Creationism at Italian Science Agency

Ironic is probably not the word I would have chosen.

Scientific American's site also had an article about this development here.

Is there hope that maybe we aren't the dumbest country?

Karen S.,

Well Ken Miller has reminded his British friends that there seems to be an inordinate fondness (with apologies to J. B. S. Haldane) for evolution denial within a substantial part of the British general public (Recent polling data indicates that 40% of Britons reject Darwin and his work.).

I couldn't help wondering whether Harun Yahya has been rendering some Italians important technical assistance, in light of Matt Young's post. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he is.

Regards,

John

As far as I know, Yahya's big book has been sent to some university professors and museum curators in Italy, as elsewhere. My impression however is that the vice-president of CNR has no interest in presenting the issue as a scientific one - he wants it to appear as a philosphical debate. While the president (who is a physicist) did not endorse the book, he did endorse this stance. So, the problem with the CNR is that both its vice and its president do not understand that evolutionary theory is science, or just don't care.

Creationism has not a mass following in Italy, not because people know much about Darwin, but because the Catholic Church is not opposed to the idea that life might have evolved. The spread of creationism is limited to some extreme-right Catholics, some religious minorities and plain lunatics.

Honestly, if evolution is not heavily disputed in Italy we should thank the open-mindedness of the Catholic church (I know, an oxymoron) more than the public engagement of Italian scientists. With a few exceptions, our "scientific community" had nothing to say about the book funded by CNR. They could say it didn't deserve any comment (Italians are used to see public money being wasted), but I'm left with the impression that they don't want to make enemies with CNR's top ranks.

Regards,

Marcello
(from Rome, near the Vatican)

So, the problem with the CNR is that both its vice and its president do not understand that evolutionary theory is science, or just don’t care.

40,000 yr old dinos? SPLITTER!

Reads like Sternberg, Meyer, and the Smithsonian?

The President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, according to Science, thinks it is ironic that “while the Church has devoted many conferences to the topic [of evolution] this year, the vice president of CNR organized conferences in favor of creationism.”

Well, if evolution is a "hypothesis" and it is "in decline", then there is no such thing as a theory and every other hypothesis ever put forward in science has been a dismal failure.

What a bunch of lying retards. Shame on them.

Evolution, however, directly conflicts with a powerful message from a competing authority.

FL said:

Evolution, however, directly conflicts with a powerful message from a competing authority.

True indeed. That's what I tried to tell 'em down at ATBC recently. You got it right. Btw, upon closer examination, it turns out that the name of the competing authority happens to be somebody called "Jesus Christ". Imagine that!! FL

Probably not. Few citizens really know what science is or how it works. They’re only taught what “science has learned”, and they only accept it because no other authority conflicts with most of this. Accepting the knowledge science gleans is the default, understanding that knowledge (much less the process that produces it) isn’t really important. Evolution, however, directly conflicts with a powerful message from a competing authority. And for most people, lacking any meaningful understanding of what evolution is, this devolves to a straight swearing contest. Which authority do you prefer, or respect more, or fear more, or get exposed to earlier in life? On the actual merits (about which most of us know essentially nothing), it’s a straight coin flip. I would suspect that the bigwigs at the CNR know perfectly well that evolution is science. BUT science in their minds and emotions is trumped by a higher authority. I think in their minds, they feel that this part of science can be, uh, compromised without all that much damage to the rest of science, whereas full acceptance of evolution lays their (interpretation of) Higher Authority pretty well waste. It’s just part of human nature than when reality and preference conflict, reality doesn’t stand a chance.

— What Flint actually

Funny. I've read the rubric through and through, and I can't find a single one of the recorded words of Jesus that provide a competing theory to evolution. Tell me, FL, where does he provide one?

FL wrote:

"it turns out that the name of the competing authority happens to be somebody called “Jesus Christ”. Imagine that!!"

Too bad for "Jesus Christ" then.

SciAm:..Mattei..political appointee..

Hmm. This all is perhaps related/reflection of extreme right-wing government of Italy (with perhaps even Nazi..Mussolini sympathies in some of members ?).
Same was in Poland etc.

You don't usually get these kind of scandals during left-wing governments..

Hmm. This all is perhaps related/reflection of extreme right-wing government of Italy (with perhaps even Nazi..Mussolini sympathies in some of members ?).

FL said: turns out that the name of the competing authority happens to be somebody called "Jesus Christ". Imagine that!! FL

Who's this "Jesus Christ" guy I keep hearing about? If he's such an authority on the subject of evolution how come I haven't read any of his scholarly journal articles or heard any lectures by him until now?

I think my point has been lost. People have multiple authorities (or claims on their respect and obedience, or whatever). Public education and the knowledge it imparts is one such, and religious education and the socialization force it represents is another.

Now, what can you think about a distinctly technical domain within which you have zero expertise, when two of the socialization forces in your particular life take hopelessly imcompatible positions about it? It's not like you're going to adopt a new career necessary to know enough about the subject matter to make a fully informed choice. And experience tells us that those who DO make the attempt nearly always fail anyway if the influence of religion in their lives was imparted early and effectively enough.

FL, and the CNR people, fall into this latter category. For them, the scientific theory of evolution simply is not acceptable, for reasons having nothing to do with science. And also having little to do with any particular religious scripture or doctrine or historical characters.

In FL's case I suspect it has little to do with anything beyond a powerful psychological need to defend something - maybe his parents, maybe his pride, maybe his delusions. But ultimately, such psychological needs are the highest authority we have. All of us.

RDK said: Who's this "Jesus Christ" guy I keep hearing about? If he's such an authority on the subject of evolution how come I haven't read any of his scholarly journal articles or heard any lectures by him until now?

harold said: But the Catholic church openly refuses to deny evolution. What is the relationship between the current Italian government and the Catholic church?

Flint said: In FL's case I suspect it has little to do with anything beyond a powerful psychological need to defend something - maybe his parents, maybe his pride, maybe his delusions. But ultimately, such psychological needs are the highest authority we have. All of us.

stevaroni said:

FL said: turns out that the name of the competing authority happens to be somebody called "Jesus Christ". Imagine that!! FL

Authority? I remember Jesus talking at length about love and tolerance in a time of rampant brutality, and about how it's important to treat your fellow human beings as, well, human beings. But it's funny, FL, somehow I don't recall JC ever speaking definitively about something scientific, like the Earth actually orbiting the sun instead of the other way around. I seem to have missed him explaining the Newtonian laws of motion, or electricity or detailing how heavier-than-air flight might work. I'm pretty sure he never addressed the Burgess shales, or the physiological similarities of dinosaurs and birds. I don't recall him ever uttering a word abut mitocondria, or genetic clocks. I seem to have skipped the part were he detailed how only large marsupials managed to migrate from Ararat to Australia. In fact, I seem to have missed any address at all to any unique fauna of an isolated landmass. Darwin's finches seem uncommented upon. Heck, he didn't even mention Peppered Moths, a significant omission for someone who's omnipotent. JC's "authority" seems to have extended neatly to the edges of rabbinical teaching in 1st century Judea, and stopped there. So, if that's the standard you want to use, FL, If you want to live by what Jesus talked "authoritatively" about, then put down the computer, turn off the gas heat and the electric lights, and walk away from the indoor plumbing, all unknown concepts in 30AD (unless you were a Roman, in which case, you at least get to keep the hot baths). Learn to fish for your own food and do your own carpentry with soft copper tools and walk wherever you want to go. That's what Jesus taught, and he led by example. But don't worry FL, you won't have to put up with it for long. Jesus also didn't teach modern medicine, so the average lifespan in his days was in the mid 40's. When the Romans nailed him to a tree for having the temerity to think that maybe violence wasn't the answer, Jesus was already an old man of 33.

Stanton said:

RDK said: Who's this "Jesus Christ" guy I keep hearing about? If he's such an authority on the subject of evolution how come I haven't read any of his scholarly journal articles or heard any lectures by him until now?

a convenient magic zombie ventriloquist's dummy for creationists to whip out and attempt to awe their opponents with.

Flint said: Now, what can you think about a distinctly technical domain within which you have zero expertise, when two of the socialization forces in your particular life take hopelessly imcompatible positions about it? It's not like you're going to adopt a new career necessary to know enough about the subject matter to make a fully informed choice. And experience tells us that those who DO make the attempt nearly always fail anyway if the influence of religion in their lives was imparted early and effectively enough.

What is the relationship between the current Italian government and the Catholic church?

Berlusconi says rift with Catholic Church "a lie."

An official denial is equivalent to a confession,

FL on the anti-reason terrorism thread: So you have to choose. Believe the Bible or believe the evolutionists. One or the other.

So you have to choose. Believe the Bible or believe the evolutionists. One or the other.

Flint said:

So, the problem with the CNR is that both its vice and its president do not understand that evolutionary theory is science, or just don’t care.

Probably not. Few citizens really know what science is or how it works. They're only taught what "science has learned", and they only accept it because no other authority conflicts with most of this. Accepting the knowledge science gleans is the default, understanding that knowledge (much less the process that produces it) isn't really important. Evolution, however, directly conflicts with a powerful message from a competing authority. And for most people, lacking any meaningful understanding of what evolution is, this devolves to a straight swearing contest. Which authority do you prefer, or respect more, or fear more, or get exposed to earlier in life? On the actual merits (about which most of us know essentially nothing), it's a straight coin flip. I would suspect that the bigwigs at the CNR know perfectly well that evolution is science. BUT science in their minds and emotions is trumped by a higher authority. I think in their minds, they feel that this part of science can be, uh, compromised without all that much damage to the rest of science, whereas full acceptance of evolution lays their (interpretation of) Higher Authority pretty well waste. It's just part of human nature than when reality and preference conflict, reality doesn't stand a chance.

Robert wrote:

"Yes it is for most people about authority. People who accept evolution do so mostly because they have no reason to question the authority of it from educational institutions."

I know you would like to believe this, but once again, you are dead wrong. No real scientist accepts anything because of authority. Grow up.

"In fact upon serious study of evolution and company these origin issues do turn out to not use the scientific method but only ordinary methods of evidence gathering."

i hate to break this to you Robert, but no accepts your argument from non-authority either. Just because you don't understand the scientific method doesn't mean that no one else does.

"The line i like is where a creationist can say we are like Sherlock Holmes to evolution’s Scotland Yard."

the line i like is where evolutionary biologists, like Sherlock Holmes, use the scientific method to find the evidence to catch the foolish, ignorant, dishonest creationists, er i mean criminals, in their lies.

The line i like is where a creationist can say we are like Sherlock Holmes to evolution's Scotland Yard. We are doing better detective work but both are not doing science.

Brachychiton said: Robert Byers said:

The line i like is where a creationist can say we are like Sherlock Holmes to evolution's Scotland Yard. We are doing better detective work but both are not doing science.

Well, yes, given that Sherlock Holmes is fictional and Scotland Yard is real.

Robert Byers said: In fact upon serious study of evolution and company these origin issues do turn out to not use the scientific method but only ordinary methods of evidence gathering. It truly always is apparent that testing of most or all origin conclusions does not take place.

A Niggle for Stevaroni, above.

30AA was well into the Iron Age. Any decent carpenter had an assortment of chisels, iron axes and iron-bodied planes, with tool-steel cutting edges edges laminated into the body of the softer and tougher iron.

Saws consisted of a narrow length of steel, like a modern bandsaw blade, tensioned in a wooden frame.

Soft copper and bronze was about a millenium out of date.

fusilier, wearing his Neandertal Wooddorker hat

James 2:24

Ah, yes, sorry for spelling " unscientifically " the wrong way.. :-p

No real scientist accepts anything because of authority.

MAtt wrote:

"Scientists, like everyone else, believe certain things because they are told them by an authority. I accept the reality of climate change, for example, in large measure because I read the work of scientists who study it;"

Well Matt, I'm afraid that I must respectfully disagree with you. This isn't what convinces me to believe something. If I read the work of scientists, I can be convinced that their conclusions are correct, but only by the evidence that they present. If it is a field outside my expertise, I may acknowledge the consensus in the field, but that doesn't mean that I am personally convinced because someone else, even an expert in the field, says it. The evidence is the only thing that should convince a scientist, not who presents it or how badly anyone wants to believe it. If you are not familiar with the evidence, then belief should rightly be suspended.

Of course there is always a certain element of trust involved. One must trust the scientists to obtain the data honestly and analyze it properly. But, I certainly don't just take their word and believe it because they said it. The question of authority enters in because they must be trust-worhty in order to be taken seriously, but that doesn't mean you are convinced simply by their authority. It only means you trust them to actually do what they describe in collecting the data.

As for global warming, I believe that the consensus of the scientific community is that the climate is warming and that anthropogenic factors are at least partially responsible. I don't know enough to know if this is really true or not, but I'm not just going to take anyone's word for it. Unless I can demonstrate that the scientific consensus is incorrect, I must acknowledge that this is the current consensus. That doesn't mean that I believe it, I haven't examined the evidence in sufficient detail for that.

In any case, we can absolutely agree that the Bible is not an appropriate scientific authority. Those who try to claim that it is open their religious beliefs up to scientific falsification. The evidence clearly shows the fact of common descent, regardless of what any authority may claim. That remains the case, no matter what any scientist or religious leader may claim.

Matt,

I do agree that yours is an excellent comment with respect to the argument from authority. Since scientists are people - and not AIs - they may find it necessary from practical coniserations to accept published scientific results because of whom had said it (or reviewed it). Ideally, I would agree with DS that scientists not knowledgeable of fields other than their own would accept published science based on whether there was a general consensus in the field in question.

As for the issue of anthropogenic global warming itself, while the science is not nearly as robust as the overwhelming fact of evolution, it is certainly been well-established by recent decades of excellent scientific research from climatologists and paleoclimatologists.

Regards,

John

Matt,
DS brings up some excellent points. I would add that you're missing a critical difference between arguments from scientific authority and arguments from theological authority.

With the former, I am shown a method. I am shown how it works. I am shown how it can be very widely and broadly applied to many problems. I learn through my experience that that method usually produces reliable results.

Thus I have confidence in the findings of other people whom I believe follow that same method. Not because of who they are or what position or title they hold, but because of the investigative method they follow.

In contrast, with other forms of argument from authority you are resting your confidence and belief in some individual because of who they are, or their title or position.

I think this is a subtle but important difference.

I think Mr. DS is slightly overinterpreting what I wrote. I do not accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming because the consensus of experts in that field is overwhelming, but rather because I read what they write (or what is written in, say, review articles in Science) and draw my own conclusions. It is still, however, an argument from authority, because I do not have myself first-hand knowledge of the field.

It is not always possible for a relative layperson to judge. For example, I remember years ago a dispute, mostly in the letters of Science, concerning whether HIV truly caused AIDS. The scientific consensus was clearly that it did so, but another colleague and I, both physicists, usually found ourselves agreeing with whoever wrote the most-recent letter. Eventually, something convinced us both, but I don't remember what. We were convinced, however, by what amounts to an argument from authority, because ultimately we accepted the arguments of one authority over the other. Both seemed at the time to be appropriate authorities.

I would add that you're missing a critical difference between arguments from scientific authority and arguments from theological authority.

Thus I have confidence in the findings of other people whom [sic] I believe follow that same method. Not because of who they are or what position or title they hold, but because of the investigative method they follow.

Matt Young said: Yes, but I think you also ought to evaluate what they say on your own, to the extent you can.

Mat Young -

I think we should make a distinction between "Argument From Authority" and "Argument From Expertise".

You don't accept some arbitrary "authority" on the part of climate scientists. You accept their expertise. But you know how they gained their expertise, and if you needed to, you could gain expertise in the same way.

Accepting argument from legitimate expertise is a useful heuristic. It is especially useful when multiple independent and potentially rival experts have come to a consensus. No-one can be expert on every subject, and we all have to accept expertise in others from time to time.

A pure argument from authority ("My cult leader says that evolution didn't happen") is a logical fallacy.

Argument from expertise is not.

Certainly there are differences in the reputations of various “authorities”.

In science we have a long track record of technological results as well as a pretty detailed history of controversies that have been worked out. We know the processes of validation and we see them constantly at work. We see the results everywhere; and the results and evidence converge.

In the case of religion, we see literally hundreds, if not thousands, of disagreeing and mutually suspicious authorities who have been arguing – often violently - for centuries without convergence. And we can find no way to independently verify any claims even in principle. Thus the words of authority are all we have in these areas.

We also find in science, when we move among fields, that things check out, thus the reputations of the experts and authorities are continuously validated.

So the major differences in the use of authority in these areas comes down not only to reputation, but to the availability of independent cross-checking that we can fall back on in principle even if we choose, for matters of convenience, not to use that fall-back strategy.

Matt wrote:

"I think Mr. DS is slightly overinterpreting what I wrote. I do not accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming because the consensus of experts in that field is overwhelming, but rather because I read what they write (or what is written in, say, review articles in Science) and draw my own conclusions. It is still, however, an argument from authority, because I do not have myself first-hand knowledge of the field."

Sorry if I am nit-picking, but I think that I still disagree, at least slightly. I don't believe in something because of something that some written, or even because of a consensus in the field. I may acknowledge it, but I only believe it if, in my not so humble opinion, their conclusions are warranted by the evidence. Ideally, I am convinced solely by the evidence. Not by the argument, not by the position of the person making the argument, not even by the consensus.

You are correct in stating that it is not possible to be intimately familiar with all of the evidence in every field. That is when you have to either trust the consensus or not. But, once again, that isn't really the same thing as belief based on authority, at least in my apparently not so humble opinion. If something is really important to you, then you should become an expert and examine all of the evidence for yourself. If you don't really care that much or can't be bothered, there is nothing wrong about provisionally accepting the consensus opinion, as long as you are aware that your position is not based on your own examination of the evidence.

For example, when I first came to realize that the "authorities" had not been truthful with me about evolution, I did not simply accept the scientific consensus. I became a biologist and studied the evidence for myself. I did experiments and collected data myself. I became knowledgeable enough to read and evaluate scientific publications for myself. I concluded that there was incontrovertible evidence for evolution. Admittedly, I have not done this for global warming. For one, I'm probably not smart enough to be a climatologist. For another, I think that it is fundamentally unwise to pollute the planet any more than is absolutely necessary without fully understanding the consequences. I guess I prefer to error on the side of caution.

Perhaps we really have no disagreement here. The important point is that the Bible is not an appropriate scientific authority and even if it were, authority is not the final arbiter in science.

Thanks to eric for the kind words.

Matt wrote:

"Eventually, something convinced us both, but I don’t remember what."

Well hopefully it was the evidence. If you were convinced because it was a guy with a cool sounding name like Baltimore, (he had an entire city named after him, he must be right!), then you were indeed accepting a belief based on authority. If however, you were convinced by the finding of the HIV receptors on the surface of CD4 cells, then it really didn't matter what authority made the discovery.

"I do not agree with Mr. DS that you have to completely suspend your acceptance and merely recognize the consensus. Indeed, that is a recipe for inaction."

Perhaps I was unclear. I did not mean that you had to completely suspend your acceptance. What I meant was that you simply have to admit that your current position is not based on first hand knowledge. You can still do this and recognize that the consensus exists. I also don't see how this promotes inaction, since you can act on provisional acceptance of a consensus without having to fully accept the consensus yourself. Indeed, this would seem to me to be the best motivation for testing the consensus view.

I think that Mike is on the right track with his comments about verification and appeal to authority. Once again, the main point is that there is a big difference between a creationist who refuses to acknowledge evidence and the consensus scientific position on evolution and one who settles for : "The Bible said it, I believe it and that's that".

It seems to me that we are all more or less in agreement and paraphrasing the same argument by saying the same thing in different ways (yes, that was a joke).

I think merely saying that a consensus of scientists accepts global warming can lead to inaction, because if we do not internalize it ourselves we are apt not to take it seriously.

I simply do not remember what it was that convinced us that the HIV denier, as we might now call him, was in the wrong, but it was certainly on the evidence or some bit of evidence.

Sorry if I am nit-picking, but I think that I still disagree, at least slightly. I don’t believe in something because of something that some written, or even because of a consensus in the field. I may acknowledge it, but I only believe it if, in my not so humble opinion, their conclusions are warranted by the evidence. Ideally, I am convinced solely by the evidence. Not by the argument, not by the position of the person making the argument, not even by the consensus.

Flint wrote:

"OK, I am much closer to Matt than to DS. DS (if I’m reading this correctly) seems to think he is just as capable of evalutating evidence in a field unknown to him, as the experts are in that field! I think this is an exquisite example of the arrogance of ignorance."

Flint,

That is exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say. Sorry if I was unclear.

What I was trying to say is that you can only have beliefs based on evidence in a field in which you are familiar with the evidence. IN fields where you are not qualified to be familiar with the evidence you can accept the consensus view provisionally. That is not the same thing as having a belief about a field where you are familiar with the evidence, but sometimes that is all you have. Hopefully that is clearer.

"What he seems to miss is that the goal of religion isn’t to be correct on the merits, it’s to spread through a society the sort of homogeneous value system that makes any society run smoothly."

That is exactly why religion should never be assumed to be correct on the merits and should never be considered the ultimate authority.

"But it’s silly to then turn around and say “Now that I’m an expert, which I had to become to understand my field, I think you don’t need to be an expert to understand my field! I’ts all obvious based on the evidence!”

Agreed. That's why I didn't say that. What I meant was that now that I am an expert in one field, I have a right to a personal opinion based on the evidence. Other non-experts can either accept the consensus view of that field, or you can become an expert yourself if it is important enough to you. What you can not do is declare that the consensus does not exist or is wrong because your religious book says so and you know it is right.

P.S.

A non-expert in a field who rejects the consensus view because some authority told him to, not that is an exquisite example of ignorance and arrogance. Now who do we know that fits that description?

Agreed. That’s why I didn’t say that. What I meant was that now that I am an expert in one field, I have a right to a personal opinion based on the evidence. Other non-experts can either accept the consensus view of that field, or you can become an expert yourself if it is important enough to you. What you can not do is declare that the consensus does not exist or is wrong because your religious book says so and you know it is right.

That is exactly why religion should never be assumed to be correct on the merits and should never be considered the ultimate authority.

What you can not do is declare that the consensus does not exist or is wrong because your religious book says so and you know it is right.

A non-expert in a field who rejects the consensus view because some authority told him to, now that is an exquisite example of ignorance and arrogance.

Evidence is evidence, no matter how you interpret it

Just how long can a normal person keep returning to PT in order to taunt and badger others?

As a normal person who has been returning here for years, I can tell you that the opportunity to taunt and badger a dillpile like FL is incredibly hard to resist.

That said, I'm glad Salvadore Cordova appears to have been institutionalized. The nation's children can sleep a bit more easily now.

SciAm:..Mattei..political appointee.. Hmm. This all is perhaps related/reflection of extreme right-wing government of Italy (with perhaps even Nazi..Mussolini sympathies in some of members ?). Same was in Poland etc. You don't usually get these kind of scandals during left-wing governments..

With a h/t to Upton Sinclair....

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his eternal salvation depends upon his not understanding it."

Enjoy.

RDK wrote:

"If you’re not an expert on a particular topic, the very best you can do is try to do is educate yourself on the literature and make sure you’re getting your information from credible sources.

Is this what I’m drawing from your position DS?"

Well said RDK. I think that is just about what I was trying to say.

I wrote:

"What you can not do is declare that the consensus does not exist or is wrong because your religious book says so and you know it is right."

Flint responded:

"I disagree strongly. There are TWO consensuses here - the scientific, and the religious (your sect). Both of these are very strong, essentially unanimous. They arrive at their consensus by different means, using different factors, in pursuit of different goals. From the view of either side, the other side is “not even wrong” because it’s addressing a whole different forest."

Oh dear. It seems that I have been unclear again. I apologize. What I should have said was:

What you can not do is declare that the scientific consensus does not exist or is wrong because your religious book says so and you know it is right. You cannot substitute religious consensus for scientific consensus (for exactly the reasons that Flint states). You cannot legitimately use religion to answer scientific questions, nor can you do the reverse. That is what creationists like FL and Brian try to do. They claim that their salvation depends on denying science. They can't see the forest for the trees, because they are in the wrong forest!

FLint wrote:

"(And I should note that many of these people have dedicated as much time to studying their bibles as you have to studying biology. He’s done just what you have - selected the truly relevant evidence according to his views, and dedicated many years to absorbing it and internalizing it. From his perspective, you are IGNORANT about what he knows is really important, so ignorant you think YOUR approach is superior!)"

Once again, the scientific approach has proven to be superior, with respect to scientific questions. It is most certainly not superior with respect to moral decisions or religious doctrines. That is not what we were talking about. We were talking about scientific issues such as evolution, global warming and AIDS. The answers to those questions are not to be found in religion, any religion. A religious consensus is completely worthless scientifically.

Religious people are perfectly free to hold any RELIGIOUS BELIEFS that they want, but they should not be allowed to substitute those beliefs for science. This is the lesson of history.

Flint wrote:

"We all realize that creationists reject what we consider relevant observations, because they don’t fit creationism’s requirements. But we equally reject genuine observations (for example, that 50% of the American Public think humans were created in our present form, all at once, sometime within the last 10,000 years) because that observation, POWERFUL evidence for the creationist view, is irrelevant to our view. What we can weigh and measure is OUR evidence. What people actually believe, and how to manipulate those beliefs, is THEIR evidence. Both are very real."

Forgive me if I am not understanding your point here, are you seriously claiming that the observation that many people believe something is evidence that that belief is correct? IF that is indeed what you are saying then all I can do is point out that that is a logical fallacy.

It is indeed important what the majority of people believe, especially in a democracy. But that has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of those beliefs.

Forgive me if I am not understanding your point here, are you seriously claiming that the observation that many people believe something is evidence that that belief is correct? IF that is indeed what you are saying then all I can do is point out that that is a logical fallacy.

It is indeed important what the majority of people believe, especially in a democracy. But that has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of those beliefs.

You cannot legitimately use religion to answer scientific questions, nor can you do the reverse. That is what creationists like FL and Brian try to do. They claim that their salvation depends on denying science.

Once again, the scientific approach has proven to be superior, with respect to scientific questions. It is most certainly not superior with respect to moral decisions or religious doctrines. That is not what we were talking about.

In a way, this is like photography insisting that abstract art is "invalid".

Flint wrote:

"After a couple or three millennia, science came along and started insisting that the details of some of these answers are in fact wrong. In a way, this is like photography insisting that abstract art is “invalid”.

Well if the question concerns the matching probability of a fingerprint, yes I would take the high resolution photograph over the artists abstract rendering any day. So would any court of law. If the question were instead, how does this fingerprint make you feel, then I would look at the painting. But if you try to admit the painting as evidence in a court of law and omit the photograph, you are going to have a big problem.

"Some parents have condensed all this down to the kernel. They say “I’m not really opposed to my child being taught evolution, I’m opposed to anything that will keep my child out of heaven!” And if their pastor says “belief in evolution” will keep their child out of heaven, what do you expect them to do? There simply IS nothing more important."

It can be as important as they want, that doesn't make it true and it sure doesn't make it science. I don't expect them to do anything, except not call their views science and not try to force them on science students in public school at tax payer expense. Not that they would ever do such a thing!

Religious beliefs are one thing; religious beliefs that contradict known facts are another. I fully understand your point that the evidence doesn’t matter to someone who, um, pre-denies it. But creationism is bunk and should not be dignified as just another religious belief. It is in fact not a religious belief that is unprovable but rather a religious belief that is thoroughly disproved.

It can be as important as they want, that doesn’t make it true and it sure doesn’t make it science. I don’t expect them to do anything, except not call their views science and not try to force them on science students in public school at tax payer expense. Not that they would ever do such a thing!

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

Flint wrote:

"Now, how can you do this while remaining true to your beliefs? Well, the only way to remain true to your beliefs is to be sincerely convinced that the end (saving souls) justifies any tactic that has this effect. If it means lying, misrepresenting, distorting, ignoring, brainwashing, or whatever, then so be it. Unfortunate, but worth the payoff."

I guess we will have to agree to disagree as well. The ends NEVER justify the means. What you can accept, what you can live with, what you want to be true and what is true are usually different things. I cannot understand why anyone would want to hold beliefs contrary to reality, no matter what the consequences. Indeed, this is one definition of schizophrenia. I realize that others can do this, I choose not to (at least I try not to).

I notice that you did not disagree with me about the fingerprint analysis. Science has its place and religion has its place, but they are not the same place. A wise man once said that you can choose to ignore reality, but you do so at your own risk. And I was right.

I wonder if the differences between Flint and DS might be related more to “emotional stirrings” of the kinds that cause people to aim the course of their lives in certain directions.

People can be deeply moved by music, art, or science. These feelings can often change the course of one’s life. Many of us can remember times when we suddenly realized our “callings” and from that point made determined efforts to pursue certain goals.

For example, I have a vivid memory from the time I was three years old of hearing Mendelssohn’s Violin Concerto in E Minor, Opus 64 (obviously I didn’t know what it was at the time; I learned that much later), and was moved to tears but didn’t know why. From that time I have always loved classical music.

I have also had similar experiences with art and photography; and the discovery of science, particularly physics, changed the course of my life.

On the other hand, religions have never had those effects; rather, instead, they have left me feeling cold and uncomfortable at the stark conflict with reality that was always evident to me (music and art always seemed to have more meaning than religion). Yet there are people who were drawn in by religion, and it changes the directions of their lives.

Art and music seem to tap deep emotions in people. I have also noticed that our cats almost always curl up near the speakers of our stereo system when certain kinds of classical cello or classical guitar music are playing; and one of our cats always lies down beside me when I am playing classical guitar. When I was growing up on a farm, our cows consistently settled down more quickly in the barn and produced more milk when music was playing on the radio (country music, wouldn’t you know. :-) ).

I don’t know what “truths” religion speaks to other than perhaps providing a template for some people whose lives have been in some kind of turmoil, but music and art seem to have a much longer history of conveying deep emotional meaning to humans; and probably some other animals.

if you believe something that is factually correct, then you must have been duped. Unless, I suppose, the deity favors lies over facts.

I notice that you did not disagree with me about the fingerprint analysis.

Flint wrote:

"Evolution is special because it very specifically undermines a core, central part of creationist beliefs. In that belief system, we were created for a PURPOSE, to be the crown of creation and dominant over mere animals. We are placed on a pedestal no other form of life has any hope of ascending or dislodging us. We are the image of God Himself.

And evolution says no, we’re an accidental byproduct of an indifferent feedback process, we’re a generic member of the ape clade, we are no more special than anything else. And facts be damned, this is a direct attack against pride. Not to be tolerated. And I think this is what happens when you marry your self-identify and your inner security to something so unlikely."

And on that we can certainly agree. That is, if the "something so unlikely" refers to the beliefs described in the first paragraph and not the second.

The ends NEVER justify the means.

Matt Young said: It is hard for me to see how any end could justify the means of lying about science.

Flint "And facts be damned, this is a direct attack against pride. Not to be tolerated."

I think for many creationists (especially the less educated), it IS about pride and the need to be special. If the only thing you have accomplished in life is being born, it's very demoralizing to realize that even that didn't make you special.

And evolution says no, we’re an accidental byproduct of an indifferent feedback process, we’re a generic member of the ape clade, we are no more special than anything else.

I know of only one such situation; and it has left me feeling ambivalent. And that was the classification of important scientific work along with the promulgation of misinformation in order to keep that information from falling into the hands of people who would misuse the information to hurt thousands.

Robert Byers said: People who accept evolution do so mostly because they have no reason to question the authority of it from educational institutions.

It is hard for me to see how any end could justify the means of lying about science.

The vast majority (if not all) people who accept evolution do so because they understand why it science, what it explains, and how the explanation is supported by the evidence.

Flint wrote:

"Uh, to save your immortal soul for all of eternity? This is somehow less important than accepting current scientific theories? Are you serious? Besides, science is wrong because GOD SAID SO! How could a religious zealot possibly have a higher authority than that? He may not understand why or how science is wrong, but if God says it’s wrong, it’s wrong."

I'll take my chances. You are free to do whatever you want, so is everyone else. But don't forget, they are taking their chances as well.

"Most ordinary citizens I know have no objection to evolution, and no clear idea of what it means either. Their attitude really IS “If science says so, then it’s probably so. Not my area of interest.” In other words, as Byers says, they have no reason to question it. But the religious “reason to question it” has nothing to do with “how the explanation is supported by the evidence” and everything to do with defending a core element of their faith, without which absolute certainty is lost and one is plunged into a terrifying world where Truth might be false, God might be imaginary, and everything we “know” is subject to change without notice."

Sure, but some of us don't fall for that shit. You can if you want, but once again, you take your chances. Don't forget, anything you believe solely because of pride is probably the least likely thing to be true. Good luck to you.

Uh, to save your immortal soul for all of eternity? This is somehow less important than accepting current scientific theories? Are you serious?

Byers is quite correct, most people who study science in public schools memorize a bunch of scientific facts .... Very few can explain the scientific method ....

I’ll take my chances. You are free to do whatever you want, so is everyone else. But don’t forget, they are taking their chances as well.

Doesn’t God allegedly say something about lying? Bearing false witness? You can reject science if you want, but isn’t lying about it rather a different thing?

Flint wrote:

"Pascal’s wager, eh? But here is a challenge for you: please attempt to sincerely reject science, because it conflicts with a much deeper conviction. Which of course you must first sincerely adopt. No faking it no, you must be sincere."

Been there, done that Flint. I once did reject all of the claims of science because of religious convictions. I ended up concluding that made up crap that contradicted reality got me nowhere. I choose reality instead. I would recommend it, but you can do whatever you want.

I once did reject all of the claims of science because of religious convictions. I ended up concluding that made up crap that contradicted reality got me nowhere.

Flint wrote:

"On the other hand, I could not become a creationist, could not convince myself that evidence doesn’t matter (or that if I don’t like it, it’s not evidence). And I read that over 80% of college graduates with biology majors who entered college as creationists, graduate as creationists."

Then I guess we are even, it just took me longer. I was raised in very religious family. I really believed. Now I believe in the evidence.

As for the 80%, I'd be willing to bet that most of them were also brought up being told that evolution was not true. I really can't blame them too much since I know how hard it is to give up your most cherished beliefs. On the other hand, I am living proof that it is not impossible.

Matt Young said: (Before I open a certain can of worms: I think the military and the intelligence services keep too many secrets and keep them too long.)

I have read through the comments here.
It is just so true that only people who study something can actually say their opinion is on a weighing of the evidence. The more complicated it is the more need for study. So clearly the vast majority of North Americans opinion on origin issues is based on rudimentary knowledge. In fact the vast majority of educated people or "scientists" is not much better. Acceptance or rejection, as posters here said, is founded on the confidence in authority that talks about these matters. Not much else. Biblical creationists start from the authority of scripture and then, easily, take on any claims by evidence of criticisms to Genesis.
Evolutionists simply accept the teachings of men at anyone point in history they live in.
We are confident that truth will prevail over error by good old fashioned thinking and weighing of evidence.
of coarse this is not the scientific method but if it comes up ever we can handle it.

This is just my opinion on what R. Byers wrote:

< It is just so true that only people who study something can actually say their opinion is on a weighing of the evidence. The more complicated it is the more need for study.>
This is correct.

< So clearly the vast majority of North Americans opinion on origin issues is based on rudimentary knowledge. In fact the vast majority of educated people or “scientists” is not much better.>
Maybe, but at least in the “educated” people it is based on a higher level of knowledge, that make them more trustworthy at least in the field of their studies.

< Acceptance or rejection, as posters here said, is founded on the confidence in authority that talks about these matters. Not much else.>
It is not completely true. Knowledge gained from different field integrated together in an almost coherent picture of the world that each of us has. In some parts you can be an “expert” in other you can trust other experts or at least you can understand the principles (e.g. methodological naturalism in science) that are used in generating that knowledge. In any case you can cope with a community (scientists) that it is supposed is working along a defined methodology. You can also recognise the contributions that are really dissonant like the attempt to use a holy book to support scientific claims.

< Biblical creationists start from the authority of scripture and then, easily, take on any claims by evidence of criticisms to Genesis.>
“Easily” in your contest seems to mean “spare yourself any effort to understand any contribution of the scientific community” that is in open contrast to a literally interpretation of a particular Book and “ignore it”. Maybe someone can arrive also to the conclusion that this method is not working.

< Evolutionists simply accept the teachings of men at anyone point in history they live in.>
You are speaking of a large mass of not-biologist (plus not-palaeontologists, not-geologists, etc.) that are accepting what is coming from a scientific mainstream. Because the biologists have studied a lot and, also in your conception, they are entitled to make claims “on a weighing of the evidence”. In addition, it seems to me that you don’t understand the value of the “progress” in the science, an accumulating process that constantly improved and revise the stand of the knowledge on the bases of new finds.

< We are confident that truth will prevail over error by good old fashioned thinking and weighing of evidence.> You are free to persist in a street that has been shown wrong in the past (see Copernicus and Galileo) and completely unproductive (also from the sight of the Church(s)), but you cannot blame if we try to stop you (or peoples like you) when they try to impose this obsolete model to our society.

< Of coarse this is not the scientific method but if it comes up ever we can handle it.>
Of course this is not the scientific method …, and I fully agree with you.

Robert Byers said: I have read through the comments here. It is just so true that only people who study something can actually say their opinion is on a weighing of the evidence. The more complicated it is the more need for study. So clearly the vast majority of North Americans opinion on origin issues is based on rudimentary knowledge. In fact the vast majority of educated people or "scientists" is not much better. Acceptance or rejection, as posters here said, is founded on the confidence in authority that talks about these matters. Not much else. Biblical creationists start from the authority of scripture and then, easily, take on any claims by evidence of criticisms to Genesis. Evolutionists simply accept the teachings of men at anyone point in history they live in. We are confident that truth will prevail over error by good old fashioned thinking and weighing of evidence. of coarse this is not the scientific method but if it comes up ever we can handle it.

If Biblical creationists actually started from the Bible, how is it that there are so many differing varieties of Biblical creationism?

TomS said: If Biblical creationists actually started from the Bible, how is it that there are so many differing varieties of Biblical creationism?

I think this is really the issue. In the attempt to invalidate the science, Byers accepts the relativism of the authority. There are different authorities and both “creationist” and “evolutionist” (so he claims) are following only a different authority. But doing so, he forgets that the same principle can be applied to his "home". Which authority should be followed for the interpretation of the Genesis? How do you determine which is the "true" one. Not to forget, that many other Holy Books of different religions can claim a similar authority. The propagation of this form of "nihilism" (and not only in deny the science) is very dangerous and it is the contrary of the scientific method; it brings into question the possibility self to build a knowledge system. But was this discussion already started some centuries ago, with some positive results in the meantime?

ISTM that, in order to get different results, one must either start from different initial points, use different methods, or not proceed deterministically.

Robert Byers said: Evolutionists simply accept the teachings of men

Robert Byers said: Evolutionists simply accept the teachings of men at anyone point in history they live in.

We are confident that truth will prevail over error by good old fashioned thinking and weighing of evidence.

That’s already happened. Your colleagues lost.

— Wheels

But the evidence supporting the central idea of evolution is even more convincing today than it was in 1859, when it convinced all the biologists of the era.

I have never personally witnessed any creationist admitting he’s lying, even indirectly. I don’t think they regard themselves as lying, because they have God’s Truth, in black and white with the words of Christ in red, written right there in a book God wrote Himself.

Dave said: Just a small correction to Flint's above posting :-)

I have never personally witnessed any creationist admitting he’s lying, even indirectly. I don’t think they regard themselves as lying, because they have God’s Truth, in black and white with the words of Christ in red, written right there in a book God wrote Himself.

(Curses! The PT blog keeps stripping out my colour tags!)

Robert Byers said: I have read through the comments here. It is just so true that only people who study something can actually say their opinion is on a weighing of the evidence. The more complicated it is the more need for study. So clearly the vast majority of North Americans opinion on origin issues is based on rudimentary knowledge. In fact the vast majority of educated people or "scientists" is not much better. Acceptance or rejection, as posters here said, is founded on the confidence in authority that talks about these matters. Not much else. Biblical creationists start from the authority of scripture and then, easily, take on any claims by evidence of criticisms to Genesis. Evolutionists simply accept the teachings of men at anyone point in history they live in. We are confident that truth will prevail over error by good old fashioned thinking and weighing of evidence. of coarse this is not the scientific method but if it comes up ever we can handle it.

Rolf Aalberg said:

So you have to choose. Believe the Bible or believe the evolutionists. One or the other.

That's their problem and that's why they are a problem. To them, religion is all about believing a cryptic book. They don't recognize the inherent danger. They fail to realize religion is about spirit and man's struggle to reconcile the force(s) at play in his soul and mind.

Only about 75% of them accepted the theory of evolution.

— Matt Young

Matt Young said:

But the evidence supporting the central idea of evolution is even more convincing today than it was in 1859, when it convinced all the biologists of the era.

Actually, no. The philosopher David Hull and his colleagues examined the beliefs of 67 British scientists in 1869, 10 years after the publication of Origin. Only about 75% of them accepted the theory of evolution. I haven't looked up a link for the article, but the reference is David L. Hull, et al., "Planck's principle: Do younger scientists accept new scientific ideas with greater alacrity than older scientists?" Science, November 17, 1978, pp. 14-21. The answer to the question in the title, incidentally, was, "No."

Actually, the evidence IS more convincing today, the rate of belief not withstanding.

Flint said: Chuckle. The degree to which the rate is "convincing" is purely a function of the percentage of those convinced. Which is dropping.

Actually, the evidence IS more convincing today, the rate of belief not withstanding.

Matt Young said:

But the evidence supporting the central idea of evolution is even more convincing today than it was in 1859, when it convinced all the biologists of the era.

Actually, no. The philosopher David Hull and his colleagues examined the beliefs of 67 British scientists in 1869, 10 years after the publication of Origin. Only about 75% of them accepted the theory of evolution. I haven't looked up a link for the article, but the reference is David L. Hull, et al., "Planck's principle: Do younger scientists accept new scientific ideas with greater alacrity than older scientists?" Science, November 17, 1978, pp. 14-21. The answer to the question in the title, incidentally, was, "No."

Do we need to make a distinction between those who accepted that evolution happened and those who accepted the theory of evolution? Common descent and natural selection? There were plenty of neo-lamarckians well into the 20th century.

Do we need to make a distinction between those who accepted that evolution happened and those who accepted the theory of evolution? Common descent and natural selection? There were plenty of neo-lamarckians well into the 20th century.

I believe Kelvin's calculations were of the age of the sun, and were made with the assumption that then-known chemical processes were the cause. This was, of course, incorrect, but the greatest figure arrived at by Kelvin was twelve million years.

Geologists already knew by that time that the Earth was much older than that, going on nothing more than superposition, sedimentation and erosion rates. They were thinking hundreds of millions of years, even then.

Dave Luckett said: I believe Kelvin's calculations were of the age of the sun, and were made with the assumption that then-known chemical processes were the cause. This was, of course, incorrect, but the greatest figure arrived at by Kelvin was twelve million years. Geologists already knew by that time that the Earth was much older than that, going on nothing more than superposition, sedimentation and erosion rates. They were thinking hundreds of millions of years, even then.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: I think that Kelvin did make that calculation, but he also calculated the age of the earth based on thermodynamic (ooh, there's that word again!) calculations of the cooling rate of the Earth. He noted the geothermal gradient (the rate of warming as you get deeper) implied that the earth is losing heat. Based on the knowledge of the time of geothermal gradients, heat capacities, and thermal conductivities world wide, and making a variety of calculations based on a range of values, he calculated that the Earth would have been molten between 20 and 400 million years ago.

To Matt Young: Thank you. That covers what I was talking about.

Dave Luckett said:

GvlGeologist, FCD said: I think that Kelvin did make that calculation, but he also calculated the age of the earth based on thermodynamic (ooh, there's that word again!) calculations of the cooling rate of the Earth. He noted the geothermal gradient (the rate of warming as you get deeper) implied that the earth is losing heat. Based on the knowledge of the time of geothermal gradients, heat capacities, and thermal conductivities world wide, and making a variety of calculations based on a range of values, he calculated that the Earth would have been molten between 20 and 400 million years ago.

Oh, yes. Now I remember. Wasn't that caused by the fact that, again, Kelvin couldn't have known about radioactive decay and its heat product, which threw his calculations of cooling rate off by an order of magnitude?

... In May, 1904, he delivered a lecture on Radium to the Royal Institution, in London, in which he planned also to touch upon the connection between radioactivity and geology.¹⁸ But there in the audience sat Lord Kelvin, who had not yet been convinced of this relationship. Happily, the grand old man of British science dozed during the talk and Rutherford breathed easier. However, when he came to the part about the age of the earth Kelvin awoke and cast a baleful glance at the speaker. Then Rutherford had the inspiration (so he later told the story) to say that Kelvin had limited the age of the earth provided that no new source of heat was discovered. "That prophetic utterance refers to what we are considering tonight, radium!" And as Rutherford fondly recalled, "Behold! The old boy beamed upon me."¹⁹ (See: http://people.sfcollege.edu/greg.mead/glytime/Rutherford.htm)

I am sorry, as Italian, and broadly christian (though not Catholic, at least not in the sense to believe in things such as the the "immaculate conception" etc.), for this unbelievable situation. In My country Science is defended by some high priests (that are also scientists, as Nicola Cabibbo the President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences is a famous physicist) but opposed by a member of the academy (not a scientist, but an historian) with high-level responsibility in founding scientific research! This claim is not an overestimation of the facts, as the vice-president of CNR organized, in the CNR's headquarters, a meeting held by young earth creationists, people that, like Hugh Miller, sustain that cavemen ate Trex-burgher, just by killing the animal by throwing a rope between two trees! or like G.Berthault that sustain that allsedimentary rocks formed in 40 days!! or finally Giuseppe Sermonti, that send insults (fraud, racism and others) to the "evolutionists"!!! This is definitively not science. If you don't believe in what I'm wrighting, please ask someone that knows the italian language to translate the journalistic review of the meeting available at http://www.theologie-biologie.eu/html/radici_cristiani.html.
Why this meeting? The meeting was done primarily against the meeting on evolution organized on the same days by the Vatican, the Thempleton Foundation and the Notre Dame Catholic University, and in which creationists, of all sorts, were not invited, or allowed to attend! Thus an anti-scientific meeting was organized with the patrocinium of the National Scientific Council, in order to protest against the pro-evolutionary (although theistic) views of the Catholic Church. Personally I believe that if someone want to do that (and they have all the freedom to do), should do without any scientific logo, because this would be an obvious fraud.
Anyway, scientists in Vatican reacted, saying that creationism has no space in our society. For honesty, not only Vatican, but also some other scientists noted the fact and react against this situation, but they acted by themselves, without much resonance in the media. I am personally astonished that the main defenders of the evolution in Italy are Telmo Pievani, a historian of science, and Piergiorgio Oddifreddi, a mathematician (of note, both left-winged). I am respecting those people in their field of knowledge, but where are the biologists? I am personally astonished that all the biologists inside the CNR (I'm working in a public University) are not asking a formal correction and a clear statement about biological evolution by the CNR's headmasters.

Horribly, all the right-winged newspapers defended the choice of the vice-president (that also published the acts of the meeting,at expense of the scientific community), and hotly attacked evolution and the evolutionary theory, using the classic creationist's arguments: S.J.Gould said that fossils said nothing on the evolution, Popper disbelieved in the evolutionary theory, evolutionary theory is the last ideology, only sustained by communists and atheists, etc. Of note they transformed a debate inside the Catholic Church (and between science and nonsense) in a debate between political entities. This is frightening for me, as a scientist and christian. I believe that a detailed explanation on what is the evolution, the current evolutionary theory and its relationship with the Charles Darwin's theory should be provided for the general public (particularly the right-winged) by the italian biologists, as a community, and not as single entities. This is my opinion, at least.

Anyway, although hotly debated in blogs and some newspaper this story has no profound impact on the italian society and scientific community. Here in Italy creationists are few people that are too narrow minded to be a real threat, at least in the near future. The real threat for science in Italy is the lack of interest by the young generations, that see science only as a dead-end career, without a future. They don't want to challenge themselves too much, and, in many cases, the academic system is not helping people to find their way in science.

Kelvin's calculations were based on losing residual heat only, and did not take into account input by radioactivity, as it wasn't discovered for another 30 years or so.

Then Rutherford had the inspiration (so he later told the story) to say that Kelvin had limited the age of the earth provided that no new source of heat was discovered. “That prophetic utterance refers to what we are considering tonight, radium!” And as Rutherford fondly recalled, “Behold! The old boy beamed upon me.”

Matt Young said:

Kelvin's calculations were based on losing residual heat only, and did not take into account input by radioactivity, as it wasn't discovered for another 30 years or so.

I researched that recently, in connection with my book Why Evolution Works, and it appears that the real problem with Kelvin's calculation was not the radioactivity but rather the fact that he did not have much good experimental data and his calculation was very sensitive to the choices of initial temperature, gradient, and thermal conductivity. Kelvin also did not know that most of the earth's heat is lost by convection, not conduction, nor that heat is given up as the earth's liquid core solidifies. A former assistant of Kelvin, William Perry, modified Kelvin's calculation by assuming a liquid core and a relatively thin crust; his estimate of the age of the earth was in the billion-year range. Unlike Kelvin, however, Perry did not take his result terribly seriously, but rather was trying to show how the calculation depended upon his assumptions.

Then Rutherford had the inspiration (so he later told the story) to say that Kelvin had limited the age of the earth provided that no new source of heat was discovered. “That prophetic utterance refers to what we are considering tonight, radium!” And as Rutherford fondly recalled, “Behold! The old boy beamed upon me.”

That anecdote may be the origin of the myth that the radioactivity was the only thing wrong with Kelvin's calculation. In fact, Kelvin's calculation was almost as oversimplified as anything a modern creationist could come up with. And possibly for some of the same reasons.

One source is Philip England, et al., "John Perry’s neglected critique of Kelvin’s age for the Earth: A missed opportunity in geodynamics," GSA Today: v. 17, no. 1, pp. 4-9 (January, 2007), doi: 10.1130/GSAT01701A.1

There might also be something in G. Brent Dalrymple's book Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2004.

Those are all I can find in a quick survey of my notes.

Aargh! William Perry, both here and in the book, should have been John Perry.

Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth (http://www.amazon.com/Age-Earth-G-Dalrymple/dp/0804723311) devotes 14 pages to Kelvin's and Perry's and other's calculations, with numerous references. Almost all of the text and figures is available online at http://tinyurl.com/yatct5k.

Whoops, you have to manually navigate to page 32 at that link.

Dave Luckett said: I believe Kelvin's calculations were of the age of the sun, and were made with the assumption that then-known chemical processes were the cause. This was, of course, incorrect, but the greatest figure arrived at by Kelvin was twelve million years. Geologists already knew by that time that the Earth was much older than that, going on nothing more than superposition, sedimentation and erosion rates. They were thinking hundreds of millions of years, even then.

Thanks to all! Time to revise my Geologic Time lecture.

(:-(

“Behold! The old boy beamed upon me.”

I recall hearing the story of Rutherford's lecture being told from a somewhat different point of view, which said that Kelvin was dozing through the lecture and woke up at the point that Rutherford mentioned his name. The suggestion being that Kelvin really didn't know what was being said, and that this should not be taken as Kelvin accepting a major revision in his time estimate.

BTW there are several stories, undoubtedly most of them apocryphal, of Kelvin making dogmatic pronouncements against recent developments. That he thought Maxwell's electrodynamics was just mathematical formalism, and not really physical.

Paul Flocken said:

Rolf Aalberg said:

So you have to choose. Believe the Bible or believe the evolutionists. One or the other.

That's their problem and that's why they are a problem. To them, religion is all about believing a cryptic book. They don't recognize the inherent danger. They fail to realize religion is about spirit and man's struggle to reconcile the force(s) at play in his soul and mind.

Man has a soul? What exactly is that? And where did you find this out?

Thanks from sweden for this post

The line i like is where a creationist can say we are like Sherlock Holmes to evolution’s Scotland Yard. We are doing better detective work but both are not doing science. ( Tr )

borsa said: The line i like is where a creationist can say we are like Sherlock Holmes to evolution’s Scotland Yard. We are doing better detective work but both are not doing science. ( Tr )