A little later in the show:Terry Mortenson: What a person's presuppositions are before he ever looks at the evidence will affect what he sees and how he interprets what he sees. A police officer who is a racist and has an agenda against the black community will try to look at the evidence and he will be able to build a case that gets this black guy convicted and sent to prison because of his presuppositions and his manipulation of the data, consciously or unconsciously. Daniel Phelps: So scientists are in a conspiracy then? Is that what you are claiming? That science is a conspiracy? TM: Not a conspiracy but my experience is in the origin of the old earth thinking and James Hutton and Charles Lyell – they were deists or atheists ... DP: That's not true, especially of Charles Lyell. He was actually a devout Christian. That's nonsense. TM: No, he wasn't, you don't know. No historian of science would agree with you. DP: You are basically purporting a conspiracy theory for the origin of science. TM: No, I have read Charles Lyell's writings on this issue, and no historian of science would agree with you in that statement.2
Debate challenge. In the very last moments of the show, Dr. Mortenson challenged me, in a style reminiscent of professional wrestling banter, to debate him. Here is the transcript:TM: No evolutionary geologist would go into the Grand Canyon and even ask the question, "Could this be the result of a global flood?" His presuppositions rule that out before he ever looks at the evidence. A creation scientist goes in, he's assuming, because he has eyewitness testimony of the Creator, there was a global flood – I should see evidence of that [flood]. And creation scientists like Dr. [Andrew] Snelling, like Steve Austin have made numerous trips, geological research trips approved by the National Park Service to research geological evidence in the Grand Canyon, and they see abundant evidence of a global flood. DP: Basically you're telling quite a bit of non-truths about what science actually does. I know for a fact that people that are employed by the Creation Museum have to sign an oath of Biblical literalism before they're even employed. So that right there means that your presuppositions are very limited from the very moment you signed on to work for Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum. Science itself is done in scientific journals and at scientific meetings. Anybody can show that they are able to do scientific research, and that's how they're able to obtain their master's degrees and PhD's. You write a thesis or a dissertation showing that you're capable of doing such. Creationists, however, have not been publishing things in the scientific literature that claim that the earth is 6000 years old, that Noah's Flood was real, that there were dinosaurs on the Ark, and [instead] they are trying to do, like, an end run around the scientific process[, which] involves peer review and publication in the scientific literature, to get their ideas taught in the schools. TM: That's simply false, that is simply false. DP: All right, what creation scientists at the Creation Museum have published things in journals like Nature, Science ... TM: If you go on the Internet you can find that Andrew Snelling published all kinds of literature in the secular ... DP: That is true, he published things in the literature, but they did not say that the earth is 6000 years old, that ... TM: That's because the literature is dominated by evolutionists who won't ... DP: So there is another conspiracy theory here saying that the scientific community is conspiring to keep Andrew Snelling from publishing his evidence that the earth is 6000 years old? TM: Well there's plenty of evidence that anybody who criticizes evolution is going to pay a price for it. DP: OK, show us the rejection letters from the journals that they submitted these papers to. TM: Well, I can't show you, but I know people have submitted [papers], and their papers were not accepted. John Hingsbergen: We want to get some of our ... TM: Dr. Steve Austin presented his research to the National Park Service on the Grand Canyon ... DP: Well, that's not a scientific ven ... TM: ... geologists about his research on the nautiloid fossils, and it was very much appreciated. Creation scientists have presented poster sessions at the national geology meetings. DP: Anybody can do that. That is not necessarily peer reviewed. I've done that and it is not peer reviewed. TM: If you attack their degrees and say they're incompetent, then you're gonna attack all of the evolutionist professors who supervised their PhD research and granted the degree. DP: Well, the degree only means they were capable of scientific research, not that they are doing [scientific research now]. TM: They should never granted the degree if they are so incompetent. And so they can write a thesis and then they can't write an article afterward? The month after they get the PhD?
In a sense, I accepted Dr. Mortenson's debate challenge. He challenged me to debate anywhere. I advised him to publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal supporting one of the central claims of creationist paleontology and stated that I would be glad to write a reply. Scientific "debate" takes place in peer reviewed journals, not at formal debates in front of an audience of nonscientists (many of whom are unfamiliar with both the scientific method and the actual findings of science). Demonology. After the radio show, I discovered several "interesting" things about Dr. Mortenson and his approach to the history of science. On December 26, 2012, he published a most enlightening article, Are Demons Active Today? on the Answers in Genesis webpage. In this article, Dr. Mortenson attributes many things to the action of demons including aspects of animist, Hindu, and Buddhist culture. He thinks Western culture is not immune to demonic influence, mentioning satanic rock groups and the origin of the Mormon Church. He states:TM: I would like to ask Mr. Phelps: I will debate you anywhere you want to debate, just on the scientific evidence, and if I am a total ignoramus and don't understand any of it, you should be able to destroy my credibility easily before the audience. So I would be happy to debate you. DP: I'll tell you what, Mr. Mortenson, or [rather] Dr. Mortenson, you can write a paper in a scientific journal arguing that dinosaurs were fire-breathing dragons ... TM: ... It wouldn't be published ... DP: ... on Noah's Ark and I would be glad to review it. HOST: Folks, we're out of time.
Apparently, to Dr. Mortenson at least, lack of belief in a conspiracy by most people is even more evidence that the conspiracy exists. More relevant to the history of science is Dr. Mortenson's claim that: "The widespread acceptance of evolution (including millions of years and the big bang) is strong evidence of the continuing work of Satan and demons." Perhaps Dr. Mortenson would care to defend his bizarre demonology claims in one of the numerous journals on the history of science or geology? I'm sure he will claim a demonic conspiracy will keep his "research" from being published. Imagine my surprise when several weeks passed, and Dr. Mortenson wrote two posts, here and here, at the AIG website, repeating and expanding on what he said in the radio show and accusing me of being afraid to debate him. In his second post, Dr. Mortenson states:Evidently, demons rarely show themselves in the same way in the "enlightened" Western world. But it may also be that the West's anti-supernatural mentality keeps us from recognizing their activity. Indeed, the West's increasing opposition to belief in the supernatural is an even stronger indication of demonic deception.
In other words, Dr. Mortenson has no academic qualifications or credibility to debate science, but thinks that others should be obligated to participate in a formal debate with him. As is typical of the "researchers and scientists" at the Creation "Museum," Dr. Mortenson wants to claim his ideas are credible by having formal debates with scientists. If he and his colleagues really want to be taken seriously, they should publish their creationist claims in the peer reviewed literature. However, Dr. Mortenson's claims about science, depending on his intended audience, rest on conspiracy theories and weird ranting about demons. No wonder he has earned this listing at the Encyclopedia of American Loons. Notes. 1. This is ironic considering this report on one of Dr. Mortenson's talks at the Creation "Museum." 2. Later in the show, Dr. Mortenson changed from arguing that Lyell was an atheist to simply claiming he wasn't "a Bible-believing Christian." Actually, Charles Lyell was a Unitarian. See Charles Darwin, Geologist by Sandra Herbert (2005). On page 187, after citing primary sources, Herbert states, "Thus, while Lyell was a modernizer by virtue of his campaign in the Principles of Geology against Mosaic geology and by virtue of his opposition to Anglican hegemony in such important areas of national life as education, he remained a religious man." Interestingly, Dr. Mortenson refers to Lyell as a Unitarian in his later posts on the Answers in Genesis website, but apparently thinks that 19th Century Unitarians were not Christians, presumably because they were not Biblical literalists. Of course what really matters is the evidence that Lyell and later geologists presented, not their religious beliefs.At the end of the January 30 radio interview, I challenged Mr. Phelps to a public debate about the scientific evidence related to origins and to do it at the location of his choosing. He refused, instead hiding behind the false demand that I publish my objections to evolution in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and behind the red herring excuse that he would be giving credibility to a creationist to debate me. But I submit that the real reason he refused is because he can't defend his position in the free-marketplace of ideas. I only had biology and chemistry in high school and one physics course in college. I have no credibility in the scientific community and little even within Christian circles. With his BS and MS degrees in geology, winning a debate with me should be very easy. If evolution was really true and all the scientific evidence confirmed it, a debate with me would be a great way for Mr. Phelps to demolish any credibility I have within the Christian community and to make creationists look like the ignorant, gullible fools that he and other evolutionists think we are. Too bad that he is unwilling to defend his views in a formal public debate.
86 Comments
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 28 February 2014
ksplawn · 28 February 2014
robert van bakel · 1 March 2014
"I have no credibility within the 'mainstream' of my faith. I have little to no credibility within the area of academia I wish to defrock. I am a person for whom the spiritual, and its power are self evident, like a truth. Dammit! Debate me."
Nye did well, they're still posting article by article, blistering refutations of his debate points at Answers.
DS · 1 March 2014
Mike Clinch · 1 March 2014
harold · 1 March 2014
harold · 1 March 2014
Hey creationists -
I have no philosophical materialist presuppositions.
You say the theory of evolution is false, and your explanation is better. Well, I'm willing to be convinced. All I need is two things -
A) Some positive objective evidence for your version. NOT your interpretation of cherry picked parts of a contemporary edition of the "King James Version" translation of the Bible. That's not objective evidence. NOT attacks on the evidence for evolution (in this step). That's not positive evidence for your version.
1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present?
2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?
3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and
if not, can you explain why not?
4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?
5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?
6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?
Let’s make it Real Simple.
Here are three stones. They all happen to be tiny rough diamonds, of obviously poor quality and very similar appearance.
One was found in a kimberlite pipe in South Africa and formed by plutonic forces in the deep mantle. It’s ‘natural’.
One was made from uncrystallized carbon in a laboratory–a manmade diamond.
One was designed and created by God, atom by atom, to have precisely the shape, color, weight, flaws, and everything, exactly as he wanted. And he wanted it to look EXACTLY like a ‘natural’ stone – or maybe like a manmade one. And he succeeded.
Now, here are two ‘designed’ stones and one ‘natural’. Explain how to tell the ‘designed’ from the ‘undesigned’. How would your hero Paley do it?
9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues? If you don't claim Biblical literalism, simply state so when answering this question.
B) Okay, now that you've completed Part A, we'll need to move on to Part B.
When you argue against someone else's claims, it's obviously only fair to fully acknowledge those claims, correctly, and to acknowledge the evidence supporting those claims, as a starting point. That's why I'm so eager to get a handle on what the evidence is for your claims.
Now, for the next step in your effort to convince reasonable people, do a competent job of explaining the theory of evolution and the evidence in favor of it, and show how your version better explains the data. Here's a piece of advice. Don't use ANY material whatsoever from creationist sources. I'm already familiar with it, and none of it is fair or accurate. But all you need to do is go to scientific sources, get a handle on the theory of evolution, and the dozen or few major lines of convergent evidence that support it, and show how your claim better explains the data.
That's all I ask. Simple, really.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 1 March 2014
stevaroni · 1 March 2014
FL · 1 March 2014
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Tenncrain · 1 March 2014
Gordon Glover (himself an ex-YEC) produced a series of videos, including this particular video about how even early Christian geologists with Christian prior commitments eventually abandoned the idea a world Flood nearly two centuries ago when the scientific evidence became too overwhelming.
ashleyhr · 1 March 2014
Softly spoken Mortenson is a liar about science par excellence:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/terry-mortenson/2010/12/09/pentecostal-views-on-origins/
Mike Clinch · 1 March 2014
To give credit where credit is due, the geologist who fist described the Channeled Scablands in eastern Washington was J. Harlan Bretz, who mapped them out and described evidence for a catastrophic flood in the 1930's - prior to air photos of the area He had the misfortune to propose a flood rigt after the Scopes Monkey Trial, and got a less-than-enthusiastic reception as a resilt. he also failed to find a source for the flood, and presumed it was subglacial water under the ice cap. A USGS geologist privately concluded that Glacial Lake Missoula was the source of the flood, but couldn't get that through the internal review process.
In the face of substantial opposition to his ideas, Bretz moved on and made major contributions to the geology of caves and karst, leaving his Scablands publications to speak for themselves.
In the late 1950's, Bretz returned to the Channeled Scablands, this time with good maps and air photos, and came up with a much more convincing argument. In 1965, when the International Quaternary Association toured the Northern Rockies, the assembled glacial geologists and geomorphologists called a very elderly Bretz and proclaimed themselves catastrophists in his model.
Since that time, the story has been refined, and we now know that there were thirty to forty catastrophic floods, with timing determined by the rate of filling of Glacial Lake Missoula and the height of the ice dam near Coeur d'Alene Idaho. Others have used the morphology of the Channeled Scablands to argue for free water in the past on the Moon.
The point of this story is to show that long after geologists had rejected evidence for a global, universal Flood, because there was no evidence for one, other geologists were able to reintroduce floods when the field evidence supported a flood, to propose floods vastly larger than had been observed within the time frame that geologists had studied, and, when the evidence supported it, had found a uniformitarian explanation for the source of the numerous floods that occurred.
All of which points out that true scientists have been capable of following the evidence and not any presuppositions that restricted us to only gradualistic, fluvial erosion. We "evolutionary geologists" are the ones willing to look at the evidence, and conclude that drastically different origins and processes are responsible for the Grand Canyon (ordinary fluvial erosion) and catastrophic flooding (the Channeled Scablands). If only the flood geologists were as intellectually honest, and willing to let the rocks tell us what happened.
As an aside, what you are willing to believe depends on your local circumstances. Bretz encountered a lot of resistance to the ideas of catastrophic floods in the United States, partly due to the time he proposed the idea, and partly because it was a flood. In the early 1980's, when I went to Antarctica as part of my Ph. D. research, I went to the Argentine sector of Antarctica, and as "payment" for logistical support, I had to give a lecture, in Spanish, to the assembled base personnel, helicopter pilots and aviation support people. The group I worked with had seen similar outburst floods in the Pioneer Montains in central Idaho, and I described them. The Argentines responded "Si! Como Lago Argentino!" A glacier in southern Patagonia advances into Lago Agentino, blocks off a side arm of the lake, and the water level rises in that separate arm. Every decade or so, the water level fises high enough to burst out under the glacier and cause a flood downvalley from the lake. It's the same mechanism as in the Channeled Scablands floods, but two or three orders of magnitude smaller. However, non-geologists in Argentina can easily understand what Bretz found because they all know of the smaller-scale model in their own country.
harold · 2 March 2014
SLC · 2 March 2014
Relative to Charles Lyell, it should be noted that he was somewhat dubious of his friend Darwin's idea of natural selection at first.
Just Bob · 2 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 2 March 2014
DS · 2 March 2014
Scott F · 2 March 2014
ksplawn · 2 March 2014
ashleyhr · 2 March 2014
Whining about Bill Nye the debate-winning Guy (any mistake about either the Bible or YEC dogma by an opponent of the latter is ALWAYS dirty deliberate strawman behaviour and NEVER a simple error - that's the gist of the argument here and it echoes how Ham behaves online):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/02/28/bill-nye-straw-man-guy-noahs-ark
"First, where does the Bible ever state that just eight people built the Ark? Only e
ight people were on the Ark and survived the Flood, but this doesn’t mean these were the only people involved in building the structure. Actually, the Bible only mentions Noah as building the Ark (Genesis 6:22; Hebrews 11:7)". You have answered your own silly question Mr Chaffey. There was NO 'strawman' from Nye here - with respect to the BIBLE. However, if the position of AiG is BEYOND what the Bible SAYS, that would suggest that AiG are FRAUDS and in error doctrinally - like all those other Christians they slate.
A pathetic article.
ashleyhr · 2 March 2014
Scott
YECs have PRESUPPOSITIONS as well as assumptions. They pretend that real scientists follow the same 'methodogology' as them.
ashleyhr · 2 March 2014
Methodology even.
fnxtr · 2 March 2014
Methodologetics.
Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2014
AltairIV · 2 March 2014
fnxtr · 2 March 2014
harold · 2 March 2014
stevaroni · 2 March 2014
Just Bob · 2 March 2014
Dave Luckett · 2 March 2014
The largest all-wooden hull member craft ever built - with steel pins, trusses, and diagonal iron braces - was the six-masted schooner Wyoming. Wyoming required constant pumping with a steam pump. Her hull was just on 100 metres long, transom to bows over the deck. Noah's Ark, as described, was about 135 metres long, and would have displaced about 13000 tons, not 6000 - it was apparently more in the nature of a floating box than a ship. Wyoming displaced about 9000 tons.
But Wyoming was unseaworthy. She was a coffin-ship. In anything more than a fresh breeze she leaked faster than the pumps could empty her. She foundered while sheltering from a moderate gale off Chatham, Mass, with the loss of all on board.
The best shipwrights in the world, New England builders, working with centuries of know-how, modern tools, steam pumps, and the best timbers in Maine, could not build a seaworthy vessel two-thirds the size of the Ark. Wyoming had a total career of fourteen perilous years. She came close to foundering in moderate seas at least half a dozen times, despite her steam pumps, as her hull warped and leaked, before her final fatal voyage in 1924. She could no more face a genuine Atlantic widow-maker than one of Caligula's barges could. But the Ark, we are told, carried its cargo through the greatest catastrophe ever to engulf the Earth, while the planet itself was resculpted.
Patrick O'Brien wrote a great description of the situation: "guardian angels working double tides" were needed to keep it afloat. Every minute the Ark floated would have required its quota of separate miracles.
Well, why not? What's a few more miracles? If a world-wide flood, why not this?
So here we are again, going out of Omar Khayyam's door and greeting our old friend Omphalos, as he comes in.
Rolf · 3 March 2014
The time for 'nuff said about the Ark was over long, long ago but fundies never give up clutching at straws. Put yourself in their position but without even a straw to cling to.
TomS · 3 March 2014
Why this devotion to the world-wide flood?
There are plenty of places where the Bible talks about all of the nations where everyone agrees that it is hyperbole.
All of the nations came to Egypt in the world-wide drought.
ksplawn · 3 March 2014
Jared Miller · 3 March 2014
Just a quick note Dave, the ark was more like a bathtub than a box. :)
Here the latest: http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2014/01/24/was-the-ark-round-a-babylonian-description-discovered/
Just Bob · 3 March 2014
And there was, by god, a mountain high enough that Jesus could stand on it and view all the nations of the Earth. So high he could see around the curve to the other side.
Either that, or the Earth is flat.
Or it was then.
Or maybe just for that 15 minutes.
Don't matter, but it was SOMETHING, because the Bible is TRUE.
david.starling.macmillan · 3 March 2014
harold · 3 March 2014
Just Bob · 3 March 2014
Dave Luckett · 3 March 2014
stevaroni · 3 March 2014
phhht · 3 March 2014
phhht · 3 March 2014
Scott F · 4 March 2014
Marilyn · 4 March 2014
TomS · 4 March 2014
Is the historicity of Noah's Flood needed for "Premillennial Dispensationalism"?
daoudmbo · 4 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 4 March 2014
TomS · 4 March 2014
The best version that I've seen of there being a real particular flood being behind the Ancient Near Eastern flood is:
Robert M. Best
Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic: Sumerian Origins of the Flood Myth
Fort Myers, Florida: Enlil Press 1999
ISBN 0966784014
In the end, I did not concede, but it's the best.
Carl Drews · 4 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 4 March 2014
TomS · 4 March 2014
I am not an expert of any kind, but it hits me as implausible that an event that occurred 4000 years ago would persist in stories.
What do we remember of 2000 BC? We even forgot that there was a Sumerian civilization.
Karen S. · 4 March 2014
Rolf · 4 March 2014
harold · 4 March 2014
ashleyhr · 4 March 2014
My post here at 10.40 GMT on 4 March highlights the 'spin' AiG wish to put on the Ham-Nye debate, long after the event:
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3421&start=240
david.starling.macmillan · 4 March 2014
Carl Drews · 4 March 2014
air · 5 March 2014
Dave Lovell · 5 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 5 March 2014
I actually emailed Mortenson about his side of this story. Sadly, he asked me to keep his response confidential. It was a disappointing response anyway.
Matt Young · 5 March 2014
Rolf · 6 March 2014
Helena Constantine · 6 March 2014
gnome de net · 6 March 2014
Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist provides an example of how a book can debut at #1 on the NYT's bestseller list, supporting our suspicions regarding Stephen Meyer's Darwin's Doubt. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/06/so-thats-how-mark-driscolls-book-ended-up-on-the-nyt-bestsellers-list/
</OT Alert>
harold · 6 March 2014
ashleyhr · 6 March 2014
Many YECs seem to hate coming onto 'secular' discussion forums. They prefer preaching to the already converted on their own blogs/websites/facebook pages. Or high profile formal debates that add to their public profile.
Carl Drews · 6 March 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/Iv5nEZhh1NqPPmx3lYrN0OKSZoNeotqV0eBwHWE-#ceecc · 6 March 2014
Dr Andrew Snelling? He has near zero credibility in scientific circles. This post is old, but still highly relevant.
Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?
Snelling admits that he was a convinced creationist by around the age of nine. Little has changed since.
Dr Alex Ritchie, the author of the article above asked for a clarification from Dr Snelling which he did not get (pers comm).
Rolf · 7 March 2014
Old (2002) and OT - but might be of interest to some wrt Dr. Snelling: halos
daoudmbo · 7 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 7 March 2014
alicejohn · 7 March 2014
I was disappointed Nye did not put more emphasis on how the Statements of Faith YEC “scientists” are required to sign prevent them from doing any real science and how people like Dr Snelling conduct themselves because of it. Using his training in science, Dr Snelling was able to produce credible (I assume), publishable material using objective, repeatable processes in a worldview he believe to be false. That is a remarkable achievement. Yet he has not been able to make a single significant contribution to geology using a worldview he believes to be true. If Nye wanted to be mean (which he wouldn’t have done), he could have accused Dr Snelling of lying. Dr Snelling has been working since he was nine to come up with something, yet YEC is no farther along now than when he was nine. Or for that matter than they were two thousand years ago.
Dr Snelling would have been the perfect example of why YEC is death to serious science education.
Rolf · 8 March 2014
Isn't creationism the ultimate cash cow?
ksplawn · 8 March 2014
Henry J · 8 March 2014
Rolf · 8 March 2014
Tenncrain · 9 March 2014
Tenncrain · 9 March 2014
prongs · 9 March 2014
Just Bob · 9 March 2014
Matt Young · 20 March 2014
prongs · 21 March 2014
xubist · 21 March 2014
fnxtr · 21 March 2014
What about Kent Hovind's doctoral dissertation?
prongs · 21 March 2014