Understanding creationism, V:</br>An insider's guide by a former young-Earth creationist

Because they feel that religious truth must be static and unchanging, they deride evolutionary theory as “not trustworthy” simply because it can change to accommodate new evidence.

Darwin was not setting out to explain life apart from divine creation; he was discovering the mechanism behind the already well-established progression of life on Earth.

Creationists equate science’s dependence on the explanatory power of evolutionary theory with their dependence on doctrine and dogma in religion. Because they feel that religious truth must be static and unchanging, they deride evolutionary theory as “not trustworthy” simply because it can change to accommodate new evidence. They demand an authoritarian source of Absolute Truth which will not change or adapt.

Continuing to rely on Darwin and his followers for insights is a good way to get it wrong.

As is my habit, I see whether the argument against evolution works as well as (or better) an argument against reproduction (plus genetics, development, etc.).If Darwin wanted to replace God as my Creator and Redeemer, he should have gone after reproduction, being personal and here and now, rather than abstract and long ago.

If one wanted to fabricate a theory, why this particular one? Why choose such a ridiculous one? Why not make the universe, and life, eternal and not worry about where it all came from? Why, in one wants it to be finite, not choose this particular number of years - for there is nothing other than imagination to go on? Why all of the agreement? Was there a secret committee meeting where all of the scientific dictators chose the number of years, and chose Darwin from the possible heros?

Why not make the universe, and life, eternal and not worry about where it all came from?

Most creationists believe that the theory of evolution was developed out of an ideological commitment to explaining life apart from God.

callahanpb said:

Most creationists believe that the theory of evolution was developed out of an ideological commitment to explaining life apart from God.

The notion isn't totally crazy, but they're off by nearly 2000 years. Lucretius proposed a materialistic explanation for life and human experience in De rerum natura as an alternative to fearing the whims of capricious deities. Of course, it doesn't stand up well against modern science, but it's at least as compelling as competing creation myths including that of Genesis.

Darwin's motivation was to explain what he saw. If he had a primarily atheist agenda, he could have stopped at "good enough" (which is simply come up with a better explanation than Genesis). He didn't stop there. Scientists after Darwin didn't stop either. The main people that seem to be stuck--indeed spinning their epistemological wheels in the mud--are the creationists. And they confuse being stuck with being consistent.

This is why I think that it is so important to explain the history of scientific inquiry when science is first being taught. The history of science is at least as interesting as simply the current understandings of science. First, it teaches how science is done. Second, it explains many of the mistakes that were made along the way, which are (not surprisingly) also many of the mistakes in understanding that young students make too. The example of the "geologic" column, and both its place in science and its place in the history of science is a great example.

While the recent Cosmos series has its good points and bad, one of the things it tried to do was to not only tell what we know about the world, but also tell how we came to know it. (At least IMO.)

My wife learned history as a set of dry facts and dates, and learned to hate history because of it. But when history can be presented as a process, as a story of discovery and learning, then it can become exciting. The history can turn science into a human story, instead of just a bunch of dry facts and equations. Don't get me wrong. I like dry facts and equations. But anything that can make science more engaging to the "average" student has to be counted as a positive.

And your "biology" is based on the bible, not on any science at all. You lose.

Scott F said: This is why I think that it is so important to explain the history of scientific inquiry when science is first being taught. The history of science is at least as interesting as simply the current understandings of science. First, it teaches how science is done. Second, it explains many of the mistakes that were made along the way, which are (not surprisingly) also many of the mistakes in understanding that young students make too. The example of the "geologic" column, and both its place in science and its place in the history of science is a great example.

Robert Byers said: Evolution if founded on non biological evidences. Geology for example. Without the geology ideas all fossil evidence would have no value. therefore all fossils are non biological evidence since strata is essential for meaning. Darwin also said forget his idea if one didn't first accept long geological ages. AMEN. his biology is not based on biology but on geology. A rejection of scientific methodology.

David, I think this is your best post yet.

As a high school teacher I find it hard to fit in much about the history of science, but I really focused on it when teaching about evolutionary theory. I wanted my students to understand that Darwin didn't just come up with his ideas on a whim. I started in Ancient Greece and China and kept going way past Darwin and Wallace to today. It takes a lot of time, but I think it's important and addresses the misconceptions you highlight here.

I created a timeline that I had students fill in as we discussed different people. I used the timeline when talking about genetics and classification too. It got a bit messy, but I think it helped students to look at what happened when Darwin missed Mendel's work and how the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis came together. I also didn't stop at Miller-Urey when discussing OOL. I include work since then because most teachers talk about biogenesis and Pasteur then Miller-Urey then stop--which I think confuses students. I try to contrast the old spontaneous generation with new ideas in abiogenesis.

Robert Byers said: Evolution if founded on non biological evidences.

Robert Byers said: Evolution if founded on non biological evidences. Geology for example. Without the geology ideas all fossil evidence would have no value. therefore all fossils are non biological evidence since strata is essential for meaning. Darwin also said forget his idea if one didn't first accept long geological ages. AMEN. his biology is not based on biology but on geology. A rejection of scientific methodology.

Robert Byers said: Evolution if founded on non biological evidences

Very good post David. I particularly find this sentence striking: "...they often assert that the geologic column doesn’t actually exist: that it’s cobbled together from bits and pieces around the world and that the layers aren’t actually consistent."

It is beyond me why, when looking at a diagram of the geologic column for the first time, would anyone think that it exists like that anywhere on the planet. Even as a high school student, when I first saw that, I immediately grasped the overall concept that the column was built by assembling the patterns of superposition of the different layers across the world.

Thinking that the geologic column is false because the whole column can't be found anywhere on the planet is as stupid as thinking that the Periodic Table of elements is false because you never find all elements sorted like that in an actual molecule.

Robert Byers said: Evolution if founded on non biological evidences. Geology for example. Without the geology ideas all fossil evidence would have no value. therefore all fossils are non biological evidence since strata is essential for meaning. Darwin also said forget his idea if one didn't first accept long geological ages. AMEN. his biology is not based on biology but on geology. A rejection of scientific methodology.

In the creationist worldview, the ideas proposed by Darwin came from a desire to explain the existence of life apart from God. They believe all “evolutionary science” came out of this particular worldview. But that is simply not the case.

The other objection is purely philosophical and much more difficult to address. Creationists equate science’s dependence on the explanatory power of evolutionary theory with their dependence on doctrine and dogma in religion. Because they feel that religious truth must be static and unchanging, they deride evolutionary theory as “not trustworthy” simply because it can change to accommodate new evidence. They demand an authoritarian source of Absolute Truth which will not change or adapt.

Agassiz was not the first to make the connection between erratic boulders and past glaciation, but he was the first influential scientist actively to pro mote the idea. A Swiss minister, Bernhard Friedrich Kuhn, had interpreted the evidence correctly as early as 1787, and in the 1790s the Scot James Hutton had visited the Jura and had realized that glaciers had been at work there. Hutton was a medical doctor who gave up medicine for farming at 24 and retired from his farm at 42. He is widely regarded as the father of modem geology, and was a profound influence on the succeeding generation of scientists, but his writing was obscure, and neither Hutton, nor Kuhn, nor indeed any of the others who independently reached the same conclusions about the erratic boulders of the Jura, had the aggressive spirit needed to take the lce Age hypothesis forward, testing it in the arena of scientific debate until it had been tempered into an established theory. A Swiss naturalist of the time, Jean de Charpentier, put the idea on to a firm scientific footing in the early 1830s, but the scientific establishment held fast to traditional ideas, bolstered by faith in the literal word of the Bible. Young Agassiz had met de Charpentier while still a schoolboy in Lausanne; but he too initially rejected the idea, despite his respect for the older man. Eventually, however, Agassiz was persuaded by the weight of the evidence, and he became the forceful front man and advocate that the Ice Age theory needed.

eric said: Given that the community has limited resources, motive (as well as some proposer's past history of hypothesis success or failure) can play a part in what we decide to test - simply because we can't test everything, we typically spend money testing ideas from credible sources or that seem credible in light of current scientific understanding. But that's the only place it really matters.

Helena Constantine said:

Robert Byers said: Evolution if founded on non biological evidences. Geology for example....

"if founded on non biological evidences" . . . "If" that, then what? I am on the edge of my seat waiting to hear the apodosis!

If a subset of the evidence for evolution comes from geology, so what? It's not like those two fields are talking about two different worlds (or universes). They're talking about different aspects of the same world. The fields of science aren't isolated from each other; each one simply has a different focus than the others.

Creationists do tend to focus on the fossils and ignore all the other evidence for common descent. But I suppose they don't do this any more than the general public, or even much more than the general run of commenters on Panda's Thumb. I think there are two factors at work here: first, fossil evidence is just flashier and easier to understand than the other stuff; second, science literacy in general is in bad shape.

Robert Byers said: Evolution if founded on non biological evidences. Geology for example. Without the geology ideas all fossil evidence would have no value. therefore all fossils are non biological evidence since strata is essential for meaning. Darwin also said forget his idea if one didn't first accept long geological ages. AMEN. his biology is not based on biology but on geology. A rejection of scientific methodology.

No, no, you don't understand! Once something is dead and in the ground, it becomes geology, regardless of whether it was ever living or how recently. So you can't tell anything about what it was, how it lived, or what it might be related to, because it's now geology, and bears no witness to any biology it might have once had.

Have I got that about right, Robert? That the mortal remains of your great grandmother are now just geology, and can tell us nothing at all about what she once was?

stevaroni said: Of course, you don't have to trek into the wilds to see evolution, you can just grow some e.coli in your lab, like Richard Lenski. Or maybe you could domesticate the silver fox. And, Beyers, you could do them all right now, in real time, thereby ensuring pristine operational science, uncontaminated with any of that pesky "historical" stuff. But you won't. No creationist will. Because deep down you know that careful measurements won't go the way you want them to.

eric said: Science welcomes all comers to research; it is only when you are asking someone else to pay for your work that you must make a business case for why you think your idea will pay off, or (a case for) your capability of carrying out the proposed research.

eric said: Science largely doesn't care where an hypothesis comes from - hypothesis-development is the one area of the scientific method where there are essentially no rules, its a free-for-all. We sort-of teach this to kids, with our stories about people coming up with hypotheses while sitting in the bath, or getting hit with an apple, or dreaming about a snake eating its own tale. But the lesson might be too subtle and get lost: having a religious motive, or an anti-religious motive, or a monetary motive, or a political motive, etc... doesn't invalidate an hypothesis. Testing and evidence are what's used to validate or invalidate hypotheses.

Rolf said: Since Robert, like his ally FL sticks to the theory that closing your eyes to evidence is all it takes to reject evrything of science that you don't like,......

Just Bob said: No, no, you don't understand! Once something is dead and in the ground, it becomes geology, regardless of whether it was ever living or how recently. So you can't tell anything about what it was, how it lived, or what it might be related to, because it's now geology, and bears no witness to any biology it might have once had. Have I got that about right, Robert? That the mortal remains of your great grandmother are now just geology, and can tell us nothing at all about what she once was?

I don’t know how it goes in biology or chemistry for those who got their training in those areas; but many of the undergraduate and graduate textbooks in physics have pretty good summaries of the historical record. It was from those summaries that I found myself digging into more the detailed histories of ideas.

Oops, accidental submit.

Anyway, I endured good natured ridicule for my interst in the history of biomedical science, but such an interest is far from rare.

Carl Drews said: I work with elementary and middle school students on creating a project for their school science fairs. Often they get the idea that they have to think their test hypothesis is correct before starting the experiments. But they don't. Scientists can test a hypothesis even if they personally think it's bunk. We do this all the time on Panda's Thumb with claims like a global flood and an enormous wooden ark. Skeptical people often test hypotheses and become convinced that those statements are true.

callahanpb said: Sorry I meant to add that Michelson-Morley isn't a good answer your students who "get the idea that they have to think their test hypothesis is correct". But hopefully they should understand that what the researcher thinks has no bearing on the outcome of the experiment, and negative results are as significant as positive ones.

Mike Elzinga said: I don’t know how it goes in biology or chemistry for those who got their training in those areas; but many of the undergraduate and graduate textbooks in physics have pretty good summaries of the historical record. It was from those summaries that I found myself digging into more the detailed histories of ideas.

Then there's the question of when will they have to add an 8th row to the table...

(All the elements through the 7th period are in there already.)

John Harshman said: Creationists do tend to focus on the fossils and ignore all the other evidence for common descent. But I suppose they don't do this any more than the general public, or even much more than the general run of commenters on Panda's Thumb. I think there are two factors at work here: first, fossil evidence is just flashier and easier to understand than the other stuff; second, science literacy in general is in bad shape.

eric said: This is not to say that most chemists are woefully ignorant of their own subjects' history; I don't necessarily think they are. But I think the standard method by which we acquire an appreciation of our own subject's history is self-teaching rather than formal classroom coverage.

or “You can’t show that any fossil is the ancestor of a modern”.

Henry J said: Then there's the question of when will they have to add an 8th row to the table... (All the elements through the 7th period are in there already.)

eric said: Re-locating the actinides as a set of f-shell elements wasn't just chartsmanship, it was a change in 'chemistry theory' that made for more accurate predictions of the chemical behaviors of all elements numbered about 57 and higher.

eric said:

eric said: Re-locating the actinides as a set of f-shell elements wasn't just chartsmanship, it was a change in 'chemistry theory' that made for more accurate predictions of the chemical behaviors of all elements numbered about 57 and higher.

Aside: yes, we already knew the properties of many lanthanide and 'trans lanthanide' elements - such as gold, platinum, mercury, lead, etc. But the situation was somewhat analogous to how Shubin described human neurological and facial development in Your Inner Fish. Without evolution, you can memorize how all the nerves, muscles, etc. develop and control various things, but it won't make much sense. It'll just be a list, with very little rhyme or reason to it. Its only when you realize that we are adapted fish that the organization falls into place; evolution gives you the why things are the way they are. Same thing here. Chemists knew that (for example) radon behaved like a noble gas before Seaborg re-organized the periodic table. Nobody needed his innovation to tell them what they could observe directly for themselves. But without a lanthanide series, it was really hard to understand why it would be one.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Science is wrong for being dogmatic and for not being dogmatic. Glen Davidson

This is not to say that most chemists are woefully ignorant of their own subjects’ history; I don’t necessarily think they are. But I think the standard method by which we acquire an appreciation of our own subject’s history is self-teaching rather than formal classroom coverage.

davidjensen said: You’re not allowed to question evolutionary beliefs.

So that’s a case study in which the scientists actually made the wrong prediction, and even worked very hard trying to confirm the original faulty hypothesis (which goes against the canonical idea of the disinterested truth seeker).

Evolution is a hypothesized theory, an unexplainable, farfetched idea. The supposed outcome of it - man – was never observed being formed. To expect a thinking person to accept it as factual science is nonsensical. It is a false religion, maneuvered into our captive-audience children in the governmental public schools, against most of our, wishes. Religion is the act of having faith in something. Our children are being duped into having faith in unscientific evolution, under the guise of proven science. I want it removed from the schools. I am appalled, stunned and cannot understand how supposedly thinking people have even bitten on this bait. Some don't realize this is simply a handy tool used to subject our children to the atheistic idea of no God. Intelligent design does not have to be taught in the schools, but evolution should not be taught because it is not a proven fact. A growing number of science professors and teachers, having taught this concept to children, tearfully admit they were duped and anguish over the fact they led so many astray. They are trying desperately to correct the error they taught, to the extent of writing books about it. Bravo for their courage and humility. Children have quite simply been indoctrinated/brainwashed about a false theory/idea from youth onward. Put yourself in the child's place. What vulnerable child could possibly refute this theory while under the dominating teacher's influence? If that child is taught differently at home, the confusion and stress it causes the child is excruciating for him/her to bear, and undermines the rights of the parents to teach their child as they wish. Children lose heart when they grow up thinking they are nothing but evolved animals. Actually, they are intricately woven created human beings. The theory that the evolving man gets better and smarter at each level is an ideal climate for the idea of racism to blossom- one level better than the other. However, the creation of human beings, of man/woman, by God allows no racism. All are created equal- no mention of race or color is made since all are brother and sisters, descended from the original human beings (Acts17:26- NKJV). We need our schools to return to using Classroom time for teaching basics so our children will be employable after finishing high school. Research now shows that sex and drug education encourages promiscuous behavior rather than discourages it, as is certainly evidenced by the downturn of our national teen culture. Including these courses in the public schools, has led us to be the sickest nation of teens/young adults in the world. Promiscuity, minds dominated by sex (not love), young teen single parenthood, abortions, fatherless children, malnourishment, addictions, STDs resulting in sterility, depression, suicide, murders in school, homosexuality, etc., are exhibited damaging effects realized in their pre-adult lives and carried into their adult lives. Before the above nonsense courses were force-fed daily to our captive children, and God and prayer forced out, our nation led the world in teen academics and teen morality, and teens were healthy. Consequently, that led to a vibrantly blessed nation. Observe what we have allowed to shamefully happen to a great percentage of those teens and the sick status of our nation. There is no excuse for us. Get the hurtful courses out and get God back in. We've discouraged and deprived a highly significant percentage of three generations of children who have ended up damaged by evolution/health courses being force fed to them. It doesn't take a lot of brains to connect the dots for a thinking people. The money spent on just these two courses could be used to add productive, decent, courses to educate and turn our children's minds optimistically on their future. And guess what? Their behavior would improve too. Let's fight to remove these classes from the schools now and give back to children the "sweet mystery of life" to discover for themselves at the proper adult times of their lives, and help equip our children with a healthy and high academic future. Let's turn it around.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said:

davidjensen said: You’re not allowed to question evolutionary beliefs.

Then why are you questioning it?

Matt Young said: Literally everyone was wedded to the concept of the ether. We should not fault Michelson, Lorentz, Poincaré for not being Einstein.

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: I don’t know how it goes in biology or chemistry for those who got their training in those areas; but many of the undergraduate and graduate textbooks in physics have pretty good summaries of the historical record. It was from those summaries that I found myself digging into more the detailed histories of ideas.

Its been a while but I'm pretty sure my chemistry grad school coursework was almost completely devoid of historical stuff, and at the undergrad level we didn't spend any significant time on it. Most chemists can probably tell you that Mendeleev invented the first modern periodic table, but they probably can't tell you who developed the current one, when they did it, or what significant change they made from the previous versions.* This is not to say that most chemists are woefully ignorant of their own subjects' history; I don't necessarily think they are. But I think the standard method by which we acquire an appreciation of our own subject's history is self-teaching rather than formal classroom coverage. *For the teacher's edition: Glenn Seaborg; between 1942-1946; he first proposed that the lanthanides and (later) actinides should have their own series, and then he did some of the chemical work to demonstrate that they should.

Its been a while but I’m pretty sure my chemistry grad school coursework was almost completely devoid of historical stuff, and at the undergrad level we didn’t spend any significant time on it.

— eric

Most creationists believe that the theory of evolution was developed out of an ideological commitment to explaining life apart from God.

— David MacMillan

This misconception comes from a lack of understanding of how the scientific community functions.

— David MacMillan

Obviously, the scientific model of evolutionary common descent does not make any claims about morality.

— David MacMillan

Frank J said: If creationists truly believed their creationism (by the evidence, not personal "revelation"), they'd do the same - briefly cover evolution, then spend the rest of the time detailing and supporting their own theory, without any mention of evolution, and reminding students that their theory too, could be replaced is new data warrant. Instead they, from the most Biblical flat-earther, to the IDer who concedes ~4 billion years of common decent, demand the equivalent of a chemistry teacher devoting every chemistry lesson to the weaknesses of phlogiston theory. And even worse, because the "weaknesses" of evolution that they obsess overhave all been repeatedly refuted. And even if they had some merit, would do absolutely nothing to support their own mutually-contradictory "theories."

An alternative narrative that shows how science REALLY works can be found in Simon Winchester's book "The Map That Changed the World". His hero, William "Strata" Smith was an engineer and canal surveyor, who observed the regular arrangement of rock layers in England, as well as the characteristic fossils that they contained. Over the course of years of study and fossil collection, he was able to construct the first geologic map of England, a map that holds up very well with the most modern versions. His reward was to have his map plagarized by lesser "professionally trained" geologists, and debtor's prison. Eventually, he finally received the credit he was due.

In the course of his studieshe accurately listed each type of fossil present in each rock layer, and proved (without any doubt) that the organisms living in the shallow seas in England changed over time. He never proposed a theory of evolution to explain HOW the fossils changed, but he demonstrated the FACT of evolution - that the organisms DID change over time.

Later scientists, including Darwin (and his grandfather, also a theorist about evolution) were left to explain the mechanism. Darwin's "descent with modification" was not (as creationists claim) an attempt to design a world without God. Instead, he was trying to explain, by naturalistic methods why the changes that "Strata" Smith observed had actually occurred.

An alternative narrative that shows how science REALLY works can be found in Simon Winchester's book "The Map That Changed the World". His hero, William "Strata" Smith was an engineer and canal surveyor, who observed the regular arrangement of rock layers in England, as well as the characteristic fossils that they contained. Over the course of years of study and fossil collection, he was able to construct the first geologic map of England, a map that holds up very well with the most modern versions. His reward was to have his map plagarized by lesser "professionally trained" geologists, and debtor's prison. Eventually, he finally received the credit he was due.

In the course of his studieshe accurately listed each type of fossil present in each rock layer, and proved (without any doubt) that the organisms living in the shallow seas in England changed over time. He never proposed a theory of evolution to explain HOW the fossils changed, but he demonstrated the FACT of evolution - that the organisms DID change over time.

Later scientists, including Darwin (and his grandfather, also a theorist about evolution) were left to explain the mechanism. Darwin's "descent with modification" was not (as creationists claim) an attempt to design a world without God. Instead, he was trying to explain, by naturalistic methods why the changes that "Strata" Smith observed had actually occurred.

Frank J said: it is especially ironic that the strongest statement against that belief came from none other than Pope John Paul II, who in 1996 clearly noted that: “… the convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

Mike Clinch said: An alternative narrative that shows how science REALLY works can be found in Simon Winchester's book "The Map That Changed the World". His hero, William "Strata" Smith was an engineer and canal surveyor, who observed the regular arrangement of rock layers in England, as well as the characteristic fossils that they contained. Over the course of years of study and fossil collection, he was able to construct the first geologic map of England, a map that holds up very well with the most modern versions. His reward was to have his map plagarized by lesser "professionally trained" geologists, and debtor's prison. Eventually, he finally received the credit he was due. In the course of his studieshe accurately listed each type of fossil present in each rock layer, and proved (without any doubt) that the organisms living in the shallow seas in England changed over time. He never proposed a theory of evolution to explain HOW the fossils changed, but he demonstrated the FACT of evolution - that the organisms DID change over time. Later scientists, including Darwin (and his grandfather, also a theorist about evolution) were left to explain the mechanism. Darwin's "descent with modification" was not (as creationists claim) an attempt to design a world without God. Instead, he was trying to explain, by naturalistic methods why the changes that "Strata" Smith observed had actually occurred.

prongs said: "Hydrological sorting" is something a grade-school mind might suggest.

prongs said: "Hydrological sorting" is shown false by the stratification of different species of bivalves and gastropods of equivalent "hydrological cross-section" - never mixed, never reversed, always in the same temporal order. "Hydrological sorting" is something a grade-school mind might suggest. It tells you something about those who espouse and believe it.

TomS said:

prongs said: "Hydrological sorting" is shown false by the stratification of different species of bivalves and gastropods of equivalent "hydrological cross-section" - never mixed, never reversed, always in the same temporal order. "Hydrological sorting" is something a grade-school mind might suggest. It tells you something about those who espouse and believe it.

What "hydrological sorting" says to me is that the leaders know that a complex pattern like the geological record can be the result of inanimate forces. It says that they know that their version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong. And it suggests that they know that their followers have a short attention span.

All the major facets of common descent have been challenged numerous times, but they have remained constant within the scientific community for well over a century.

TomS said:

John Harshman said: Creationists do tend to focus on the fossils and ignore all the other evidence for common descent. But I suppose they don't do this any more than the general public, or even much more than the general run of commenters on Panda's Thumb. I think there are two factors at work here: first, fossil evidence is just flashier and easier to understand than the other stuff; second, science literacy in general is in bad shape.

Agreed. And then there is the red herring of creationism. The creationists claim that there is something troublesome about the fossil record. "There aren't (enough) transitional fossils," or "You can't show that any fossil is the ancestor of a modern". One just can't let that lie unchallenged. It would give the wrong impression about the value and size of the fossil record. But I think that a lot of people, even among supporters of evolution, think that fossils are the main support for our knowledge about evolution.

Joe Felsenstein said: I am not aware of any careful discussion by historians of science of how much of the acceptance of common descent in the mid-1800s came from consideration of the fossils, and how much from consideration of the taxonomy. Other lines of evidence, such as biogeography and embryology, were important, but I suspect less central in that acceptance.

I second the recommendation of Simon Winchester's book "The Map That Changed the World". William "Strata" Smith lived from 1769 to 1839. The detailed and very human view of Smith's life and work presented in the book puts the lie to the creationist claim that there was this cabal of scientists trying desperately to remove God from the world, and inventing ridiculous theories to replace Him.

callahanpb said: It also occurred to me recently, that the Catholic church does get very literalist about the line "This is my body." I'm not exactly sure where fundamentalist stand on this. I had believed that most protestants considered the eucharist a symbolic commemoration, but maybe they don't apply this to the first one. I'd be interested in knowing how this is generally viewed.

TomS said: What "hydrological sorting" says to me is that the leaders know that a complex pattern like the geological record can be the result of inanimate forces.

callahanpb said:

TomS said: What "hydrological sorting" says to me is that the leaders know that a complex pattern like the geological record can be the result of inanimate forces.

Creationists have managed to paint themselves into a corner over the years, but for some reason it doesn't bother them. When the misunderstanding of thermodynamics was first proposed as a refutation of evolution, there was also a lot less appreciation for the power of self-organizing systems. I agree (though I'm not sure it is pointed out quite enough) that the "thermodynamic argument" if true would require you to reject natural explanations for geological features such as the Giant's Causeway and perhaps believe that it really was constructed by giants, as a causeway. As David pointed out earlier, YECs even realize that they need some better explanation for the diversity of land fauna than the direct, unmodified descendents of Noah's floating menagerie, so they have more need for some form evolution than OECs and omphalists do. A fairly competent science would have recognized both of these points as show stoppers a long time ago, and dismissed the "thermodynamic" refutation as clearly false. But as they say in the big top^H^H^Htent of creationism, "The show must go on."

TomS said:

Joe Felsenstein said: I am not aware of any careful discussion by historians of science of how much of the acceptance of common descent in the mid-1800s came from consideration of the fossils, and how much from consideration of the taxonomy. Other lines of evidence, such as biogeography and embryology, were important, but I suspect less central in that acceptance.

I suspect that biogeography was extremely important, given the prominent people working on that, for example, Wallace; and, of course, the observations of the relationships of Darwin's finches to continental birds. There was the puzzle how similar climates had different life, if everything was created in its proper place.

Most creationists believe that the theory of evolution was developed out of an ideological commitment to explaining life apart from God.

mattdance18 said:

Evolution doesn't rule God out, but qua natural science, it doesn't rule God in, either. And that's what sticks in the craw of creationists.

TomS said: There are a couple of places where it is suggested not to use certain arguments. They could have included any mention of thermodynamics "unless you are prepared to deal with technical discussions".

mattdance18 said:

mattdance18 said:

Evolution doesn't rule God out, but qua natural science, it doesn't rule God in, either. And that's what sticks in the craw of creationists.

I should add -- and I'd be curious to see what David thinks of this -- that for this reason, creationism frequently strikes me as outright religious bigotry. When Ken Ham waves his Bible around at the podium, for example, he isn't just saying that atheists or the irreligious can't do good science: he's saying that Muslims and Hindus can't do good science. Christianity and Christianity alone (according to his pseudo-literalist interpretation of it, of course) can provide a proper scientific understanding of the world. The battle against creationism really is just one front in a larger battle against theocracy.

mattdance18 said:

TomS said:

Joe Felsenstein said: I am not aware of any careful discussion by historians of science of how much of the acceptance of common descent in the mid-1800s came from consideration of the fossils, and how much from consideration of the taxonomy. Other lines of evidence, such as biogeography and embryology, were important, but I suspect less central in that acceptance.

I suspect that biogeography was extremely important, given the prominent people working on that, for example, Wallace; and, of course, the observations of the relationships of Darwin's finches to continental birds. There was the puzzle how similar climates had different life, if everything was created in its proper place.

For if there is one topic that YECs just never but never address, it is biogeography. The distributions of both current and fossil organisms have exactly zero possibility of explanation in terms of an expansion from Mt. Ararat. Seriously, ask them to explain how it is that there hasn't been a single fossil kangaroo found between Ararat and Australia. Or how polar bears wound up exclusively in the Arctic while penguins, whom any bear would presumably find delicious, wound up in the Antarctic (or the cold currents of the southern hemisphere, anyway).

mattdance18 said:

mattdance18 said:

Evolution doesn't rule God out, but qua natural science, it doesn't rule God in, either. And that's what sticks in the craw of creationists.

I should add -- and I'd be curious to see what David thinks of this -- that for this reason, creationism frequently strikes me as outright religious bigotry. When Ken Ham waves his Bible around at the podium, for example, he isn't just saying that atheists or the irreligious can't do good science: he's saying that Muslims and Hindus can't do good science. Christianity and Christianity alone (according to his pseudo-literalist interpretation of it, of course) can provide a proper scientific understanding of the world.

david.starling.macmillan said: But yeah, biogeography was never addressed in YEC circles. It just wasn't. Why is it that virtually every endemic species has fossils only in the region it is endemic to? That's a question which, properly understood, cannot really be addressed by YEC logic.

TomS said: To be more generous, a serious proposal would have recognized these as difficulties, and openly acknowledged them. Science recognizes difficulties (think of quantum vs. relativity). Thermodynamics isn't easy, so it is understandable that an amateur would not recognized a technical problem. But these are simple, so once it was pointed out, it is hard to sympathize with their failure to deal with them. There are a couple of places where it is suggested not to use certain arguments. They could have included any mention of thermodynamics "unless you are prepared to deal with technical discussions".

TomS said: Thermodynamics isn't easy, so it is understandable that an amateur would not recognized a technical problem.

callahanpb said:

TomS said: Thermodynamics isn't easy, so it is understandable that an amateur would not recognized a technical problem.

Indeed, it's a very hard field, and my own understanding is poor. On the other hand, the evidence for self-organization in nature is so ubiquitous that it should be a red flag when someone claims to contradict it using advanced math. The main issue is the bait-and-switch between "entropy" in the thermodynamic sense and the common understanding of "disorder" or "lack of complex structure." In fact, the development of complex structures is not only consistent with increasing entropy but often requires it.

Mike Elzinga said:

callahanpb said:

TomS said: Thermodynamics isn't easy, so it is understandable that an amateur would not recognized a technical problem.

Indeed, it's a very hard field, and my own understanding is poor. On the other hand, the evidence for self-organization in nature is so ubiquitous that it should be a red flag when someone claims to contradict it using advanced math. The main issue is the bait-and-switch between "entropy" in the thermodynamic sense and the common understanding of "disorder" or "lack of complex structure." In fact, the development of complex structures is not only consistent with increasing entropy but often requires it.

It’s is basically quite simple at its core. If ENERGY couldn’t spread around in increasing numbers of ENERGY states (increasing entropy), nothing would bind together to form more complex systems of atoms and molecules. Condensing matter REQUIRES the second law of thermodynamics. Without it, no protons, no neutrons, no hydrogen or helium or lithium, no stars, no heavier elements, no solar systems, no planets, no chemistry, and no living organisms. Everybody seems to have heard of inelastic collisions; but many don’t realize that bound systems are the result of inelastic collisions in which energy has to be released and spread around (increasing entropy) in order for things to stick together and stay in those states. At its very foundation, the ID/creationist misconceptions about the second law are due to their thinking that all interactions are perfectly elastic collisions among totally inert objects. They deny this, of course; but their tornado-in-a-junkyard argument along with their attempts to throw coins, Scrabble letters, or marbles together to form complex arrays betray their misconceptions.

I'm not sure it's really ironic.

— callahanpb

Creationists have managed to paint themselves into a corner over the years, but for some reason it doesn’t bother them.

— callahanpb

They deny this, of course; but their tornado-in-a-junkyard argument along with their attempts to throw coins, Scrabble letters, or marbles together to form complex arrays betray their misconceptions.

— Mike Elzinga

TomS said: If you think that explanation is simple, may I be so bold as to suggest that you never debate a creationist. :-)

There's also that the principles of thermodynamics are inferred from the relevant evidence in essentially the same way that the principles of evolution are. So even if they were somehow contrary to each other, there would be no guarantee which one was wrong. (That the principles of thermodynamics are called "laws" is irrelevant; they're still observed patterns in the data, not something that was legislated. )

Or it might be like the way general relativity and quantum mechanics work - in areas that aren't too extreme in some way, they work together.

Also not to mention that the only dispersal of energy that would prevent evolution would be for the sun to run out of fusible nuclei*, and for a yellow dwarf of its size, that takes billions and billions of years (to borrow a phrase).

*Or accumulate too many of those nuclei for which fusion produces energy faster than hydrogen fusion does. (At least I think that's what eventually leads to the red giant phase. )

Henry

My apologies for my snarky comment.

Henry J said: There's also that the principles of thermodynamics are inferred from the relevant evidence in essentially the same way that the principles of evolution are. So even if they were somehow contrary to each other, there would be no guarantee which one was wrong. (That the principles of thermodynamics are called "laws" is irrelevant; they're still observed patterns in the data, not something that was legislated. ) Or it might be like the way general relativity and quantum mechanics work - in areas that aren't too extreme in some way, they work together. Also not to mention that the only dispersal of energy that would prevent evolution would be for the sun to run out of fusible nuclei*, and for a yellow dwarf of its size, that takes billions and billions of years (to borrow a phrase). *Or accumulate too many of those nuclei for which fusion produces energy faster than hydrogen fusion does. (At least I think that's what eventually leads to the red giant phase. ) Henry

Henry J said: There's also that the principles of thermodynamics are inferred from the relevant evidence in essentially the same way that the principles of evolution are. So even if they were somehow contrary to each other, there would be no guarantee which one was wrong. (That the principles of thermodynamics are called "laws" is irrelevant; they're still observed patterns in the data, not something that was legislated. )

There is another reason one should not have any prolonged engagement with ID/creationists. Those that do – e.g., those who have spent years arguing with the denizens of UD – often develop habits of thinking and arguing that are very similar to those of the ID/creationists... Note that Frank J has similar perceptions from his experience.

— Mike Elzinga

Mike Elzinga said: The “thermodynamic argument” against evolution is one of the earlier arguments that apparently had biology teachers on the ropes. Duane Gish loved that “argument;” and he used it often, even though physicists had repeatedly corrected both Morris and Gish.

Eric Finn said:

Henry J said: There's also that the principles of thermodynamics are inferred from the relevant evidence in essentially the same way that the principles of evolution are. So even if they were somehow contrary to each other, there would be no guarantee which one was wrong. (That the principles of thermodynamics are called "laws" is irrelevant; they're still observed patterns in the data, not something that was legislated. )

I have read somewhere (sorry, couldn’t find the source) that the development in mathematics during the 19th century made scientists aware that natural sciences can never prove anything in the way mathematics can. It is possible to prove that 5th order polynomial equations do not have a general solution (Galois), but we can not expect similar accuracy from natural sciences. This is (according to the missing source) the reason, why the naming convention changed from law to theory. We have the Ohm’s law on one hand, but the theory of relativity on the other – and the theory of evolution. Part of the trick is that mathematics creates first its own universes and then studies how they behave, knowing fully the compositions of those universes, while natural sciences start from the observable universe and try to figure out how it behaves, based on the observations only. The naming convention was not changed retroactively. Moreover, a law states merely a pattern, while a theory usually presents also suggestions for mechanisms, which make the observable things look like they are found to look like.

Eric Finn said: I have read somewhere (sorry, couldn’t find the source) that the development in mathematics during the 19th century made scientists aware that natural sciences can never prove anything in the way mathematics can. It is possible to prove that 5th order polynomial equations do not have a general solution (Galois), but we can not expect similar accuracy from natural sciences.

Part of the trick is that mathematics creates first its own universes and then studies how they behave, knowing fully the compositions of those universes, while natural sciences start from the observable universe and try to figure out how it behaves, based on the observations only.

mattdance18 said:

Mike Elzinga said: The “thermodynamic argument” against evolution is one of the earlier arguments that apparently had biology teachers on the ropes. Duane Gish loved that “argument;” and he used it often, even though physicists had repeatedly corrected both Morris and Gish.

...which only goes to show that Duane Gish was an incorrigible and unrepentant LIAR. I grant you, this doesn't differentiate him from other popular leaders among creationists.

mattdance18 said:

Mike Elzinga said: The “thermodynamic argument” against evolution is one of the earlier arguments that apparently had biology teachers on the ropes. Duane Gish loved that “argument;” and he used it often, even though physicists had repeatedly corrected both Morris and Gish.

...which only goes to show that Duane Gish was an incorrigible and unrepentant LIAR. I grant you, this doesn't differentiate him from other popular leaders among creationists.

oops, sorry for the double post.

A biology professor and writer for BSCS who debated Gish in the 70s told me that he asked Gish why he kept using the 2nd Law argument when Gish knew it wasn't true. Gish was reported to have replied, "Because it works." Straight up apologetics - that's why.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: A biology professor and writer for BSCS who debated Gish in the 70s told me that he asked Gish why he kept using the 2nd Law argument when Gish knew it wasn't true. Gish was reported to have replied, "Because it works." Straight up apologetics - that's why.

Such assertions are not only baseless, but unnecessary, because there are options between the extremes. Option 3 is that a particular creationist believes his origins story is true, but not that the evidence supports it (not yet at least). Option 4 is that does not personally believe it on faith or evidence. But in both cases he genuinely fears that society will collapse if the “masses” accept evolution, and optionally if the “masses” don’t accept his particular interpretation of Genesis. Which makes their “lies” no worse than a parent telling a child a fairy tale.

Rolf said: Frank J wrote:

Such assertions are not only baseless, but unnecessary, because there are options between the extremes. Option 3 is that a particular creationist believes his origins story is true, but not that the evidence supports it (not yet at least). Option 4 is that does not personally believe it on faith or evidence. But in both cases he genuinely fears that society will collapse if the “masses” accept evolution, and optionally if the “masses” don’t accept his particular interpretation of Genesis. Which makes their “lies” no worse than a parent telling a child a fairy tale.

What I see is societies all around the world collapsing; societies where I presume evolution is the least of whatever worries those peoples may have. May I suggest they are themselves their own worst enemy?

Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.

Frank J said: While writing the last comment, I thought of this quote, which could have been written today, or ~40 years ago when I first read it:

Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.

It was written by Socrates, over 2400 years ago.

Ecclesiastes chapter 7 10 Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this.

2 Peter chapter 3 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Frank J said:

mattdance18 said:

Mike Elzinga said: The “thermodynamic argument” against evolution is one of the earlier arguments that apparently had biology teachers on the ropes. Duane Gish loved that “argument;” and he used it often, even though physicists had repeatedly corrected both Morris and Gish.

...which only goes to show that Duane Gish was an incorrigible and unrepentant LIAR. I grant you, this doesn't differentiate him from other popular leaders among creationists.

You may be 100% correct, but I must keep nagging that the only way to know for sure is to read minds, which is impossible. Yet for some reason, what I hear from my side 99+% of the time is either that creationists/IDers lie (Option 1) or that "they really honestly do believe every word they say" (Option 2). Ironically that's another case where, as Mike Elzinga noted above, fellow "Darwinists" "often develop habits of thinking and arguing that are very similar to those of the ID/creationists." Such assertions are not only baseless, but unnecessary, because there are options between the extremes. Option 3 is that a particular creationist believes his origins story is true, but not that the evidence supports it (not yet at least). Option 4 is that does not personally believe it on faith or evidence. But in both cases he genuinely fears that society will collapse if the "masses" accept evolution, and optionally if the "masses" don't accept his particular interpretation of Genesis. Which makes their "lies" no worse than a parent telling a child a fairy tale. Again we can never know for sure, but I suspect Option 2 applies to most rank-and-file evolution-deniers, whereas for the professionals, Option 3 applies to most of the Biblical YECs and OECs, and Option 4 to most IDers.

Frank J said: You may be 100% correct, but I must keep nagging that the only way to know for sure is to read minds, which is impossible.

Frank J said:

mattdance18 said: ...which only goes to show that Duane Gish was an incorrigible and unrepentant LIAR. I grant you, this doesn't differentiate him from other popular leaders among creationists.

You may be 100% correct, but I must keep nagging that the only way to know for sure is to read minds, which is impossible.

Such assertions are not only baseless, but unnecessary...

One can find out quite a lot about the mindset of creationists by looking at the restrictions they place on their opponents. For example, look at Walter T. Brown’s version of a debate contract.

Typing “Walter T. Brown” into a Google search brings up links to commentaries on how Brown tries to tie the hands of his opponents. Much of what is in Brown’s contract is similar to the restrictions all creationists try to place on anyone who would debate them.

Bill Nye had to sign a contract with Ken Ham; and since the debate, Ham has been using Bill Nye’s name and public profile to enhance the image of Ham himself and his organization.

ID/creationists aren’t the only pseudo scientists clawing for a ride on the back of a legitimate scientist; other crackpots try this ploy also.

The main difference between the average crackpot and the ID/creationists is that the ID/creationists have organized themselves into a well-funded socio/political organization with fulltime paid employees and lawyers sitting in offices concocting strategies and tactics for using grass roots political methods to get themselves heard.

The average crackpot doesn’t have that kind of money and time; although some of them - for example, Joseph Newman - will sell franchises to the gullible in order to make money. I once met some crackpots who had some association with Newman.

Like all crackpots of this nature, they were quite persistent and aggressive in trying to get a scientist to endorse them and/or otherwise enhance their credibility; and ID/creationists certainly have this characteristic in common with all such crackpots.

I messed up the link to Walter T. Brown’s contract.

Here is Walter T. Brown’s version of a debate contract.

Frank J said: While writing the last comment, I thought of this quote, which could have been written today, or ~40 years ago when I first read it:

Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.

It was written by Socrates, over 2400 years ago.

I don’t think that the only way to know that someone is a liar is to read his mind.

Part of the trick is that mathematics creates first its own universes and then studies how they behave, knowing fully the compositions of those universes, while natural sciences start from the observable universe and try to figure out how it behaves, based on the observations only.

mattdance18 said: But historically, I’m not sure this is true. Part of what led Pythagoras to his understanding of mathematics was consideration of the relation between the lengths of strings on a lyre and their respective tones. So he didn’t conceive of himself as creating a formal universe. He thought he was describing the universe itself. And many later Platonists or rationalists would think similarly.

Yardbird said: When scientifically minded people point to the incomplete and conditional nature of scientific explanations, the religiously rigid do not see it as a part of a reasonable discussion about the nature of truth. They take it for a sign of a lack of zeal and deficient faith and, "THEY WIN!", because the argument isn't really about the nature of truth, it's about the depth of conviction. And the depth of conviction isn't really about developing a connection with the divine, it's about the impulse for power, the need for stature, and the desire to dominate others.

Mike Elzinga said:

Yardbird said: When scientifically minded people point to the incomplete and conditional nature of scientific explanations, the religiously rigid do not see it as a part of a reasonable discussion about the nature of truth. They take it for a sign of a lack of zeal and deficient faith and, "THEY WIN!", because the argument isn't really about the nature of truth, it's about the depth of conviction. And the depth of conviction isn't really about developing a connection with the divine, it's about the impulse for power, the need for stature, and the desire to dominate others.

Yet the ID/creationists want their sectarian dogma to have the imprimatur of science. Ken Ham has said repeatedly that they love science; but science must be done assuming a literal reading of Genesis. Of course, that means that what they call “science” has no purchase in the real world – although they argue that it does in the form of “operational science” (i.e., technology). That doesn’t sound like faith; it sounds more like Ham and the rest of the ID/creationists are essentially asserting, “Our dogma trumps all other “compromised” dogmas because we have the proper science on our side.” They are using pseudoscience to prop up sectarian dogma; and why would they do this if they had faith? Their rationalizations sound more like a marketing scheme motivated by the desire to tap into lucrative sectarian markets. Ham is an entrepreneur; and he got some of his training at the ICR. The rest of ID/creationism is a socio/political spin-off of the earlier “Scientific” Creationism designed to get their religion past the courts. People like Freshwater are still trying to get Edwards vs. Aguillard overturned by the Supreme Court. So I don’t think that any of this is about faith; it’s part of a long-standing battle over the politics of who gets to rule.

Mike Elzinga said:

Yardbird said: When scientifically minded people point to the incomplete and conditional nature of scientific explanations, the religiously rigid do not see it as a part of a reasonable discussion about the nature of truth. They take it for a sign of a lack of zeal and deficient faith and, "THEY WIN!", because the argument isn't really about the nature of truth, it's about the depth of conviction. And the depth of conviction isn't really about developing a connection with the divine, it's about the impulse for power, the need for stature, and the desire to dominate others.

Yet the ID/creationists want their sectarian dogma to have the imprimatur of science. Ken Ham has said repeatedly that they love science; but science must be done assuming a literal reading of Genesis. Of course, that means that what they call “science” has no purchase in the real world – although they argue that it does in the form of “operational science” (i.e., technology). That doesn’t sound like faith; it sounds more like Ham and the rest of the ID/creationists are essentially asserting, “Our dogma trumps all other “compromised” dogmas because we have the proper science on our side.” They are using pseudoscience to prop up sectarian dogma; and why would they do this if they had faith? Their rationalizations sound more like a marketing scheme motivated by the desire to tap into lucrative sectarian markets. Ham is an entrepreneur; and he got some of his training at the ICR. The rest of ID/creationism is a socio/political spin-off of the earlier “Scientific” Creationism designed to get their religion past the courts. People like Freshwater are still trying to get Edwards vs. Aguillard overturned by the Supreme Court. So I don’t think that any of this is about faith; it’s part of a long-standing battle over the politics of who gets to rule.

Yardbird said: The recent decisions by the SCOTUS in favor of the rights of the few over the rights of the many are the result of 80 years of hard work, investment, and political organizing by those who have benefited. The demographics might be against their interests, but it's still going to take more hard work, money, and organizing to reverse course. I am heartened by the speed at which things can change, say the fall of the Soviet Union, but cautious about the aftermath of such change, say Putin's Russia. The forces of moderation may look to regression to the mean for help but it's not going to happen overnight.

Scott F said: ... up until ObamaCare came along ...

harold said:

I don’t think that the only way to know that someone is a liar is to read his mind.

It depends on what you mean by "liar". If you mean someone consciously deceptive, like a child who knows that he got into the cookie jar but denies it, then you'd have to read a creationist's mind, or catch them admitting that they don't really believe it, to fully demonstrate that. If you mean someone who persistently repeats things that a reasonable person would understand are untrue, then creationists are all liars.

When considering the issue of honesty among creationists, it might be helpful to have recourse to a distinction made by the important Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt. I apologize if the language is coarse, but on the one hand, it's the terminology actually used by Frankfurt, and on the other, it doesn't seem like a terminology he made up: rather, it reflects how we actually use language.

The distinction he makes is between "lie" and "bullshit." You can read it in his wonderful little essay, which is sometimes amusing but also carefully analytic, "On Bullshit."

The distinction works like this. When someone utters a lie, she knows that what she's saying is false. She utters it in order deliberately to disguise the truth for her own benefit. It is part of the nature of a lie that the liar must know the truth. Bullshit is something different. Bullshit doesn't have to be false, nor does the utterer even need to believe that it is false. You can bullshit even if you believe that what you're saying is true, and even if it is. The point with bullshit is this: the bullshitter doesn't know whether it is true, and she doesn't care to find out one way or the other -- but she says it anyway, because the bullshit statement is, in its pragmatic context, rhetorically useful.

So that's the difference: A lie is a statement that is made despite the speaker knowing that it is false. Bullshit is a statement made without the speaker having any real concern for its truth or falsity.

Do note that whatever else we can say about, bullshit certainly isn't a form of honesty. Honesty requires one to commit to standards of truth, to acknowledge one's veridical inadequacies, and to correct those inadequacies. This may be no big deal at times. Depending on the pragmatic context and the rhetorical purpose to which it is set, a bullshit statement may be relatively harmless. When having a beer at a pub with friends, for example, there are innumerable ways to bullshit over topics from sports to politics. It's all in good fun, and really, who cares? It's just blowing off steam.

There are contexts and purposes, however, which can render bullshit very harmful indeed. This is particularly the case in scenarios where the guiding norm around which a discussion should be structured is not, for example, "what will be fun" (as over a friendly drink) but "what is true" (as in an ostensible debate). Under these circumstances, bullshit can be corrosive. Accuracy is replaced with strategy, and someone who resorts to bullshit repeatedly degrades her ability to discern the truth. Having no serious concern for it in the first place, she loses the ability to recognize it even when she's found it.

The point goes well beyond creationism. Politics employs bullshit constantly (and it's certainly not limited to one side of the aisle). Businesses use it in their PR. Even many "news" outlets use it as a matter of course.

But it is certainly the case that creationist leaders use it. They may actually "believe their own bullshit." But they don't care to actually hold themselves to rigorous standards of evidence and reasoning. They don't fix their errors even after those errors have been pointed out. They even offer presuppositionalist excuses for why they shouldn't be required to try. Classic bullshit.

So maybe creationists leaders are not liars after all, as I had claimed. Insofar as they exhibit no concern for the truth or falsity of their statements, however, they are bullshitters. I doubt they'd consider that more flattering. For I certainly don't consider it more honest.

Again, apologies if the language offends against decent manners, or simply against good taste. But I think this is an important distinction.

"take back America" in 2008?

callahanpb said:

"take back America" in 2008?

Indeed, every time I read that, I wonder take it back from whom exactly. Most likely from me, my friends, and of course "those other folks." So, no, you can't have it back. Go find another country where they still put up with whatever kind of bigotry you're trying to sell me.

mattdance18 said: ... Again, apologies if the language offends against decent manners, or simply against good taste. But I think this is an important distinction.

Just Bob said:

callahanpb said:

"take back America" in 2008?

Indeed, every time I read that, I wonder take it back from whom exactly. Most likely from me, my friends, and of course "those other folks." So, no, you can't have it back. Go find another country where they still put up with whatever kind of bigotry you're trying to sell me.

It means take it back from the majority who democratically elected a ni black man. Using "Second Amendment remedies," when people like us are no longer the majority.

Bill Maher has a solution to help speed up the revolution.

"This video has been removed by the user."

gnome de net said: "This video has been removed by the user."

Mattdance18 -

What I am saying is virtually the same as what Harry Frankfurt said.

'But it is certainly the case that creationist leaders use it. They may actually “believe their own bullshit.” But they don’t care to actually hold themselves to rigorous standards of evidence and reasoning. They don’t fix their errors even after those errors have been pointed out. They even offer presuppositionalist excuses for why they shouldn’t be required to try. Classic bullshit.'

But what drives their harmful bullsht?

If we model them wrong we can't predict them accurately.

The model that helps me to predict them, is that their direct conscious view of reality is massively distorted by self-serving bias.

They are in the throes of denial and use the same psychological techniques as, say, smokers denying that cigarettes can be harmful.

Google "Morton's demon".

Some people may simply be more prone to this type of behavior than others,for environmental or genetic reasons. Some people are very skilled at deluding themselves. I believe Morton himself is still a wingnut and may be a climate denialist (correction welcome if I am wrong).

Model creationists this way and you will be able to predict their behavior. Their self-image is entirely invested in a a rigid ideology. Under that ideology they are suprior to others and deserve special privileges. Emotionally, they cannot bear for this ideology to be wrong. Evolution denial is far from the only component of this ideology, but it is a DEFINING component for them. Anything that denies or even doubts evolution is precious hope that the ideology they cling to is above doubt. Any concession that the theory of evolution is accurate calls their guiding ideology, and self-image, into question.

The overlap with the authoritarian arm of Fox/Limbaugh/Tea Party political ideology is near 100%. Not quite but near. Essentially all "movement" creationists are part of that political group, and almost all members of that ideological group - almost all - will pander to science denial. Some will pander with "science 'could' be accurate" or "jury is still out" statements. Some science supporters sometimes fail to recognize thiis weaselly pandering.

I recognized this a few weeks after discovering organized evolution denial and I have been able to predict creationist behavior quite decently ever since.

I have to say that this is one of the most useful discussions we've had on PT. I especially appreciate the remarks on modeling creationist behavior.

gnome de net said: "This video has been removed by the user."

Yardbird said: In any case, while mathematics was once assumed to have infinite, if undiscovered, capacity for explanation, Goedel's theorems challenge that assumption. His ideas and quantum mechanics have softened up the hard sciences. My understanding is that at one time science was also seen as absolute, if incomplete. I think this is still a common view, particularly among the uninformed and willfully ignorant. Historically, some people, including some scientists, saw this certainty as equivalent to the absolutes of religion. (FL seems to share this view. ) Some of those people have adopted science as an object of faith. For me, however, Goedel's theorems, the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity, the questions raised by the recent discoveries about dark matter/energy, make faith in science untenable.

eric said: What makes [one] think that the QM/GR issue is any more unsolvable than the NM/Mercury orbit issue? It took us 230 years to solve the latter. Zeno's paradoxes were not solved for about 2,200 years! (From about 400 BC until calculus came along.) In contrast, we've been working on the GR/QM and dark matter problems for less than 100 years, and the dark energy issue less than 30. I know that sometimes science seems almost magical in its ability to answer difficult questions, but in reality there's a lot of blood, sweat, and tears that go into getting the answers, lots of false starts, and often lots of time required. Its not like the movies; the anti-virus isn't created in a day. If it takes another hundred years before we marry up QM and GR, well, that would suck for us alive today but IMO historically it wouldn't be all that unexpected.

phhht said: I chuckle when evolution deniers gleefully point out that we cannot yet create life.

callahanpb said: I chuckle whenever I think about how much ground they've conceded already, seemingly without even noticing.

eric said: Creationists' current acceptance of DNA as the common basis of life...

For me, however, Goedel’s theorems, the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity, the questions raised by the recent discoveries about dark matter/energy, make faith in science untenable.

Henry J said: Ah, but the existence of unanswered questions doesn't by itself invalidate the answers that are already in place.

Henry J said:

For me, however, Goedel’s theorems, the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity, the questions raised by the recent discoveries about dark matter/energy, make faith in science untenable.

Ah, but the existence of unanswered questions doesn't by itself invalidate the answers that are already in place. The only time existence of an unanswered question Q might invalidate some other answer A is if it can be shown (by a line of reasoning) that the A logically and directly implies that Q should have also already been answered.

Yardbird said: I said that in light of these unanswered questions, which may or may not ever be answered, science as a focus for FAITH, isn't tenable.

eric said:

Henry J said:

For me, however, Goedel’s theorems, the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity, the questions raised by the recent discoveries about dark matter/energy, make faith in science untenable.

Ah, but the existence of unanswered questions doesn't by itself invalidate the answers that are already in place. The only time existence of an unanswered question Q might invalidate some other answer A is if it can be shown (by a line of reasoning) that the A logically and directly implies that Q should have also already been answered.

Going back to Godel, if we unify all of physics and if that leads to a set of arithmetical axioms {let's call the set [A]), then (and only then) we could make the following statements about physics: 1. If [A] is fully internally consistent, there will be some physics claims that will be true but formally unprovable. 1a. Else, [A] is not fully consistent, meaning that different combinations of axioms occasonally lead to contradictory predictions. 2. [A] should not contain an axiom saying that [A] is fully consistent. But if it does, then [A] is not fully consistent. Here's my analysis for why Godel's limits don't really matter for science. Because most scientists wouldn't be satisfied with a system of physics axioms that yields statement #1a (the laws discovered by science will occasionally yield contradictions), scientists will probably drive towards a system that yields #1 - there are some true physics statements that cannot be formally proven. However, science doesn't care about formally proving axioms. Its irrelevant. Have we formally proven relativity? No! We've just collected a lot of evidence that inductively leads us to accept it. Is atomic theory formally proven? QM? Germ theory of disease? Any important theory of physics, chemistry, or biology? No, no, no, and...no. Formal proofs are what mathematicians do. It might be a really nice goal of science to formally prove our claims, but we've done just fine without it so far, and we'll do just fine without it in the future. So Godel's incompleteness theorems provide no practical limitation on scientific knowledge at all - in part because they only apply to a type of system that physics might not be, and in part because scientific knowledge doesn't meet the "formally proved" criteria in the first place, so telling us that some claims of science will never meet that criteria is no loss, no cause for angst.

eric said:

Yardbird said: I said that in light of these unanswered questions, which may or may not ever be answered, science as a focus for FAITH, isn't tenable.

Maybe some clarification is in order, since you seem to have tweaked my and Henry's buttons. Can you tell me where you think a reasonable confidence in science ends and 'faith' in science begins? What's the distinction you are trying to draw here? What statement of belief about science would you see as going too far, being unjustifiably too faithy?

Yardbird said: I was relating specifically to the change in public attitudes I experienced in my lifetime. In the US in the 50's, most people had the opinion that this thing called science was "good". It had Answers. It helped defeat the Axis. Pesticides increased food production and reduced disease. Nuclear power would make energy cheap and abundant. A few decades later, the same idea of science was increasingly seen as "bad". Nuclear weapons were immoral. Pesticides killed birds. Nuclear power would bankrupt the country if it didn't kill us all first. Both positions/statements were and are faithy. So what was it I actually said that got up your nose? The response seemed a little strong.

For me, however, Goedel’s theorems, the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity, the questions raised by the recent discoveries about dark matter/energy, make faith in science untenable.

eric said:

Yardbird said: I was relating specifically to the change in public attitudes I experienced in my lifetime. In the US in the 50's, most people had the opinion that this thing called science was "good". It had Answers. It helped defeat the Axis. Pesticides increased food production and reduced disease. Nuclear power would make energy cheap and abundant. A few decades later, the same idea of science was increasingly seen as "bad". Nuclear weapons were immoral. Pesticides killed birds. Nuclear power would bankrupt the country if it didn't kill us all first. Both positions/statements were and are faithy. So what was it I actually said that got up your nose? The response seemed a little strong.

Ah, I got it. Yes, I'd agree that people often have unrealistic expectations of how science will make their lives better or worse; their belief in the social impact of science may be irrational or unreasonable, based on faith or prior biases for/against science. However, I read your statement

For me, however, Goedel’s theorems, the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity, the questions raised by the recent discoveries about dark matter/energy, make faith in science untenable.

as saying you don't have much confidence that science will be able to answer current cutting-edge questions about how the universe works. Really, your sentence above does not give any indication you're talking about nuclear reactors living up to expectations or GM crops or other social impacts of science. I've never heard anyone bring up Godel's theorems to say that they've (example only) become pessimistic over the likelihood of a room temperature supeconductor - Godel is always brought up by folks who want to make a philosophy-of-science comment about the limits of science to explain phenomena, to produce knowledge. He's not brought up to make comments about the likelihood of solar powered cars or whatever. So, I naturally took your comment to be skepticism or pessimism towards future knowledge production, not future technology production or technology "goodness." My apologies if I interpreted you wrong, but in defense of my own comments, I really don't see the message of your last comment in your first comment.

harold said: If we model them wrong we can't predict them accurately. The model that helps me to predict them, is that their direct conscious view of reality is massively distorted by self-serving bias. ... Some people may simply be more prone to this type of behavior than others,for environmental or genetic reasons. Some people are very skilled at deluding themselves. I believe Morton himself is still a wingnut and may be a climate denialist (correction welcome if I am wrong). ... I recognized this a few weeks after discovering organized evolution denial and I have been able to predict creationist behavior quite decently ever since.

phhht said:

eric said: What makes [one] think that the QM/GR issue is any more unsolvable than the NM/Mercury orbit issue? It took us 230 years to solve the latter. Zeno's paradoxes were not solved for about 2,200 years! (From about 400 BC until calculus came along.) In contrast, we've been working on the GR/QM and dark matter problems for less than 100 years, and the dark energy issue less than 30. I know that sometimes science seems almost magical in its ability to answer difficult questions, but in reality there's a lot of blood, sweat, and tears that go into getting the answers, lots of false starts, and often lots of time required. Its not like the movies; the anti-virus isn't created in a day. If it takes another hundred years before we marry up QM and GR, well, that would suck for us alive today but IMO historically it wouldn't be all that unexpected.

Indeed. I chuckle when evolution deniers gleefully point out that we cannot yet create life. After all, DNA was only discovered in 1869, and it's only been sixty years since the formulation of the Watson-Crick model. We're dancing as fast as we can!

phhht said: I chuckle when evolution deniers gleefully point out that we cannot yet create life. After all, DNA was only discovered in 1869, and it's only been sixty years since the formulation of the Watson-Crick model. We're dancing as fast as we can!

TomS said: Moreover, it is strange that the observation that: there has been no production of life involving design is taken as a reason to think that: life arose by design As if the observation that no one has run the mile in one minute were taken as evidence that the only way to travel a mile-a-minute is by running.

AltairIV said:

TomS said: Moreover, it is strange that the observation that: there has been no production of life involving design is taken as a reason to think that: life arose by design As if the observation that no one has run the mile in one minute were taken as evidence that the only way to travel a mile-a-minute is by running.

Ah, come on. It's easy. Just use creationist ninjitsu. 1) Scientists fail to design and create life = life is so complex that it couldn't have come about naturally either. The possibility of existence of a supernatural designer is supported. 2) Scientists do design and create life = life can be designed, so design is a reasonable explanation for all life. The possibility of existence of a supernatural designer is supported.