you will not find a single job anywhere with any company for anyone with expertise in those areas. There are no petroleum company advertisements saying “Need Young Earth geologist to use Flood Geology for oil exploration.” There are no pharmaceutical company advertisements saying “Need experienced Intelligent Design scientist to apply ID Theory to cancer drug development.” There are also no venture capitalists seeking to invest in Creation Science-based biotech start-up companies.

So far, ID and YEC have borne no fruit for anyone who actually applies science for the purpose of economic productivity. And you know what they say: “Watch out for false prophets…by their fruit you will recognize them…and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.”

Keep your eye on Monster.com.

Very, VERY good point, and well stated.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

The wonderful thing about looking at job openings is that business and industry are completely unbiased. They have no incentive to stifle YEC and ID. They have no reason to take sides in ideological debates. Their only incentive is to make a profit. And any idea that will help them make a profit is, to them, a good idea. That’s really the bottom line. Does an idea work? Can we put it to use to turn a buck?

[…]

There are also no venture capitalists seeking to invest in Creation Science-based biotech start-up companies.

Very nice indeed. I don’t mind when people use my arguments. That’s why I post them. Most of the ideas in your comment were posted almost four years ago, here: Debating Creationists: The Big Lie. It’s in the section titled “Follow the money.”

The only “new” element in your comment is your mention of searching monster.com, and I think that argument comes from Zack Kopplin’s post here: “Sorry There are Zero Creationist Jobs”–My Dec. 7 Testimony at BESE. There’s nothing wrong with the ideas in your comment, and it’s fine that you’re on the right side of the issue; but next time you should give credit for such things – or at least say that you’ve seen them somewhere.

Luskin said: “…ID should be the default position till demonstrated otherwise.”

If this were true, we’d still be back in the Stone Age. Important discoveries and advances have come from rejecting “Goddidit” and searching for a natural explanation. People thought the Plague was a “Goddidit”. Pope Gregory even led an elaborate procession around the city praying for God to spare them, which is commemorated in the Trés Riche Heures. Today, we can cure it with a few dollars worth of streptomycin because people didn’t accept that it was God’s curse. People thought lightning was God’s judgment. Then we found it was just static electricity and could be defeated with a simple copper rod and some wire. Churches continued to resist using the lightning rod for fear of showing a lack of trust in God. Needless to say, as the tallest building in town, the church was the first to be hit, while the brothel down the street was spared.

In any event, it has been “demonstrated otherwise” to the satisfaction of anyone without a religious ax to grind.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

Robert Byers said: Truly either ID and YEC will prevail or fail to prevail or be squashed and this in our time…Gentlemen place your bets.

There is an easy way to keep track of the progress of ID and YEC, and to know when they have prevailed. You won’t find out by watching academic debates, or by keeping track of the bills introduced in legislative bodies, or by following court cases, or by reading public opinion polls. No, the real way keep track is by going to Monster.com.

The wonderful thing about looking at job openings is that business and industry are completely unbiased. They have no incentive to stifle YEC and ID. They have no reason to take sides in ideological debates. Their only incentive is to make a profit. And any idea that will help them make a profit is, to them, a good idea. That’s really the bottom line. Does an idea work? Can we put it to use to turn a buck?

So how are YEC and ID doing in business and industry? Well, if you go to websites like Monster.com, and you put in keywords like “biology” or “geology” you will find there are literally thousands of jobs available for people in those fields. Those jobs are at pharmaceuticals companies, agribusiness firms, biomedical companies, petrochemical companies, mining firms, environmental firms, and so forth.

But if you search on the terms “creationism”, “creation science”, and “intelligent design”, you will not find a single job anywhere with any company for anyone with expertise in those areas. There are no petroleum company advertisements saying “Need Young Earth geologist to use Flood Geology for oil exploration.” There are no pharmaceutical company advertisements saying “Need experienced Intelligent Design scientist to apply ID Theory to cancer drug development.” There are also no venture capitalists seeking to invest in Creation Science-based biotech start-up companies.

So far, ID and YEC have borne no fruit for anyone who actually applies science for the purpose of economic productivity. And you know what they say: “Watch out for false prophets…by their fruit you will recognize them…and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.”

Keep your eye on Monster.com.

This is a monster of errors.

First business and industry are INDEED biased. I say it, and everyone has and has been saying it forever. Affirmative action, presumptions behind it, and ceilings, and presumptions behind it and constant accusation about bias in hiring/promoting/firing has ruling North America since WW11.

Creationism is full of stories, and more suspicions, of unjust bias in jobs because of creationist.opinions. A famous case in Canada here.

It IS about public opinion,gov’t bills, court cases, high well done debates. That is the measurement of prevailing ideas at any one point.

If you give us this we will not mind the 9-5 stuff.!

”… constant accusation about bias in hiring/promoting/firing has ruling North America since WW11.”

But the same logic applies to hiring in Europe, Byers. There are plenty of pharma companies in Europe and none are advertising for creationist biologists. There are plenty of mining companies in Europe and none are advertising for YEC geologists to use flood geology for oil or coal exploration.

“This is a monster of errors.”

Projecting much, Byers?

Robert Byers said:

It IS about public opinion,gov’t bills, court cases, high well done debates. That is the measurement of prevailing ideas at any one point.

If you give us this we will not mind the 9-5 stuff.!

Such a typical ID/creationist whine.

Sectarians get rebuffed for their proselytizing and pseudo-science; and then they scream and whine that they are being persecuted and need special treatment from government agencies and business in order to push their proselytizing and pseudo-science agenda.

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time.

Please describe this idea in positive, substantive terms.

Other than, that is, “something, somehow, is wrong with evolutionary biology.”

Tell us what happens, when and where an ID action takes place, and what, where and when it does not. (How about an example of something which we can tell is not “intelligently designed”? Maybe the precursors of vertebrates with eyes or of bacteria with flagella?)

I’m also curious about the fact that the change in anti-evolution over the last several decades has been in the direction of saying ever less. ID is different from its predecessors in not making any commitment about the age of life on Earth, and insisting on not identifying the “intelligent designer(s)”. Some of the ID advocates even tell us that ID is fully compatible with common descent.

I meant besides the accuracy of the movement. I mean ,right or wrong, ID is the most important idea , in a general framework, to have come along in subjects dealing with origins in nature. It truly is the talk of the town and if victorious will be seen as the great idea. If failed it still will of been a great rebellion of an idea.

Everywhere I look I see, or perceive beneath, the threat of Id as seen from those who teach the public about conclusions in origins. It seems toi me, a fan and ally though YEC, out of proportion.

So I conclude the real threat is the putting well degree-ed people with fine tuned ideas together with the common popular Christian creationism equaling the serious threat to a old establishment. Not just the power and persuasiveness of the ID squads. It does seem however that like in the Inca empire days a small group of Spainards are destroying a Inca empire of millions. I guess it can be done.

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Very nice indeed. I don’t mind when people use my arguments. That’s why I post them. Most of the ideas in your comment were posted almost four years ago, here: Debating Creationists: The Big Lie. It’s in the section titled “Follow the money.”

The only “new” element in your comment is your mention of searching monster.com, and I think that argument comes from Zack Kopplin’s post here: “Sorry There are Zero Creationist Jobs”–My Dec. 7 Testimony at BESE. There’s nothing wrong with the ideas in your comment, and it’s fine that you’re on the right side of the issue; but next time you should give credit for such things – or at least say that you’ve seen them somewhere.

Curmudgeon, I must say I was quite embarrassed after visiting your links. The coherence between my words and yours (or Zach’s) is so striking that I am (almost) despairing of any possibility of defending myself against charges of plagiarism. And to make matters worse, I can’t deny being a visitor to your blog.

That said, I only discovered your blog a little over a year ago. While I can’t swear that I didn’t stumble across your four-year-old post at some point in time, I can’t recall having done so. Nor do I think I’ve read Zach’s post. If I’m mistaken about either case (and I admit that possibility), you have my sincerest of apologies and I’ll gladly accept whatever admonishment comes my way. It certainly won’t be my first embarrassing mistake.

Of course, my protestation of innocence must seem ridiculously shallow in light of the evidence. I don’t even think I would believe me.

But with your indulgence, I will put forth a modest defense. I have been using “your” economic argument for many, many years in my teaching and elsewhere. Just to give you one example of my use of this idea prior to your 2008 post, in 2007 I wrote a discussion board post under the handle “Leviathan” that, quite ironically, anticipated your tag line of “follow the money” (Sorry, but you’ll have to follow the link and then manually click to page 3 of the thread – there is some ampersand problem with the html tag that I can’t resolve to get directly to that page)

I wrote:…I’ll follow the money. When companies are spending billions of dollars per year to fund ID because it produces such wonderful and useful results, I’ll be a believer.

Perhaps you should have cited me! Just kidding. ;) In all seriousness, if I’ve unconsciously borrowed, I do apologize.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

In all seriousness, if I’ve unconsciously borrowed, I do apologize.

No problem. I’m sure I didn’t invent those arguments, just the manner of expression. It’s not impossible that, although four years old, you may have seen it that post. I like it, so it’s kept visible via a link in the ever-present margin of my blog. Unconscious borrowing is a familiar phenomenon, and I may have done it myself at times. Don’t worry about it. You’re a gentleman.

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: iD is the most important idea in a general way to have come along in origin subjects in our time.

Please describe this idea in positive, substantive terms.

I meant besides the accuracy of the movement. [snip]

So you don’t have an answer to TomS’s question?

We all admit that ID has a popular following among people who don’t know much about evolution and don’t intend to the next time, either. So what? So does astrology. At least astrology makes some positive assertions. ID doesn’t even do that. It just says “I don’t believe your explanations; so therefore, ‘somebody’ must have done ‘something’ by some ‘unspecified magical process’.” To rephrase TomS’s question, what beyond that does ID say? And how can that be an important idea? Naive people have been offering that as an explanation for almost everything since the Bronze Age. See my earlier post about the Plague and lighting.

You wouldn’t believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.

I’m_not said:

You wouldn’t believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.

Well, this debate is one of the many, many, oh-so tragic, tearjerking casualties of letting the idea that God hates (smart) people evolve into holy, political-religious dogma. The uncontrolled proliferation of pompous Morons For Jesus, like Robert Byers, is another sad side effect.

I’m_not said:

You wouldn’t believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.

Just think of Robert Byers as the man in the Post Office who wants to by a license for his pet fish, Eric.

phhht said:

I’m_not said:

You wouldn’t believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.

Hahahahaha I see.…

Just think of Robert Byers as the man in the Post Office who wants to by a license for his pet fish, Eric.

apokryltaros said:

I’m_not said:

You wouldn’t believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.

Well, this debate is one of the many, many, oh-so tragic, tearjerking casualties of letting the idea that God hates (smart) people evolve into holy, political-religious dogma. The uncontrolled proliferation of pompous Morons For Jesus, like Robert Byers, is another sad side effect.

He’s keen, you’ve got to give him that.

I’m_not said:

apokryltaros said:

I’m_not said:

You wouldn’t believe how odd this debate looks from the other side of the Atlantic.

Well, this debate is one of the many, many, oh-so tragic, tearjerking casualties of letting the idea that God hates (smart) people evolve into holy, political-religious dogma. The uncontrolled proliferation of pompous Morons For Jesus, like Robert Byers, is another sad side effect.

He’s keen, you’ve got to give him that.

I’ve got 70 year old butter knives in my drawer thousands of times keener than Robert Byers. He’s persistent, not keen.

MichaelJ said:

ksplawn said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert, please tell this to oil geophysicist and former YEC Glenn Morton (click this link) and the ICR Graduate School associates he hired. Their real life experience in the field showed that Flood Geology is good for theological comfort.…and virtually nothing else. It only resulted in Morton and his fellow YEC associates going through theological trauma as their Flood Geology was exposed as being worthless in finding oil.

Gordon Glover (also an ex-YEC, he remains a Christian) further expands these points in Lesson 8 (of 16) of his video series on science and Christianity.

*bookmarked and saved* Thanks for these, they’re invaluable insights into the struggles some people go through to reconcile anti-science and evidence!

Strange how Byers has gone quiet since this comment. I think that it should be a Byers repellent in future threads.

If Byers ever bothers to respond to this comment, he’ll just whine that it “isn’t so,” and then continue babbling on about how Intelligent Design is so much better than and so much more popular than actual science simply and solely because he says the Bible said so.

ksplawn said: *bookmarked and saved* Thanks for these, they’re invaluable insights into the struggles some people go through to reconcile anti-science and evidence!

My pleasure

MichaelJ said: Strange how Byers has gone quiet since this comment. I think that it should be a Byers repellent in future threads.

apokryltaros said: If Byers ever bothers to respond to this comment, he’ll just whine that it “isn’t so,” and then continue babbling on about how Intelligent Design is so much better than and so much more popular than actual science simply and solely because he says the Bible said so.

Well, if per chance it gets Byers a bit down in the dumps, these other Gordon Glover videos are much more on the lighter side!, even if the humor has serious points.

Intelligent Design vs. Alien Intervention

Intelligent Alien Intervention Institute

John said: Which is why some have concluded that ID is merely Madison Avenue advertising-styled creationism.

Perhaps Dr John Haught (a theologian, one of expert witnesses for plaintiffs in Kitzmiller/Dover trial) said it rather well when he testified under oath that creationism and ID are indeed different.…..in the same way an orange is different from a navel orange.

Tenncrain said:

John said: Which is why some have concluded that ID is merely Madison Avenue advertising-styled creationism.

Perhaps Dr John Haught (a theologian, one of expert witnesses for plaintiffs in Kitzmiller/Dover trial) said it rather well when he testified under oath that creationism and ID are indeed different.…..in the same way an orange is different from a navel orange.

Ah; that explains it! An IDiot is a creationist contemplating its navel.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Finding oil is simply finding squeezed biology between the things that squeezed it. This is from great event largely from the biblical flood.

It was exactly as it looks. A single sudden event in that area and unrelated to millions of years. They have to say long time because oif the great energy and concentration needed. They just don’t imagine another mechanism to provide the energy. WE have it.

they are wrong and Genesis is right.

Robert, please tell this to oil geophysicist and former YEC Glenn Morton (click this link) and the ICR Graduate School associates he hired. Their real life experience in the field showed that Flood Geology is good for theological comfort.…and virtually nothing else. It only resulted in Morton and his fellow YEC associates going through theological trauma as their Flood Geology was exposed as being worthless in finding oil.

Gordon Glover (also an ex-YEC, he remains a Christian) further expands these points in Lesson 8 (of 16) of his video series on science and Christianity.

There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some “creationists” being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

Byers, did it ever occur to you that your “great” pressure and “great accumulation” can both be measured and tested? And that those measurements have actually been made, and the tests run?

Well, they have. They show that fossil fuels - oil, gas and coal - cannot be made in that way in that time. It takes huge amounts of fossil material - millions of years worth of living things dying, drifting to the bottoms of seas, being covered with sediments and those sediments shifting and deepening to the required thickness, and then millions more years of that pressure to produce fossil fuel.

I know that a little detail like physical reality doesn’t concern you, Byers, but it does concern most people. But that’s because most people are not, in fact, irrational loons.

Robert Byers said:

There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some “creationists” being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

If we hypothesize that all fossil fuel, (already recovered, recoverable, and non-recoverable) resulted from the pre-flood terrestrial biomass, my gut feeling is that even if 100% of the organic matter washed away by a global flood was laid down for fossil fuel, the biomass of the pre-flood world must have been many, many times what it is today. Has anybody seen this ratio calculated?

Robert Byers said: There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some “creationists” being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

I recognize that Young Earth Creationism with Flood Geology does make some statements about, for example, when things happened. But does “Intelligent Design” have anything to say about this?

And, by the way, I don’t want to make this a matter of personalities. Is there any advocate of ID out there who has anything to say about this?

Robert Byers said:

Oil/Gas etc is most likely …

You don’t make your living as an exploration geologist or geophysicist, do you? (You’d never find anything. You wouldn’t know where to drill.)

Do you actually work for a living? Or are you a ‘man of leisure’?

Robert Byers the delusional Canadian creotard barfed:

There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some “creationists” being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

Excusez-moi, Monsieur Booby. Au Contraire! There’s something known as Plate Tectonics (And even before then, simple “creationist” models couldn’t account for the millions of years, ample pressures and depth required to create oil and gas from the organic remains of plant and animal matter.).

prongs said:

Robert Byers said:

Oil/Gas etc is most likely …

You don’t make your living as an exploration geologist or geophysicist, do you? (You’d never find anything. You wouldn’t know where to drill.)

Do you actually work for a living? Or are you a ‘man of leisure’?

Booby claims to be some low-level bureaucrat working for the provincial government of Ontario. I believe others have verified this independently.

Robert Byers said:

There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some “creationists” being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

So Bobby, are we going to run out of fossil fuels? I mean, if they can form so quickly, there should be lots and lots forming right now, right? We should never run out, right? We should never have any problem, because we certainly could not use the fuel fast enough to ever deplete it, right? Drill baby drill and burn baby burn, right?

By the way, please specify the “creationist” model” that allows you to find fossil fuel. Please specify how you Know where to drill and how this amazing technology is currently being used by real geologists. Or were you just making crap up again?

I recognize that Young Earth Creationism with Flood Geology does make some statements about, for example, when things happened. But does “Intelligent Design” have anything to say about this?

Yes. For example, they have precise measurements of the age of the earth. It is 6000 years old or it is 4.5 billion years old.

Gee, I don’t see that in the first article. Morton raises some particular issues that caused him and his YEC associates to doubt a young earth. He was unable to get any other YEC scientists to explain the issues. What are the explanations and who are the YEC scientists that he should have talked to?

Gosh, you aren’t lying are you when you say that there are all of these YEC scientists.

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Finding oil is simply finding squeezed biology between the things that squeezed it. This is from great event largely from the biblical flood.

It was exactly as it looks. A single sudden event in that area and unrelated to millions of years. They have to say long time because oif the great energy and concentration needed. They just don’t imagine another mechanism to provide the energy. WE have it.

they are wrong and Genesis is right.

Robert, please tell this to oil geophysicist and former YEC Glenn Morton (click this link) and the ICR Graduate School associates he hired. Their real life experience in the field showed that Flood Geology is good for theological comfort.…and virtually nothing else. It only resulted in Morton and his fellow YEC associates going through theological trauma as their Flood Geology was exposed as being worthless in finding oil.

Gordon Glover (also an ex-YEC, he remains a Christian) further expands these points in Lesson 8 (of 16) of his video series on science and Christianity.

There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some “creationists” being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

Karen S. said: Yes. For example, they have precise measurements of the age of the earth. It is 6000 years old or it is 4.5 billion years old.

Yes, but since God is infinite that is well within any measurement error you choose. ;)

TomS said:

I recognize that Young Earth Creationism with Flood Geology does make some statements about, for example, when things happened. But does “Intelligent Design” have anything to say about this?

And, by the way, I don’t want to make this a matter of personalities. Is there any advocate of ID out there who has anything to say about this?

At least publicly, the ID movement tends to be more neutral about issues like Flood Geology and a young earth. Their self-described “Big Tent” policy means IDers at the DI have about every type of anti-evolutionist, from a few YECs (e.g. Paul Nelson), to the likes of Michael Behe and Scott Minnich that accept some common decent among species (to the chagrin of YECs and some OECs). The idea behind ID is to put aside perceived secondary issues. Then all can unite and put the crosshairs only on evolution. Once evolution is overthrown, then they can argue with themselves about other issues like a young earth or old earth, a world flood or local flood or no flood, etc.

IDers may have to be prodded to express views on subjects other than biological evolution. However, many if not most reject Flood Geology and a young-earth and even accept other paradigms unpopular with YECs such as the Big Bang. Stephen Meyer was a petroleum geophysicist before joining the DI; IIRC, he accepts a 4.6 billion year old earth and rejects Flood Geology, but strongly opposes common decent. In a recent interview with historian Ronald Numbers, Paul Nelson admitted his YEC views were unpopular with his DI colleagues.

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Finding oil is simply finding squeezed biology between the things that squeezed it. This is from great event largely from the biblical flood.

It was exactly as it looks. A single sudden event in that area and unrelated to millions of years. They have to say long time because oif the great energy and concentration needed. They just don’t imagine another mechanism to provide the energy. WE have it.

they are wrong and Genesis is right.

Robert, please tell this to oil geophysicist and former YEC Glenn Morton (click this link) and the ICR Graduate School associates he hired. Their real life experience in the field showed that Flood Geology is good for theological comfort.…and virtually nothing else. It only resulted in Morton and his fellow YEC associates going through theological trauma as their Flood Geology was exposed as being worthless in finding oil.

Gordon Glover (also an ex-YEC, he remains a Christian) further expands these points in Lesson 8 (of 16) of his video series on science and Christianity.

There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some “creationists” being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

Robert, did you even check out the links? Wouldn’t be surprised if you merely ignored them, but I would understand; I grew up on YEC books/videos and clung to them to the end, I went down swinging - even trying a few Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks on the way down.

If you did read all of Morton’s page (neglected to add Morton remains a theist today like Glover) and watched/listened to all of Glover’s video, specifically what points do you object? Again, be specific.

Dave Lovell said:

Robert Byers said:

There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some “creationists” being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

If we hypothesize that all fossil fuel, (already recovered, recoverable, and non-recoverable) resulted from the pre-flood terrestrial biomass, my gut feeling is that even if 100% of the organic matter washed away by a global flood was laid down for fossil fuel, the biomass of the pre-flood world must have been many, many times what it is today. Has anybody seen this ratio calculated?

Yes it would of been fantastically greater then today. It was closer to the original paradise.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Finding oil is simply finding squeezed biology between the things that squeezed it. This is from great event largely from the biblical flood.

It was exactly as it looks. A single sudden event in that area and unrelated to millions of years. They have to say long time because oif the great energy and concentration needed. They just don’t imagine another mechanism to provide the energy. WE have it.

they are wrong and Genesis is right.

Robert, please tell this to oil geophysicist and former YEC Glenn Morton (click this link) and the ICR Graduate School associates he hired. Their real life experience in the field showed that Flood Geology is good for theological comfort.…and virtually nothing else. It only resulted in Morton and his fellow YEC associates going through theological trauma as their Flood Geology was exposed as being worthless in finding oil.

Gordon Glover (also an ex-YEC, he remains a Christian) further expands these points in Lesson 8 (of 16) of his video series on science and Christianity.

There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some “creationists” being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

Robert, did you even check out the links? Wouldn’t be surprised if you merely ignored them, but I would understand; I grew up on YEC books/videos and clung to them to the end, I went down swinging - even trying a few Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks on the way down.

If you did read all of Morton’s page (neglected to add Morton remains a theist today like Glover) and watched/listened to all of Glover’s video, specifically what points do you object? Again, be specific.

Not the place and I don’t want to get into a million points about these things. Why should these people have credibility now if they didn’t when they were YEC? Why the other way around?

Robert Byers said:

Dave Lovell said:

Robert Byers said:

There is no problem in geology with creationist models and simply some “creationists” being befuddled is only a reflection on them. Its as I said. Oil/Gas etc is most likely and seemly only the result from sudden destruction and pressure of biology by the very sediment that enclosures it. No need for millions of years but simply great pressure upon great accumulation in the same event.

If we hypothesize that all fossil fuel, (already recovered, recoverable, and non-recoverable) resulted from the pre-flood terrestrial biomass, my gut feeling is that even if 100% of the organic matter washed away by a global flood was laid down for fossil fuel, the biomass of the pre-flood world must have been many, many times what it is today. Has anybody seen this ratio calculated?

Yes it would of been fantastically greater then today. It was closer to the original paradise.

But Robert, unless you are also proposing that the world was much bigger then, there would have been nowhere to put more than a few times the current biomass other than in a thick layer of rotting manure. A paradise for dung beetles and mushrooms perhaps, but not where I’d choose to go on holiday. Genesis 6:11 (“Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, …”] takes on a whole new meaning if the Flood can be looked upon as a sort of Divine Flush.

At least publicly, the ID movement tends to be more neutral about issues like Flood Geology and a young earth.

They prefer not to discuss the age of the earth, and say that it’s irrelevant. Then they go ahead and claim there was not enough time for x to happen.

Robert Byers said:

Not the place and I don’t want to get into a million points about these things.

Why is this not the place?

If need be, you could take an extended period to get familiar with the material, then report back with an extended rebuttal.

Why should these people have credibility now if they didn’t when they were YEC? Why the other way around?

If you had checked the links, you might have learned Morton was taught by his own fellow Christians that being a YEC was a necessity. Despite his mainstream science courses, Morton remained confident Flood Geology’s problems would eventually be solved and young-earth creationism would triumph.

You might have learned Morton joined the oil industry at a time when there was a shortage of petroleum workers; otherwise, Morton’s YEC views could have hurt his chances of being hired during more lean times.

It was not until experiencing real world conditions that Morton was shocked that Flood Geology was useless. Same thing happened to all the YECs Morton himself hired, these YECs were from ICR’s Graduate School.

Glover - although not an oil geophysicist - described having a roughly similar scientific and theological experience in his book Beyond The Firmament.

Karen S. said:

They prefer not to discuss the age of the earth, and say that it’s irrelevant. Then they go ahead and claim there was not enough time for x to happen.

This playing both sides of the fence with the example you mention has been done many times, IIRC including on this very PT forum.

Seems I vaguely recall Dembski - of course a key ID figure - once sidestepping the age of earth issue in front of perhaps a mainly YEC audience, despite him saying at other times he accepts an old earth. This was even before his YEC employer (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth) became disgruntled with Dembski’s old earth views. But even AIG has put the young-earth issue in what they see as a more proper relevance, unlike when a young-earth was somewhat more central in their paradigms in earlier decades.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/art[…]th-not-issue

In a 1990s debate with Ken Miller, Michael Behe stated he had no problem with common decent among species, including between humans and other apes. According to Miller, other YECs were stunned and dismayed by Behe’s statement. Yet at other times, Behe said he believed in only ‘limited’ common decent.

So, may depend not only on the individual ID advocate. Also could depend on the format or audience, whether a sympathetic creationist/ID crowd, a group of mainstream scientists, under oath in court.

Simply marvelous!!! Your article provides a fresh new insight to this topic which was yet undiscovered. I must say your research skills are sharp and your narration is interesting.. Logo Designs

The last comment on this thread is blogspam. May I recommend tanking it?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Scanlan published on February 10, 2012 7:00 AM.

Teaching real science was the previous entry in this blog.

Tomorrow is Darwin Day 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 4.38

Site Meter