Science is not about certainty

Posted 14 September 2014 by Matt Young

That is the title of an interesting article in The New Republic by the theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli. I read it mostly because it had been quote-mined by Elizabeth Mitchell here. Professor Rovelli's article was perhaps a bit windy, and I could take issue with some of his discussion, but it was not all that hard to understand. One of his main points is that science has been extremely successful and any new theory will have to reduce to existing theory in the appropriate limit:

[W]hat we've learned in the past is our main ingredient—especially the negative things we've learned. If we've learned that the Earth is not flat, there will be no theory in the future in which the Earth is flat. If we have learned that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, that's forever. We're not going to go back on this. If you've learned that simultaneity is relative, with Einstein, we're not going back to absolute simultaneity, like many people think.

In other words, creationism and other crackpot theories are wrong because they deny "what we've learned the past" and do not subsume existing, highly successful theories. Dr. Mitchell, who is not overly cautious about getting her quotations exactly right, comes away with

[...] the deepest misunderstanding about science [...] is the idea that science is about certainty. Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it's not certain.

Professor Rovelli goes on to say,

Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure but because they're the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they're the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody's criticism.

He nevertheless evidently fails to understand the unsupported assertion that

[t]he Bible is the revelation of our Creator God to mankind. The eternal God of the Bible, our Creator, was the eyewitness to all of history. Nothing that He has told us in His Word contradicts the information, the data, gathered by experimental science.

I can only conclude that, in Dr. Mitchell's eyes, empirical science is uncertain, whereas a preconceived religious belief cannot be doubted.

63 Comments

Henry J · 14 September 2014

Science is not about certainty

Yeah, just ask that Werner Heisenberg guy. He made uncertainty one of his principles!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 14 September 2014

Henry J said:
Science is not about certainty
Yeah, just ask that Werner Heisenberg guy. He made uncertainty one of his principles!

Yes, he was quite certain about that. Glen Davidson

Just Bob · 14 September 2014

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
Henry J said:
Science is not about certainty
Yeah, just ask that Werner Heisenberg guy. He made uncertainty one of his principles!
Yes, he was quite certain about that. Glen Davidson

But how can we be certain that he was certain that there's uncertainty? I'm not certain that we can be certain that he was certain.

kai.extern · 14 September 2014

Science is about finding out stuff we cannot be certain of. There cannot be proof, even in principle, just evidence.

Math is about finding out stuff we can be certain of. There can be proof, and often enough there is. Or at the very least, there's proof why there can't be proof in specific cases.

Religion is about ... um ... ah ... not finding out. And there's evidence and proof that works just fine, so long as you already believe. Otherwise, it turns out it doesn't work at all.

TomS · 14 September 2014

Does Mitchell accept the plain meaning of the Biblical statements about the Sun going around a fixed Earth. Or does she allow the fallible opinion of science to direct her interpretation of what the Bible says?

Mike Elzinga · 14 September 2014

Nothing that He has told us in His Word contradicts the information, the data, gathered by experimental science.

Mitchell is, of course, making another implicit assertion here as well. For Mitchell, "experimental science" is the bent and broken stuff ID/creationists have concocted to fit their sectarian dogma. Her goal here is to convince the followers of AiG to believe that the AiG staff does real science when in fact they always hijack and mangle what others in the real science community have discovered and accomplished. The rest of that paragraph makes this fairly clear:

In fact, it was faith that our Creator was wise, logical, and consistent that motivated many Bible-believing scientists like Isaac Newton to search for the laws of science, or the laws of nature, that God created to govern the universe He had made.

Yeah, sure; do we count only Bible-believing Christians who did science? Newton would approve of AiG? Was Newton an AiG-like fundamentalist? I don't think so. There is nothing in this assertion that portrays the much more nuanced history of scientific discovery in the context of the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment, and the emergence of Western civilization from the medieval world. A lot more happened after Newton. What about all those Bible-non-believing scientists who have made significant contributions? Apparently they don't exist or count for anything in Mitchell's world.

fnxtr · 14 September 2014

Ya but she was okay in "Lost".

Peter Moritz · 14 September 2014

"Therefore, the only worldview that can reliably guide scientists to conclusions about our origin and nature that are actually true is one that does not violate biblical historyâthe yardstick by which to assess ideas relevant to the unobservable past."

Science of "origins" is only science as long as it conforms with the biblical texts of ?which genesis account. Following this trainwreck of thought there is consequently Hindu Science, Science of the Australian Aboriginals, Science of the North and South American Indians, and any other religion that has its own creation myth (not all religions have).

DS · 14 September 2014

Therefore, the only worldview that can reliably guide scientists to conclusions about our origin and nature that are actually true is one that does not take any notice of biblical history or any other preconception that prevents the scientist from following the evidence.

There, fixed that for you.

You're welcome.

TomS · 14 September 2014

"Unobservable past"

It is not only things about the past which are "unobservable".

I would go so far as to say that the really interesting and important things, the things which we need science for, are things which are "unobservable". Too distant, too small, too fast, too slow, too complicated, or just plain invisible to our unaided senses.

When Newton postulated about the behavior of things far beyond the surface of the Earth, he had no "observation" of gravity working in the heavens, nothing about what forces, momentum, mass, the planets had. Today, elections in semiconductors are "unobservable". Who has any idea of the paths that these messages which we are reading on this blog have taken to reach us?

Robert Byers · 14 September 2014

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

stevaroni · 14 September 2014

Robert Byers said: Prof Rovelli article is a needed correction to evolutionists. the prof stresses error is easily a part of existing 'scientific" conclusions at any one point.

Sigh. Yes, Robert, science is in a sense, always wrong, because science is always tweaking and refining itself. There was the first guy who said "No, the worlds not flat - it's actually got a big curve". And then the next guy said "No, that's not quite right, it's actually a sphere. And then the next guy said "No, that's still not quite right, it's actually a slightly oblate spheroid. And then the next guy said "Yeah, but there's still a little mass distribution you don't have accounted for. And someday soon someone will find yet another tweak to add another .05% accuracy. But the thing is, Robert, though each of these guys is, in a technical sense, wrong each is far less wrong then the previous guy in line. That's because the product is constantly tested and tweaked for a better fit, so it gets less wrong over time. This, of course, is in contrast with your model of Biblical "Science", where, by definition, the product is never tweaked because it is assumed to be perfect. Since it has never changed, it is still exactly as wrong as it was 3000 years when people first wrote it down. Nobody knew, of course, how wrong it was at the time, because there was no "alternate" science, so the two products agree, but now that we've actually measured things, we find that the Bible missed by a mile.

Rolf · 15 September 2014

I suggest Robert Byers wake up before too late:
Save the world

SLC · 15 September 2014

Isaac Newton was an Arian which I suspect that Mitchell would find to be heresy.

Mike Elzinga said:
Nothing that He has told us in His Word contradicts the information, the data, gathered by experimental science.
Mitchell is, of course, making another implicit assertion here as well. For Mitchell, "experimental science" is the bent and broken stuff ID/creationists have concocted to fit their sectarian dogma. Her goal here is to convince the followers of AiG to believe that the AiG staff does real science when in fact they always hijack and mangle what others in the real science community have discovered and accomplished. The rest of that paragraph makes this fairly clear:
In fact, it was faith that our Creator was wise, logical, and consistent that motivated many Bible-believing scientists like Isaac Newton to search for the laws of science, or the laws of nature, that God created to govern the universe He had made.
Yeah, sure; do we count only Bible-believing Christians who did science? Newton would approve of AiG? Was Newton an AiG-like fundamentalist? I don't think so. There is nothing in this assertion that portrays the much more nuanced history of scientific discovery in the context of the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment, and the emergence of Western civilization from the medieval world. A lot more happened after Newton. What about all those Bible-non-believing scientists who have made significant contributions? Apparently they don't exist or count for anything in Mitchell's world.

DS · 15 September 2014

So booby sirs in judgement of all scientists, but he still can't answer one simple question. Maybe he is being CENSORED! Maybe that's why he can't answer the questions. SOmeone is erasing all of his answers.

Or maybe booby is censoring himself. Maybe he is the only one preventing himself from answering the questions. It's CENSORSHIP!

fnxtr · 15 September 2014

Science rides the asymptote to certainty. Revealed wisdom is... well... more like a Spirograph.

ksplawn · 15 September 2014

fnxtr said: Science rides the asymptote to certainty. Revealed wisdom is... well... more like a Spirograph.

I'm going to steal that!

Just Bob · 15 September 2014

stevaroni said: Since [the Bible] has never changed, it is still exactly as wrong as it was 3000 years when people first wrote it down.

In general, yeah, but in a few particulars it HAS been tweaked. Robert and his confreres no longer think the Bible says the world is flat, with a solid dome of sky. And of course it never meant that the Earth was circled by the Sun and everything else. And all those thoughts, hopes, emotions -- your mind -- was never literally in your bowels or heart: that was all figurative language. When the Bible never mentions your brain or head, it always means your brain or head. And of course Jesus really does want you to be rich. They just won't own up to the few tweaks that have crept in. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

TomS · 15 September 2014

Just Bob said:
stevaroni said: Since [the Bible] has never changed, it is still exactly as wrong as it was 3000 years when people first wrote it down.
In general, yeah, but in a few particulars it HAS been tweaked. Robert and his confreres no longer think the Bible says the world is flat, with a solid dome of sky. And of course it never meant that the Earth was circled by the Sun and everything else. And all those thoughts, hopes, emotions -- your mind -- was never literally in your bowels or heart: that was all figurative language. When the Bible never mentions your brain or head, it always means your brain or head. And of course Jesus really does want you to be rich. They just won't own up to the few tweaks that have crept in. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

And when the Bible never speaks of fixity of species, never denies common descent, never speaks of the heritable traits of populations (whether they change, or stay fixed, or anything else about them), never speaks of speciation or or extinction, never speaks of biological concepts that were never thought of until a couple of thousands years later ... why that means that the denial of evolution is one of the most important things that we are to learn from the Bible.

Katharine · 15 September 2014

Amazing how quickly AiG can go from "Yeah, certainty in science is bad!" to arguing from a position of absolute certainty. Don't even need a buffer paragraph. Such balls!

I wonder constantly if they actually listen to themselves, or is it just that the lie works so well on their less critical flock that they actually approve, with full knowledge, of how morbidly illogical their bullshit is?

eric · 15 September 2014

TomS said: And when the Bible never speaks of fixity of species, never denies common descent, never speaks of the heritable traits of populations (whether they change, or stay fixed, or anything else about them), never speaks of speciation or or extinction [snip]...

Just a quibble, but it does speak of an extinction event. :) And FL would probably say that denial of that extinction event is a clear rejection of the true meaning of the Bible.

Carl Drews · 15 September 2014

eric said:
TomS said: And when the Bible never speaks of fixity of species, never denies common descent, never speaks of the heritable traits of populations (whether they change, or stay fixed, or anything else about them), never speaks of speciation or or extinction [snip]...
Just a quibble, but it does speak of an extinction event. :) And FL would probably say that denial of that extinction event is a clear rejection of the true meaning of the Bible.

You mean Noah's Flood as an extinction event? He was ordered to bring breeding pairs of every biblical kind onto the Ark, so there should have been no extinction during the Flood. Every now and then a creationist slips up and claims that dinosaurs became extinct because of the Flood, but that claim contradicts the entire point of the Ark. Or are you thinking of some other event?

TomS · 15 September 2014

eric said:
TomS said: And when the Bible never speaks of fixity of species, never denies common descent, never speaks of the heritable traits of populations (whether they change, or stay fixed, or anything else about them), never speaks of speciation or or extinction [snip]...
Just a quibble, but it does speak of an extinction event. :) And FL would probably say that denial of that extinction event is a clear rejection of the true meaning of the Bible.

I'm sorry, I feel really dense, but I can't think of what extinction event you are thinking of.

eric · 15 September 2014

Carl Drews said: You mean Noah's Flood as an extinction event? He was ordered to bring breeding pairs of every biblical kind onto the Ark, so there should have been no extinction during the Flood. Every now and then a creationist slips up and claims that dinosaurs became extinct because of the Flood, but that claim contradicts the entire point of the Ark. Or are you thinking of some other event?

Nope, I was thinking of the flood. And its an extinction event if kind /= species but rather some higher taxonomical category (genus, family, etc..). AIUI most creationists including YECs like FL interpret "kind" to refer to some taxonomic grouping higher than species. For example, they think there is a 'cat' kind, not a felis catus kind. Of course they then make an exception for humans (for us, kind = species). Ignoring the inconsistency for a moment, if we take the position that 'kind' refers some higher taxonomic grouping, then yes the flood was an extinction event.

Mike Elzinga · 15 September 2014

SLC said: Isaac Newton was an Arian which I suspect that Mitchell would find to be heresy.

Indeed. ID/creationists donât just stop at mangling the sciences; they mangle history and biographical information as well. They project their own sectarian beliefs onto historical figures as though those persons believed as ID/creationists do. There are very extensive biographies of Newton and other historical scientists. There is no excuse for ID/creationists not knowing Newton's views about religion. He would not have been elected to be a fellow at Trinity if he hadn't got special clearance from Charles II.

Just Bob · 15 September 2014

Mike Elzinga said:
SLC said: Isaac Newton was an Arian which I suspect that Mitchell would find to be heresy.
Indeed. ID/creationists donât just stop at mangling the sciences; they mangle history and biographical information as well. They project their own sectarian beliefs onto historical figures as though those persons believed as ID/creationists do.

And their unspoken (and unthought-about) assumption is that Newton or whoever, given access to all modern scientific knowledge, would STILL be a 'biblical creationist' (which he never really was, anyway).

TomS · 15 September 2014

eric said:
Carl Drews said: You mean Noah's Flood as an extinction event? He was ordered to bring breeding pairs of every biblical kind onto the Ark, so there should have been no extinction during the Flood. Every now and then a creationist slips up and claims that dinosaurs became extinct because of the Flood, but that claim contradicts the entire point of the Ark. Or are you thinking of some other event?
Nope, I was thinking of the flood. And its an extinction event if kind /= species but rather some higher taxonomical category (genus, family, etc..). AIUI most creationists including YECs like FL interpret "kind" to refer to some taxonomic grouping higher than species. For example, they think there is a 'cat' kind, not a felis catus kind. Of course they then make an exception for humans (for us, kind = species). Ignoring the inconsistency for a moment, if we take the position that 'kind' refers some higher taxonomic grouping, then yes the flood was an extinction event.

OK. (But I don't feel so dumb about missing that.) And then the post-Flood era was a major speciation event.

tedhohio · 15 September 2014

There an image at the end of this that seems quite appropriate: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/09/the-big-lie.html

TomS · 15 September 2014

Just Bob said:
Mike Elzinga said:
SLC said: Isaac Newton was an Arian which I suspect that Mitchell would find to be heresy.
Indeed. ID/creationists donât just stop at mangling the sciences; they mangle history and biographical information as well. They project their own sectarian beliefs onto historical figures as though those persons believed as ID/creationists do.
And their unspoken (and unthought-about) assumption is that Newton or whoever, given access to all modern scientific knowledge, would STILL be a 'biblical creationist' (which he never really was, anyway).

It represents equivocation on the term "Christian". If he was close enough to be counted as a Christian, though not accepting the Council of Nicaea, then people since Darwin are not to be denied the label by differing on a matter of evolution (or age of life on Earth, or literalism/inerrancy - which I am not aware when covered in a council).

Henry J · 15 September 2014

OK. (But I donât feel so dumb about missing that.) And then the post-Flood era was a major speciation event.

And, it was one that just happened to distribute the species to the same parts of the world as their pre-flood ancestors.

Henry J · 15 September 2014

Science is not about certainty

Yep. It's about useful approximations. For example, Newton's laws.

stevaroni · 15 September 2014

Just Bob said: And their unspoken (and unthought-about) assumption is that Newton or whoever, given access to all modern scientific knowledge, would STILL be a 'biblical creationist' (which he never really was, anyway).

You don't have to wonder about what their unspoken assumption would be. One of my favorite pages over at the Aig Website is this one Chronology Wars (Isaac Newton to the rescue) where Larry Pierce conclusively claims that all Egyptian chronology is bogus because Isaac Newton, "the greatest mind of all time" says it is. Because newton wrote a definitive book on the subject 'The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended' where he laid it all out to match a Biblical timeline. In 1728 (the book was published posthumously). It doesn't really matter that Newton died in 1727, and didn't know about the Rosetta stone, which was discovered in 1799. It doesn't really matter that Newton died in 1727, nearly 100 years before Champollion decoded hieroglyphics in 1822, thus opening up reams of actual first-person source material. It doesn't really matter that Newton died in 1727, about 200 years before the hundreds of tombs of the Valley of the Kings were mapped. Tombs, which it bears pointing out, contained the actual bodies of the people speculated about in "Chronology". It doesn't really matter that Newton died in 1727, about 260 years before most of those bodies were accurately carbon-dated, definitively producing a timeline independent of any recorded documentation. Nope, Isaac Newton said it in 1727, working exclusively from old Greek texts and the King James Bible, so that's the definitive explanation of the Egyptian timeline we should use in 2014. Nothing to see here. Move along.

eric · 16 September 2014

TomS said: OK. (But I don't feel so dumb about missing that.) And then the post-Flood era was a major speciation event.

Yes exactly! One of the more ironic arguments against the flood story being literal is that it requires hyperevolution - evolution much much faster than what biologists think is real - for the kinds to give rise to millions of individual species within a couple thousand years. For the record, this is an old argument and the credit for it does not go to me.

Frank J · 16 September 2014

Yes exactly! One of the more ironic arguments against the flood story being literal is that it requires hyperevolution...
— eric

But only "hypermicroevolution," as all the "kinds" were already established. ;-) More importantly, their "theory" requires hyperabiogeneis before the flood, to independently establish all those "kinds" in the first place. But the activists, whether IDer, Biblical YEC or Biblical OEC (the ones who haven't yet converted to ID), all know that. Which is why they constantly bait-and-switch between evolution and abiogenesis, between the facts and the theory of both (the one for abiogenesis still awaits us), between testable proximate causes and untestable ultimate causes. And never miss an opportunity to claim the "support" of famous dead people, who are no longer here to see the evidence and defend themselves. Would Newton, if alive today believe in a Creator? Maybe, but so do many critics of ID/creationism. They just don't pretend that their beliefs regarding ultimate causes are scientific. In fact, it's reasonable to believe that many, possibly most, self-proclaimed Biblical literalists of 100 or more years ago would be appalled at the sleazy tactics used by today's anti-evolution activists. But we have no more right to assert that about any particular individual than any of those anti-evolution activists who do it "religiously."

TomS · 16 September 2014

eric said:
TomS said: OK. (But I don't feel so dumb about missing that.) And then the post-Flood era was a major speciation event.
Yes exactly! One of the more ironic arguments against the flood story being literal is that it requires hyperevolution - evolution much much faster than what biologists think is real - for the kinds to give rise to millions of individual species within a couple thousand years. For the record, this is an old argument and the credit for it does not go to me.

"A couple of thousand years?" The story of Abraham in the Bible has references to cattle, sheep, and goats, all of the Bovine "kind", less than 400 years after the Flood. When are the earliest mummified modern animals?

Just Bob · 16 September 2014

TomS said: The story of Abraham in the Bible has references to cattle, sheep, and goats, all of the Bovine "kind", less than 400 years after the Flood. When are the earliest mummified modern animals?

Really? Do the "baraminologists" lump sheep and goats into the same "kind" as cattle? I mean I wouldn't put it past them, since that would certainly save space on the Ark. But that seems a bit of a stretch, even for them.

TomS · 16 September 2014

Just Bob said:
TomS said: The story of Abraham in the Bible has references to cattle, sheep, and goats, all of the Bovine "kind", less than 400 years after the Flood. When are the earliest mummified modern animals?
Really? Do the "baraminologists" lump sheep and goats into the same "kind" as cattle? I mean I wouldn't put it past them, since that would certainly save space on the Ark. But that seems a bit of a stretch, even for them.

I'm just going on the conventional identification of "kind" (aka "baramin") as the taxonomic rank of family. Of course, they will make ad hoc determinations of "kind" - "mankind" is certainly closer to the single species. But once they start multiplying "kinds", as you point out, they are multiplying demand for space on the Ark.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 16 September 2014

TomS said:
Just Bob said:
TomS said: The story of Abraham in the Bible has references to cattle, sheep, and goats, all of the Bovine "kind", less than 400 years after the Flood. When are the earliest mummified modern animals?
Really? Do the "baraminologists" lump sheep and goats into the same "kind" as cattle? I mean I wouldn't put it past them, since that would certainly save space on the Ark. But that seems a bit of a stretch, even for them.
I'm just going on the conventional identification of "kind" (aka "baramin") as the taxonomic rank of family. Of course, they will make ad hoc determinations of "kind" - "mankind" is certainly closer to the single species. But once they start multiplying "kinds", as you point out, they are multiplying demand for space on the Ark.

But weren't sheep, goats and cattle "clean" animals and weren't all clean animals put on the ark?

Mike Elzinga · 16 September 2014

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said:
TomS said:
Just Bob said:
TomS said: The story of Abraham in the Bible has references to cattle, sheep, and goats, all of the Bovine "kind", less than 400 years after the Flood. When are the earliest mummified modern animals?
Really? Do the "baraminologists" lump sheep and goats into the same "kind" as cattle? I mean I wouldn't put it past them, since that would certainly save space on the Ark. But that seems a bit of a stretch, even for them.
I'm just going on the conventional identification of "kind" (aka "baramin") as the taxonomic rank of family. Of course, they will make ad hoc determinations of "kind" - "mankind" is certainly closer to the single species. But once they start multiplying "kinds", as you point out, they are multiplying demand for space on the Ark.
But weren't sheep, goats and cattle "clean" animals and weren't all clean animals put on the ark?

As has been pointed out a number of times on other threads, there were seven each of the "clean" kind and two each of the "unclean" kind. I don't know how dinosaurs were classified. As for the humans, the "sheep" were kept and the "goats" were left to drown.

eric · 16 September 2014

Just Bob said: Really? Do the "baraminologists" lump sheep and goats into the same "kind" as cattle? I mean I wouldn't put it past them, since that would certainly save space on the Ark. But that seems a bit of a stretch, even for them.

Pffft, microevolution of bovidae isn't a stretch. Microevolution of formicidae is a stretch. 12,500 species in the family confirmed, 22,000 estimated. :)

eric · 16 September 2014

eric said: Pffft, microevolution of bovidae isn't a stretch. Microevolution of formicidae is a stretch. 12,500 species in the family confirmed, 22,000 estimated. :)

Just to drive the point home, that means ant sex produced a new species every month. Which is quite an accomplishment given that ants typically produce a new generation once per year.

callahanpb · 16 September 2014

eric said: Just to drive the point home, that means ant sex produced a new species every month. Which is quite an accomplishment given that ants typically produce a new generation once per year.

Not to give aid and comfort to a ridiculous idea, but speciation could happen simultaneously among the currently existing species, so the number of generations is not directly proportional to the number of species. (It should be closer to the logarithm.) So while you would technically need a new species per month, this is not contradicted by a limit of one generation per year. The new species could be coming from any one of the currently existing species globally. It is still a ridiculous rate of speciation, doesn't really solve anything unless you really need to believe in the Flood.

callahanpb · 16 September 2014

callahanpb said: It is still a ridiculous rate of speciation, doesn't really solve anything unless you really need to believe in the Flood.

I think you could analyze it like this, assuming exponential growth. If there was one species of ant 6000 years ago, and there are 22000 now, then there would need to be more than 0.1667% growth in the number of species per year (because 1.001667^6000 is about 21887.5). Continuing that to present day, you would expect to find 0.1667% of 22000 or more than 36 new species per year right now. This ignores species extinction, which would require a higher rate of speciation. The length of the generation is not the main problem, but at one generation per year, I think you'd be saying that any species of ant would need to have about a 1 in 600 chance of giving rise to a new species in any generation. This is obviously ridiculous, but you might still find creationists who insist it is true.

eric · 16 September 2014

callahanpb said: It is still a ridiculous rate of speciation, doesn't really solve anything unless you really need to believe in the Flood.

Yeah, you're right, its ridiculous but not linearly so as my post implies. My point was that thet ant problem is on the order of 22,000 species, vs. the bovidae problem with wikipedia tells me is 140 species (albeit with different maturation and generational rates). To a creationist, this is not an issue because they basically 'eyeball' genetic similarity. It's all just ants, right, how hard could the changes be? But cow to goat? Ooooh, big change! They may even be different kinds! They assess 'kinds' and estimate unlikeliness based on human-scale visual traits, not much more.

TomS · 16 September 2014

Mike Elzinga said:
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said:
TomS said:
Just Bob said:
TomS said: The story of Abraham in the Bible has references to cattle, sheep, and goats, all of the Bovine "kind", less than 400 years after the Flood. When are the earliest mummified modern animals?
Really? Do the "baraminologists" lump sheep and goats into the same "kind" as cattle? I mean I wouldn't put it past them, since that would certainly save space on the Ark. But that seems a bit of a stretch, even for them.
I'm just going on the conventional identification of "kind" (aka "baramin") as the taxonomic rank of family. Of course, they will make ad hoc determinations of "kind" - "mankind" is certainly closer to the single species. But once they start multiplying "kinds", as you point out, they are multiplying demand for space on the Ark.
But weren't sheep, goats and cattle "clean" animals and weren't all clean animals put on the ark?
As has been pointed out a number of times on other threads, there were seven each of the "clean" kind and two each of the "unclean" kind. I don't know how dinosaurs were classified. As for the humans, the "sheep" were kept and the "goats" were left to drown.

If "kind", as I surmised, meant "family", then there was a "clean" family, Bovidae, which had 7 (or maybe 7 pairs, it isn't clear) representatives on the Ark, chosen among cattle, sheep, goats, and a whole lot more, such as antelopes. (On the other hand, the Bible says "Of fowles after their kinde, and of cattel after their kinde: of euery creeping thing of the earth after his kinde, two of euery sort shall come vnto thee, to keepe them aliue." Genesis 6:20 - which makes me think that there were many kinds alike of bird, cattle, and creeping things.) Question: Is there any family which has both clean and unclean members? (Oh, I know, cattle are not clean if they are maimed, but this is complicated enough.)

Jim Thomerson · 20 September 2014

I think there is a term for a partially clean animal, but I do not recall it. I vaguely recall reading that a particular animal might fit the partially clean criteria.

Dave Luckett · 20 September 2014

Jim Thomerson said: I think there is a term for a partially clean animal, but I do not recall it. I vaguely recall reading that a particular animal might fit the partially clean criteria.

Possibly that might refer to rabbinical opinion on the babirusa of the Indonesian archipelago, which, although clearly a species of pig, has an enlarged ruminant-style stomach and which does re-chew stomach contents, and hence may be said both to "divide the hoof and to chew the cud", and hence is possibly clean. I believe opinion on the subject was divided.

Henry J · 20 September 2014

For some meaning of the word "clean" that I'm not familiar with.

Dave Luckett · 20 September 2014

Er... "clean" in the strictly Biblical sense, which doesn't mean "clean" as anyone who lived in a Western city any time in the last century understands it. A cattleshed or sheep pen is by this definition "clean", but a pigsty is not, because.

Ritually clean, only without a ritual. If you see what I mean. And if you don't, which is only reasonable since it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, think of it as a metaphor.

Me, I think of it as a purely sensible reaction to the fact that Trichinella spiralis is regrettably common.

Further prohibitions on eating shellfish might have something to do with refrigeration not having been invented yet. Funny how God, who knows all things, didn't add in words like: "...unless you can keep it on ice from the moment you catch it, in which case it's clean for a day, or up to three months if you keep it frozen solid." But there you are. He didn't. Instead he created Roger Bacon, who killed himself trying to prove it.

TomS · 21 September 2014

Dave Luckett said: Er... "clean" in the strictly Biblical sense, which doesn't mean "clean" as anyone who lived in a Western city any time in the last century understands it. A cattleshed or sheep pen is by this definition "clean", but a pigsty is not, because. Ritually clean, only without a ritual. If you see what I mean. And if you don't, which is only reasonable since it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, think of it as a metaphor. Me, I think of it as a purely sensible reaction to the fact that Trichinella spiralis is regrettably common. Further prohibitions on eating shellfish might have something to do with refrigeration not having been invented yet. Funny how God, who knows all things, didn't add in words like: "...unless you can keep it on ice from the moment you catch it, in which case it's clean for a day, or up to three months if you keep it frozen solid." But there you are. He didn't. Instead he created Roger Bacon, who killed himself trying to prove it.

Francis Bacon.

Dave Luckett · 21 September 2014

You're right. Damn. Senescence moment.

TomS · 21 September 2014

Dave Luckett said:
Jim Thomerson said: I think there is a term for a partially clean animal, but I do not recall it. I vaguely recall reading that a particular animal might fit the partially clean criteria.
Possibly that might refer to rabbinical opinion on the babirusa of the Indonesian archipelago, which, although clearly a species of pig, has an enlarged ruminant-style stomach and which does re-chew stomach contents, and hence may be said both to "divide the hoof and to chew the cud", and hence is possibly clean. I believe opinion on the subject was divided.

The Wikipedia article "North Sulawesi babirusa" brings up the point, and concludes: "Eventually it was found that the animal is not a true ruminant, and thus remains trefe, like other pigs." There are no authorities cited, however.

Matt Young · 21 September 2014

Me, I think of it as a purely sensible reaction to the fact that Trichinella spiralis is regrettably common.

I haven't time to look up a primary reference right now, but Wikipedia says

The kashrut and halal dietary laws of Judaism and Islam prohibit eating pork. In the 19th century, when the association between trichinosis and undercooked pork was first established, it was suggested that this association was the reason for the prohibition, reminiscent of the earlier opinion of the medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides that food forbidden by Jewish law was "unwholesome". This theory was controversial and eventually fell out of favor.

My recollection is that trichinosis was unknown in the middle east in Biblical times. The idea that the prohibition against eating pork had a medical or health reason probably derived from a misguided attempt to rationalize the dietary laws, when in fact they are probably wholly irrational, or at least not based on practical concerns. The pig was probably a totem of the early Hebrews, and you do not eat your totem -- or at least they did not. I think the Egyptians did not eat pork either, but I may misremember.

Just Bob · 21 September 2014

Wouldn't "Thou shalt cook pigs thoroughly. Thoroughly shalt thou cook them. The cooking thereof shall be thorough," be much more practical, and probably save some lives along the line in times of famine?

Jim Thomerson · 24 September 2014

I read some place that pork was the most commonly eaten meat. I expected it would be chicken. When I lived in Illinois, I would read of an occasional case of trichinosis. People making summer sausage would get it from tasting the mix along the way. Proper summer sausage is not cooked, but only dried. I think the feds make cooking mandatory for summer sausage in commerce.

Matt Young · 24 September 2014

I read some place that pork was the most commonly eaten meat.

Actually, in the US, chicken has just overtaken beef. Pork has not competed with beef since the 1950's. Surprisingly (to me, anyway) goat is the most commonly eaten meat in the world.

Pierce R. Butler · 24 September 2014

Matt Young said: My recollection is that trichinosis was unknown in the middle east in Biblical times. The idea that the prohibition against eating pork had a medical or health reason probably derived from a misguided attempt to rationalize the dietary laws, when in fact they are probably wholly irrational...

My understanding - based on scattered reading and no serious schooling - was that the old Hebrews, an undistinguished tribe from a rather barren hill country suitable only for grazing animals, set themselves to resisting assimilation from the larger, richer, more powerful societies around them. Part of that included raising their young'uns to deny the temptations of the bright lights and big cities of their rivals - particularly those fish- and shellfish-eating Philistines of the nearby coastal areas. No doubt many of the various nations which conquered their territory - Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, ... - consumed pork as well, so that had to go on the list along with worship of golden calves and other kinky thrills enjoyed by their neighbors.

Just Bob · 24 September 2014

Pierce R. Butler said:
Matt Young said: My recollection is that trichinosis was unknown in the middle east in Biblical times. The idea that the prohibition against eating pork had a medical or health reason probably derived from a misguided attempt to rationalize the dietary laws, when in fact they are probably wholly irrational...
My understanding - based on scattered reading and no serious schooling - was that the old Hebrews, an undistinguished tribe from a rather barren hill country suitable only for grazing animals, set themselves to resisting assimilation from the larger, richer, more powerful societies around them. Part of that included raising their young'uns to deny the temptations of the bright lights and big cities of their rivals - particularly those fish- and shellfish-eating Philistines of the nearby coastal areas. No doubt many of the various nations which conquered their territory - Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, ... - consumed pork as well, so that had to go on the list along with worship of golden calves and other kinky thrills enjoyed by their neighbors.

That and whackin' off the end of your dingus. Even if a kid decided later to go to the glittering city and become all Phillistine... he would have a permanent reminder of his real tribe. He would be reminded several times a day. And he couldn't well disguise it if the cops did a strip search.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 24 September 2014

Pigs are found in Palestine, but generally a good deal more in the Bronze Age, and rarely in the Iron Age--except in Philistine areas. It's been noted that in hot dry areas the swine isn't generally part of the "more civilized" diet, so Israelites seem largely to agree with Canaanite practice in the Iron Age. Pigs are pretty good as starter animals for pioneers, but tend to eat things humans consume, so aren't too great as population densities rise, a possible reason why they became disliked among established Canaanite groups. Philistines seem to have eaten the pig, and the Israelites really didn't get on with them, possibly a reason for the hardening of the taboo against the pig. Egyptians apparently had no complete taboo against swine, but restricted its use and looked down on pig producers, at least according to this:

The story of the curse on the pig seems as good a reason as any for the pig being anathema to the Egyptians. However, in contrast to my earlier statement that the Egyptians most likely didn't raise pigs, I have to stand corrected. The tombs of Nebamun, Methen, and Renni, tomb EK 7 in El Kab, all show swineherd and other depictions of domesticated animals. In digging I found that swineherders were not allowed in any temples and were consider a lower "caste" in ancient Egypt. If you even brushed a pig you were required to wash yourself thoroughly. The exception...the full moon sacrifice and feast to Osiris/ Dionysus. The only time they were allowed to be sacrificed or eaten.

http://historum.com/ancient-history/19246-did-ancient-egyptians-eat-pork.html As with circumcision, the Hebrews seemed to follow general Semitic practices, then, even if they may have made taboo what was often deprecated without complete bannings among other nations/tribes. It's probably not at all odd that Muslims kept Jewish circumcision, and the swine taboo, simply because Semites typically circumcised, and were at least not keen on the pig, even if they didn't totally ban it. Glen Davidson

shjcpr · 25 September 2014

It is more likely that there was a prohibition against eating pork because pigs eat shit. Don't need to know anything about trichinosis to figure out that pigs eating shit is well.....a problem.

Matt Young said:
Me, I think of it as a purely sensible reaction to the fact that Trichinella spiralis is regrettably common.
I haven't time to look up a primary reference right now, but Wikipedia says
The kashrut and halal dietary laws of Judaism and Islam prohibit eating pork. In the 19th century, when the association between trichinosis and undercooked pork was first established, it was suggested that this association was the reason for the prohibition, reminiscent of the earlier opinion of the medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides that food forbidden by Jewish law was "unwholesome". This theory was controversial and eventually fell out of favor.
My recollection is that trichinosis was unknown in the middle east in Biblical times. The idea that the prohibition against eating pork had a medical or health reason probably derived from a misguided attempt to rationalize the dietary laws, when in fact they are probably wholly irrational, or at least not based on practical concerns. The pig was probably a totem of the early Hebrews, and you do not eat your totem -- or at least they did not. I think the Egyptians did not eat pork either, but I may misremember.

harold · 25 September 2014

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Pigs are found in Palestine, but generally a good deal more in the Bronze Age, and rarely in the Iron Age--except in Philistine areas. It's been noted that in hot dry areas the swine isn't generally part of the "more civilized" diet, so Israelites seem largely to agree with Canaanite practice in the Iron Age. Pigs are pretty good as starter animals for pioneers, but tend to eat things humans consume, so aren't too great as population densities rise, a possible reason why they became disliked among established Canaanite groups. Philistines seem to have eaten the pig, and the Israelites really didn't get on with them, possibly a reason for the hardening of the taboo against the pig. Egyptians apparently had no complete taboo against swine, but restricted its use and looked down on pig producers, at least according to this:
The story of the curse on the pig seems as good a reason as any for the pig being anathema to the Egyptians. However, in contrast to my earlier statement that the Egyptians most likely didn't raise pigs, I have to stand corrected. The tombs of Nebamun, Methen, and Renni, tomb EK 7 in El Kab, all show swineherd and other depictions of domesticated animals. In digging I found that swineherders were not allowed in any temples and were consider a lower "caste" in ancient Egypt. If you even brushed a pig you were required to wash yourself thoroughly. The exception...the full moon sacrifice and feast to Osiris/ Dionysus. The only time they were allowed to be sacrificed or eaten.
http://historum.com/ancient-history/19246-did-ancient-egyptians-eat-pork.html As with circumcision, the Hebrews seemed to follow general Semitic practices, then, even if they may have made taboo what was often deprecated without complete bannings among other nations/tribes. It's probably not at all odd that Muslims kept Jewish circumcision, and the swine taboo, simply because Semites typically circumcised, and were at least not keen on the pig, even if they didn't totally ban it. Glen Davidson

In many societies, including our own, food that is inexpensive and important for the poor is disparaged - even while also eaten by all classes. The Egyptians may well have exhibited this common tendency. In many climates, pigs efficiently produce a lot of animal fat calories and protein. They were especially competitive in this way before modern factory farming techniques made other species more "efficient" to raise. Another thing about pork is that it lends itself extremely well to preservation - bacon, ham, salt pork, smoked sausages, etc. This was very important in pre-industrial times. Another thing is that their fat is very flavorful and often used to flavor cheap, bland foods like beans or dried peas. It doesn't take much land to raise pigs. They do eat things that humans would eat, but they are very indiscriminate eaters. Even when I was growing up, pig raising and pork related things were undeniably perceived as having a lower status than things related to cattle (highest) and chickens (intermediate). This isn't the case everywhere; there are parts of Europe where pork butchers have a high status, but it is common. It wasn't because well off people didn't eat pork, it was because back in the day the pig was the source of survival food products. Goats were also somewhat looked down on. Sometimes this was blamed on the nature of Billy goats, but no-one looked down on cows because bulls have bad tempers. And at other times the true source of the bias was openly stated. A goat was a low cost animal that you could graze on a small piece of land, that had very flexible dietary preferences, and that would efficiently give milk. Cow's milk was preferred but a cow was a much more expensive resource. Owning a goat implied that you probably weren't well off enough to own a cow. I don't know if anyone at goat meat where I grew up but a goat was at one time a fairly common source of milk for poor people. Even then rich people not infrequently ate bacon, or even pork and beans, and even then goat's milk products were sometimes given a cachet of some kind of special healthy status. Even so, pigs and goats were cheap animals that poor people living on small parcels of land could raise, and thus, they had lower status. What happened, at least where I grew up, is that the post-WWII industrial and agricultural boom economy eliminated old semi-subsistence farming habits. Raising goats and pigs because you were poor disappeared as a practice. Now, both are somewhat rehabilitated. Especially goats, of course, which are now seen as a source of gourmet cheese. But the modern pig is increasingly associated with organic artisanal bacon.

Jim Thomerson · 26 September 2014

When I was maybe six years old, a neighboring rancher gave me two dogie goat kids. That was my start as a goat rancher. I sold out at age 14, 75 goats, because Daddy wanted to run more sheep, and the goats had manicured all the brush. Most of my goats were Angoras, for mohair, but I had a few Spanish goats for food. We ate a fair amount of goat, and always had barbecued goat at family reunions. Goat money paid for my BS degree.

One reunion the barbecued goat didn't taste right and we did not eat much. My uncle confessed that he had forgotten the reunion and sold all his goats. He had barbecued a couple of lambs in the hope we would not notice.

Goat has a mild flavor, and if I had to eat only one kind of meat, I would chose goat.

Michael Boswell · 5 October 2014

I have a degree in theology. I suspect the vast majority of active Christians who have either a degree in theology or science (any discipline) accept evolution as the only way the world came into being. Very few are either old or young earth creationists. All this creation debate will eventually go the way the doctrine of the earth centric universe.