An article in the New York Times shows how creationists are pursuing a Trojan Horse strategy against science: Marcus Ross, a young geoscientist pursuing his doctorate at the University of Rhode Island, wrote a dissertation about dinosaurs who lived in the Cretaceous era, about 65 million years ago.
His advisers called the paper “impeccable,” but there’s a problem: Ross is a young earth creationist who believes the Earth is at most 10,000 years old, based on his reading of Scripture.
Not a hint of that in the paper, of course. Ross has also appeared on a DVD defending intelligent design and young earth “theories.” Ross defends his dual outlook, saying his biblical literalism is another “paradigm” that he uses.
But how is that intellectually honest? As one scientist blogger noted, “most professionals will not place their name on a paper where the conclusions are so antithetical to their own viewpoint.”
Ross earned his degree — fine. But the obvious danger is in creationists pursuing mainstream credentials to lend a veneer of respectability to bogus science.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- BlueJay on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
75 Comments
Dude wants to believe in Young Earth fairy dust? Fine. Let him try to publish that crap in a peer-reviewed journal and see how far that gets him. Next stop: the Discovery Institute.
When CF calls the fundos and their right-wing fellow travellers ‘epistemic relativists,’ this is precisely the sort of mental gymnastics he has in mind.
What I have to wonder about is how he can function with such self-contradictory positions. This brings to mind Haggard, Foley and the rest of that bunch. They preach that something is evil bit that something is what there are. These guys are not only dishonest with us but also with themselves.
My best friend during the heat of all this, told me even he was upset with the attempt to bring creationism in using the deceptive term of intelligent design. And he is sure that there is scientific evidence of Creationism! He felt that is did a real disservice to his faith and made it seem to be foolish to be a Christian to others.
My best friend during the heat of all this, told me even he was upset with the attempt to bring creationism in using the deceptive term of intelligent design. And he is sure that there is scientific evidence of Creationism! He felt that is did a real disservice to his faith and made it seem to be foolish to be a Christian to others.
This is really disturbing. Throughout this evolution/creation debate we have heard over and over that creation is not science, belief in the Bible has nothing to do with science.Now, what I think I am hearing is that a Bible believing creationist is not worthy of a science degree?Randy, you are saying that my son, a Bible believing creationist, should not be able to earn his chemistry/pharmacology degree? Are you saying that anyone who doesn’t believe in the Big Bang is incapable of being a scientist, or a doctor, or a pharmacist? Are we to bring in a religious test to qualify for scientific degrees now?
I call HOGWASH… this is the most bigoted and poorly thought out piece of crap I have ever read. I have never really cared much about this debate because I can personally reconcile my beliefs with the world around me, but this pattern of thought has wide and serious implications to people’s lives and livelihoods.
How is this situation different than students who also don’t believe in Darwinian evolution, answering related questions on a science test with the “correct” answer?
It puts them in a conflict. But they do what they must.
I agree completely kansassam.
It is a myth that you must believe in Darwinian evolution to have a good science-related career. In fact, the theory has very little, if any, use in applied science.
“kansassam: Randy, you are saying that my son, a Bible believing creationistshould not be able to earn his chemistry/pharmacology degree”Oh sure he can earn that degree! But he has to do so through lying to himself, or lying to his research advisors, just like what this fellow did. And he certainly wont be contributing to the scientific community if he graduates. He can go teach at Liberty University, like all the other anti-science ’scientists,’ while the evil Evilutionists get on with that ‘treating cancer’ and ‘feeding the planet’ nonsense.
I love it when Creationists get scientific credentials! They have the training to back up their Creationist claims, but they cant/wont. There are few arguments better for dismissing the ’science’ of Creationism than Creationists with Credentials!
Credentials? They dont need no stinkin’ credentials!!
Much like the preznit, they have “heard the voices” and presumably, the “voices” of god TOLD them to say this.
WHAT better credential do you want?
hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
I know youre being sarcastic, ksfarmgrrl, but you are quite right. Jonathan Wells, of “Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism” fame, got his ‘credentials’ at the order of Rev. Sun Myung Moon. God told Moon to tell Wells to get a PhD in biology to ‘destroy evolution’.
And I quote:”Father’s (Moon – he calls Moon ‘Father’) words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.”
I think even the most evangelical of evangelicals would have a problem with Moons ‘Christianity’ (Jesus failed, Moon is the true messiah), yet they happily go along with any and all Creationist Crap Intelligent Design Creationists spit up.
Christianists, the only ones still campaigning to get their religious mythology taught as fact in public schools.
I guess they wont mind the wiccan version of creation being taught as well? Or the Hindu version? Or the Jewish version?
I dont mind either. As long as the class is called “comparative religions” or some such thing.
Not in the science classroom though. If the young earth folks want to devote their careers to proving the earth is flat, they can knock themselves out.
Just let them do it in Kooksville, not the public schools.
heheheh Discovery Institute anyone?
I read an article about this a few days ago, and I remember reading that this particular graduate thought that god created everything already aged (including photons on there way from other galaxies I guess). This is how he was able to lie to himself.
“Now, what I think I am hearing is that a Bible believing creationist is not worthy of a science degree?Randy, you are saying that my son, a Bible believing creationist, should not be able to earn his chemistry/pharmacology degree?”-Kansassam
Haha… Think about this: Why is there not a creation science degree for your son to choose from?- Because it is not science, and it is not literally true… get over it.
“It is a myth that you must believe in Darwinian evolution to have a good science-related career. In fact, the theory has very little, if any, use in applied science.”-outlander
I did a quick search and found a 10 year old poll that said that 95% of American scientists believed in Evolution.http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earthAnd yes, it does matter. Being a biologist and not accepting evolution is like being a medical doctor and not accepting the Germ Theory of Disease.
And for applied sciences: An understanding of evolution is crucial and an indirect medium for new technologies now and in the future.
And ksfarmgirl, the type of class you are thinking of is a humanities course.
To believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old flies in the face of almost any and every understanding of science. Frankly it is suggestive of a delusional mind.
Is this argument saying axiomatic scientific reality and faith are mutually exclusive of each other? Isn’t inherent in the definition of “faith” the belief in something that cannot be scientifically proven? Or am I just missing the point here?
How convenient for faith…
Yes RM, but you teach “faith” in faith classes and “science” in science classes.
No one denies that it is ok to have faith in something not proven. Just dont drag it into the science class.
And confusing the two qualifies people for membership in the Flat Earth Society. They also have faith in something that flies in the face of science.
rm – I think the difference arises when ones faith tells him that the science he professes to practice cannot be real. Suppose, for example, a person believes (faith) that faith-healing is the only way to go and man should not intervene in desease. Would you make that person a medical doctor? Would you go to him if you were sick?
I think our professions are a bit different on this. You advocate for your client. that is the nature of the practice of law. However, if you wanted to retain my services to argue that 2+2=5 I could not do so. (Of course, I am sure you have seen the “conSLUTants” who will swear to anything for a buck)
LOL, Ben. I see your point. But what I’m saying (I think) is that Scientist “X” could be “the Jonas Salk of a preventive cancer vaccine”, but on Saturday night, he slaughters chickens, throws bones, and chants in tongues with Marie Leveaux in an alley behind Canal Street. Does his “faith” in voodoo affect or denigrate the importance, soundness and relativity of his research and/or conclusions?
I think it would depend on the reasons. If he does the voodoo because he thinks it will get him chicks fine. But, if he believes that to be the only real cure for cancer I find it hard to figure how he could be a good medical practitioner.
When you defend a client in a criminal case you never have to say you believe he is innocent. But, if you put a pathologist on the stand to say the victim actually died from drinking too much coffee he has to actually believe it.
No, Ben — I’m saying that our “Scientist X” is capable of totally separating his “scientific life” from his “spiritual life’. Or maybe what I’m missing is that “is not possible” in the scientific world.
I think you might be partly correct. I just wonder how well I could practice my science if I didn’t sincerely believe in what I was doing.
Andrew…don’t be a jerk, I was only pointing out that it is totally illogical to require a religious test to be awarded a science degree of any kind! At that point you eliminate the majority of the US population from qualifying for studies in science.Being a believer in Creation hardly makes one a creation scientist.
It is called “compartmentalization”, and it is possible. But there are probably only a handful of respected/accomplished scientists in the world who would fall into that category.
Sam Harris covers this topic in “The End of Faith…”
There is a lot about the mind we have yet to understand.
Stephen Hawkins put it well – science is the study of ‘how’; religion/philosophy the study of ‘why’
I wonder if an atheist would make a good Priest?
kansassam,
I am just stating the facts. Biblical creation literalists do not make careers in scientific fields even in America!
Science is fundamentally based on reason and logic above all else. When religious beliefs fly in the face of fact, reason tells us that is because those beliefs are superstitious myths.
So you can imagine that a creationist would have to either not accept the fundamentals of his career (and most likely be really bad at it) or reject some of the controversial superstitions of his religion.
Now, a lot of people do the latter. 40% of Americans, in scientific careers, believe in a theistic version of evolution. This means they are adapting their religious beliefs (mainly in terms of the creation story) to scientific facts.
If a creationist goes to college and gets a degree in the sciences, he will almost always turn out to be an evolutionist. If he doesn’t get a scientific degree, he might never have to face those types of questions about his religion.
The religious test you refer to comes during the course of the education not before.
“In fact, the theory has very little, if any, use in applied science.”
The above is untrue, but I will avoid recycling the reasoning on why this is not correct. Instead, I would like to say that it is troubling to me also that having religious belief could be a litmus test as to whether or not one can be a scientist.
Ben Huie, as I understand it, is a practicing Catholic. Now, would his belief, or NOT, that the pope is St. Peter’s representative on earth be important in reference to any of Ben’s scientific work. I think the constructs could be completely independent. Science provides “selective pressures”, if you will, to help shape and hone the truth. In the Darwinian struggle set up by science, I have faith (not a pun) that the truth will prevail. Thank you.—–
We must bear in mind that natural selection was not Darwin’s original idea. Warriors in antiquity believed that if they were smarter, stronger, and more skillful in battle, they would prevail over their enemies, and then procreate, generally prolificly. Castration of vanquished foes was commonly practiced. Chieftans and lords of the Middle East had more wives and concubines than commoners. In the Royal houses of Europe, kings and noblemen often had more bastard children than legitimate.
Notably Darwin’s primary analytical interest was sociology (not to dismiss his keen insights in geology). His published journal of the Beagle’s voyage shows that whenever the Beagle landed in human-populated areas, Darwin wrote mostly about people, sometimes disparagingly, sometimes commendingly. His descriptions of flora and fauna were less detailed and extensive, at least in contrast to his analyses of humans he encountered.
He did collect thousands of specimens, which were sent to England, and delighted their recipients, who did more analytical work on them than he.
The problem that will eventually be confronted is that no grand theory in scientific history, that was proposed based upon limited information, has withstood the test of time.For example, the Greeks considered both a geocentric and heliocentric solar system. The observations of their time, and remarkable, yet limited mathematical knowledge, led to the general consensus that the sun revolved around the earth. Part of the problem was that the Greeks apparently thought only in circles, and the observations were more compatible with a circular orbit for the sun than for earth.
It was not until Bishop Nicole Oresme, a polymath, proposed in the 14th century that observations and mathematical analyses performed by the ancients were equally consistent with geocentrism and heliocentrism, and Oresme’s study of the Bible found no contradiction with heliocentrism, that this idea was reconsidered. Later, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa concluded that the solar system was heliocentric. Copernicus was aware of this thesis, and adopted and promulgated it Keppler then found planetary orbits to be elliptical.
What made the “new” proposition compelling was advanced mathematical methods that the Greeks lacked.
The Greeks studied electricity. But with only crude static-electricity generators (e.g. fur and amber), and observations of lightning, they couldn’t understand it. It was not until Alessandro Volta invented an early battery that electricity could be analyzed. The battery required knowledge of chemistry, which the Greeks did not have.
The leading alchemists of the 13th-15th centuries, who were brilliant, proposed grand theories of the nature of chemical matter that didn’t hold up.
In the 18th-19th centuries, medical research prospered, but medicine was primitive and ineffective. The problem was, the ideas “explaining” disease were wrong, and so attempts to utilize these ideas were ineffective. (Surgery was more effective, albeit through empirical observations, rather than scientific theoretical underpinnings.)
In Darwin’s time, the science of biology was primitive. People didn’t know about bacteria, they didn’t have anything close to credible ideas about biochemistry, although it was appreciated that living things did have chemicals. The field of genetics did not exist. Cell biology was still in the future. Molecular biology was not even on the distant horizon.
So the problem is this: Darwin, having extremely limited biologic information, was either A) a mystic seer, because only such a person could create a correct Grand Theory in absence of modern scientific information, or else B) he was one helluva lucky guy, or else C) he was wrong. I ‘m not a bettor, but if I were, my answer would be “C”.
If one looks at 20th century discoveries, they do not in any way prove Natural Selection. The difficulty is, they are compatible with it, but they are also compatible with Intelligent Design.
Creationists concede species variation (”microevolution”), and even some speciation within genii. But they argue that life-diversity is diminishing. Which is exactly what observations of living organisms worldwide demonstrate. Greece, Western Turkey and Lebanon were once forested. The environment isn’t up-grading, it is degrading. And this isn’t just a modern phenomenon, it has been occurring for millenia. Asian-American immigrants probably killed off the Americas’ megafauna.
Fossils are not definitive. Geologic forces are destructive. Paleontologists are going to eventually find orders of magnitude more ancient species’ remains than they have in the past century. But they will never be able to create definitive reconstructions of archaic, particularly primordial ecosystems. There is no evidence that indicates man and apes evolved from some earlier common ancestor. If you first harbor the belief, then the fossil record is compatible with this. But as a counter-example, suppose evolution did occur, and the early ancestor was a “human” with greater intelligence than modern man. The fossil record will never be able to disprove this, or even suggest this is unlikely.
The creationist student who wrote a great party-line thesis engaged in deceit. How indecent! But, wait a minute. When an NYU physicist wrote a deconstructionism philosophical paper, deceitfully, since he didn’t believe what he said, to skewer the philosophers, he was hailed by the scientific establishment.
The Darwinian faithful are vexed that someone can master the science of their discipline, and then disclaim belief in it. But they cannot have it both ways. They cannot simultaneously assert that all science-knowledgeable people believe in an ancient earth and natural selection, while simultaneously denying young people who believe in a young earth or an old intelligently designed earth, the opportunity to earn science Ph.D.’s, if they make their beliefs known. To do so represents a scheme of indoctrination, not scientific exploration.
Unfortunately, this young geologist will never be able to pursue an academic career in a regular university. He’ll never get federal research grants. But he nevertheless proved that you can master the prevailing wisdom’s ideology without being a “true believer” in it,just as you can be an American scholar of Islamic theology or sociology, without being a Muslim.
For MOST of America’s history, it was constitutional to teach intelligent design in America’s public-school classrooms. For a relatively short period, it has been “unconstitutional”. But it isn’t truly unconstitutional. It’s not like modern courts made a a discovery that eluded past courts. Read the U.S. Constitution. Murray v. Curlett outlawed school prayer. It outlawed Christian practice. It does not have the authority to outlaw the presentation of conflicting ideas in classrooms.
Bloggers here who say otherwise don’t understand science. Science is not “absolute answers”. Science is persistent QUESTIONING. It is CHALLENGING prevailing paradigms. But students cannot learn to question and challenge, unless they are given exposure to conflicting ideas.
“kansassam: don’t be a jerk, I was only pointing out that it is totally illogical to require a religious test to be awarded a science degree of any kind!”
There is no religious test. I have professors that are Christian, atheist, Jewish, Hindu, Druid, etc etc etc. But they all accept the reality of evolution, because evolution is required for our research. You cannot function as a biologist without accepting evolution.
If your religion requires the Earth to be 6,000 years old, and you want to be a geologist… thats like being mute and wanting to be a Broadway singing star. You physically cant do it, again unless you lie to yourself and your research mentors, as I said before.
If your religion requires evolution is false, and you want to be a pharmacologist, you cant do it. You cant design drugs without accepting common descent– not in todays molecular world. Every parent wants to do whats best for their children, but you have to come to terms with the fact that you severely handicapped your sons ability to achieve his dreams.
Ben: I don’t think the question is whether an atheist could be a good priest. The question is would being either one preclude each from being a good scientist? Would being an ecological activist disqualify someone )with the credentials and experience0 from being a great well site Petroleum Engineer or Geologist? Does being pro-death penalty disqualify a criminal defense trial attorney? I just don’t think so … or maybe I’m just giving people to damned much credit!?!
ERV, you’ve obviously never designed drugs.
“heartlander: For MOST of America’s history, it was constitutional to teach intelligent design in America’s public-school classrooms.”
So you dont think the Lord Jesus Christ was the Messiah sent from God to save us from our sins? You think Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the True Messiah, sent by God to complete the task that Jesus failed at?
*bored* And in that entire lovely post, you cant address the fact that Creationists cannot and will not perform research to support their views to help mankind (since they can supposedly do that, because theyre right), nor reasons for why that wrong wrong WRONG Evilution can cure our ills, feed our hungry, and protect the diversity of life on this planet. *bored* Yes youre so convincing.
If creationism is going to be taught in schools, then it is only reasonable to teach the many competing theories of creation.
Personally, I want the Hopi Indian version of the creation of Earth taught in schools.
If Christians get to teach their fables then I want mine taught also.
*amused*Im working on a potential treatment to increase the efficacy of chemo/radiation treatment at this very moment (well, after my lunch break).Dont you think thats strange? Dont you think its weird that I can help cure cancer with evolution, and Creationists can only put out public relations bulletins? You dont find that odd?
“In Darwin’s time…the field of genetics did not exist.”
For the sake of historical accuracy here, Gregor Mendel did write to Darwin and told him of Mendel’s research on the dominant and recessive inheritance as revealed by his pea studies. There is no evidence that Darwin either understood or supported Mendel’s findings.
BTW, being a Catholic brother/monk at the time did not inhibit Mendel’s ability to do useful science.
Off topic completely: Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day. I believe that Darwin likely knew who Abraham Lincoln was, but I wonder (and doubt) that Lincoln knew who Darwin was.
“There is no evidence that indicates man and apes evolved from some earlier common ancestor.”-heartlander
How about genetic evidence? How about fossil evidence?
OMG… The fact that Darwin’s’ theory of evolution by natural selection has stood the test of time is what makes it so amazing. Without the benefits of modern knowledge and technology, he was able to look at simply observational evidence and come up with a theory that completely explained it. And contrary to your ridiculous assertions, all the evidence gathered since Darwin (including with modern technology) has done nothing but support his original theory… NOTHING CONTRADICTS IT.
You would expect that if your god created the world as it is told in the Bible, that we would see evidence of it in the world! NONE OF THIS ‘EVIDENCE’ HAS EVER BEEN FOUND!
And heartlander, as for disproving evolution by saying it will someday be disproved, is absurd. It is incomprehensible, to me, how you can think this is a GOOD argument… So by your assertions Newton’s laws will be disproved as well? The reason the early sciences did not hold up is they did not have the basis of the Scientific Method on which to validate their theories and hypotheses. They just simply made shit up. They (mainly Greek philosophers) did not experiment (I believe it was Plato that defined gravity without testing anything).
Heartlander… schooled!
ERV, you appear to be working in anti-science. Radiation and chemotherapy? Destroy good non-cancerous tissue to slow down the cancer? I would take my chances with drugs designed to kill only cancerous cells, exploiting something a little more scientifically advanced than the 50’s observation that cancer cells divide more rapidly than normal cells.
Oncology is the last man standing in ancient unscientific medicine, i.e. quackery. In training, I read hundreds of oncology articles that used “historic controls” in evaluating “NEW AND IMPROVED therapies” that did not exerpate tumors, but prolonged life by months. Did these papers take into account advances in intensive care, new antibiotics to put opportunistic pathogens at bay, parenteral nutrition, et al? Uh, gee, no, they didn’t. The oncs took credit for OTHER DOCTORS’ life-prolonging interventions. Oh, that’s a pretty duck.
I’m sorry ERV. Let me clarify for you. I was one of the guys and gals working at 3 AM to keep the oncs’ patients alive, to enable these “geniuses” to get their nighttime sleep, because they not only deserved it, they were useless in the ICU.
Since evolution v. creationism seems to be such a hot button topic in Kansas, I don’t see why both can’t be mentioned in schools. One does not have to teach religion to “teach” creationism. It could simply be said that some people believe in a theory called creationism. That is the belief that a superior intelligence created all life on earth.
Personally I believe that higher intelligence launched a cosmic cue ball sent all atoms scattering in the primordial soup and got evolution going.
‘One does not have to teach religion to “teach” creationism.’-paralgl
Uh, court after court disagrees with you there. Creationism doesn’t try to form a theory based on observation, it starts with the end-state and attempts to prove it from there. That is not science; it is religion. And that is not allowed in a classroom.
“Since evolution v. creationism seems to be such a hot button topic in Kansas, I don’t see why both can’t be mentioned in schools.”
It can: in a political science or philosophy class, where it belongs.
rm – I think where the line gets crossed is where a person has beliefs that flatly state that the science he would be practicing would be false. Using an attorney example – if a person sincerely believed that we should not have any sort of rule of law than I don’t know that he could make a good attorney.
Steve – nope, not a Catholic. However there are many good Catholics in my life and I am involved with and support Catholic Charities etc. It is probably my references to such things that gave you that impression.
One point to make is that science in no way claims that there is nothing behind all this. Just that things like 7-day creation or coming out of a giant turtle or whatever is not how we got here.
So, let me get this straight: My job is in the science/engineering/technology field. You people (most of you at least) think that since I am a Christian who believes in the creation I can’t do my job well and that I should only be allowed to do PR or some liberal arts crap somewhere? I would obviously have to disagree with you. Isn’t it possible (I’m not saying you have to believe it!) that an intelligent being created those cells, organisms, etc that the earth and human life are made of?
“Isn’t it possible (I’m not saying you have to believe it!) that an intelligent being created those cells, organisms, etc that the earth and human life are made of?”
Sure it’s possible – just don’t teach it in science class – it’s not science – it’s religion.
Ben, Giant Turtle?
I think you got that from Firesign Theater,”We’re All Bozos On This Bus” I have the CD, if you want to listen to it.
Actually, ID is philosophy. As is Natural Selection.Where do you want to teach them? In the parking lot?
“Isn’t it possible (I’m not saying you have to believe it!) that an intelligent being created those cells, organisms, etc that the earth and human life are made of?”-AFN
Sure it is AFN, but there is no evidence for it except a lack of evidence in certain areas (like abiogenesis).
But the truth is that the tennets taught by the scientific method, when applied to most of the world’s religions, lead to pretty bad results for the religions.
This is why people have to compartmentalize and rationalize their beliefs on these things.
“My job is in the science/engineering/technology field. You people (most of you at least) think that since I am a Christian who believes in the creation I can’t do my job well and that I should only be allowed to do PR or some liberal arts crap somewhere?”-AFN
First you would have to say what your job is and explain where the controversies you have had to cope with are.
“Isn’t it possible (I’m not saying you have to believe it!) that an intelligent being created those cells, organisms, etc that the earth and human life are made of?”-AFN
Sure it is AFN, but there is no evidence for it except a lack of evidence in certain areas (like abiogenesis).
But the truth is that the tennets taught by the scientific method, when applied to most of the world’s religions, lead to pretty bad results for the religions.
This is why people have to compartmentalize and rationalize their beliefs on these things.
“My job is in the science/engineering/technology field. You people (most of you at least) think that since I am a Christian who believes in the creation I can’t do my job well and that I should only be allowed to do PR or some liberal arts crap somewhere?”-AFN
First you would have to say what your job is and explain where the controversies you have had to cope with are.
Heartlander,
The Penguin Encyclopedia says that philosophy differs from science in that its questions cannot be answered empirically, i.e. by observation or experiment, and from religion, in that its purpose is entirely intellectual, and allows no place for faith or revelation.
So, actually, you are wrong.
Stop with the dumbass comments please, you are really embarassing yourself.
I think Giant Turtle was a native American creation legend. (not sure – I had once seen a whole bunch of them)
“So, let me get this straight: My job is in the science/engineering/technology field. You people (most of you at least) think that since I am a Christian who believes in the creation I can’t do my job well and that I should only be allowed to do PR or some liberal arts crap somewhere?”
Apparently, your position doesn’t require reading comprehension.
See ERV’s post above:http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/02/credentials_in_.html#comment-60613914
“Actually, ID is philosophy. As is Natural Selection.”
ID is a belief system based on religion. Evolution is a scientific theory supported by decades of evidence, therefore, 95% of scientists support evolution.
“Inteligent Design” in and of itself is religion agnostic. It states that there is too much order in the universe to have happened by chance. IF it is stated only that way, and provided evidence that could be empirically tested I’d have no problem with this being taught in a public school.
With that said my view is biased, I am Catholic, but I do not believe my religion should influence two competing theories of how we came to be, being taught. In so far as the teaching of it remained religion agnostic.
Being that I subscribe to the idea that creationism and evolutionism both happened somewhere in history and currently, doesn’t make me any less capable of being a scientist, having my graduate degree, and being a “good Catholic.” All it means is how I perceive the world in relation to how someone else perceives it.
As for creationism, I partly believe that the big bang happened, but what caused it to happen? That would be the idea behind an uncaused cause being a necessity for occuring.
As for evolution, I believe more in a micro evolution(evolution within the species) and not macro evolution(which is evolution from one species into another species). It is easy to realize that micro evolution occurs: I as a parent and my wife have children, the children are an evolution of myself and my wife. Macro evolution is not easy(and has not been proven, nor has it been disproven) and I honestly do not have a proof for it or a disproof for it.
Hopefully, I’ve not pissed too many people off now.
Andrew, you’re embarrasing yourself. Science is within the philosophic realm of materialism, I think that’s positivist materialism. Anyway, natural selection is a knock-off of the ancient warrior’s code. Believe in this code if you want.
That would make you a believer in 4000 year old “science”.
I don’t see any controversies, but apparently I should from what I’m reading and Rage I do quite well in my reading comprehension…
“Oh sure he can earn that degree! But he has to do so through lying to himself, or lying to his research advisors, just like what this fellow did. And he certainly wont be contributing to the scientific community if he graduates.”
“Dont you think its weird that I can help cure cancer with evolution, and Creationists can only put out public relations bulletins?”
I believe that God gave us the intelligence to study and improve our world including medicine, technology, etc.
Oh and Ben, I’ve never heard that Stephen Hawkins quote, but I love it! Also, yes the turtle thing is a Native American belief.
Danny, I really like the way you put that. That’s pretty much where I am on the subject.
heartlander, are you off your meds again?
Mark, your rabid anti-anything-remotely-related-to-evolution schtick ceased being interesting months ago. You wave your MD credentials around pretending they’re equivalent to a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology – you know, folks who *actually know* about evolution.
You (and the PR firm known as the Discovery Institute) persist in thinking that science should prove God’s existence. It must be scary to have a faith so small that it tries to get science to validate it.
The new science standards align with science as it’s practiced around the world by scientists of many faiths and none. If you want to overturn science so that it includes explanations that don’t incorporate the material – matter, energy – you’d better get busy in your lab and generate reproducible results.
Otherwise, you’re just playing a political/religious game with Kansas’ kids science education.
I am? What? A philosophical question CANNOT be answered by empirical evidence, faith, or revelation. They are purely logical arguments.
Science may happen to fall into the realm of materialism, but that is because we have no reason to believe that anything immaterial exists! They are not symbiotic.
WTF are you talking about? Natural selection is natural. There is nothing natural about humans killing each other when no resources are involved. That is not natural selection.
I am branding you DUMBLANDER.
Oh Danny, AFN, nobody cares what you believe. In a proper discussion, we take a position and try to support it with rational/reason-based arguments. What you personally believe is irrelevant.Great, you don’t believe in macro-evolution, explain to me why.
But it will have to wait for me. I must go kill some more people.
“Join the Army, meet interesting people, and kill them!” – a funny t-shirt I saw today.
“Oh Danny, AFN, nobody cares what you believe. In a proper discussion, we take a position and try to support it with rational/reason-based arguments. What you personally believe is irrelevant.”
Excuse me Andrew, but this is not high school debate club and there are no set rules here for how we discuss anything and before you start bashing me for my personal beliefs being irrevelant please go look at every other blog on this site and count how many of these discussions are based on PERSONAL BELIEF!
PS. Andrew, philosophers do not just invent ideas. They, as human being, make empirical observations, and derive explanations from their observations. I’m not going to call you a dumb ass, as you called me, without any foundation except that I disagreed with your views, but you really do need to learn a lot more than you currently know, before you can convincingly speak of something you don’t know enough about to be authoritative. All of us do.
You’re not a scientist. If you were, you’d realize that science is not answers, it’s questions. It’s not “Accept this doctrine,” it’s “Here are competing ideas. Don’t necessarily accept either, but THINK.”
Andrew is not branding me as an animal-like dumb ass, or dumblander, he’s telling WEBlog readers he is a PROPAGANDIST. Some of you like propaganda to guide you. Others want to think for themselves. The beauty of America, despite its flaws, is you are allowed to THINK FOR YOURSELVES. Many of you who have children may be disconcerted that they are not allowed to think for themselves in the new “make ID disappear” regime. You face difficult choices.
I see that heartlander is still ignoring the elephant in the room.
Reality: The overwhelming vast majority of scientists practicing in relevant fields see evolution (as in common ancestry of existing life forms and changes in inherited traits over time) as overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. The validity of evolution does not depend upon Charles Darwin (or for that matter Richard Dawkins). The claim that Darwin was limited by the science of the time is ludicrous, because if such limitations had led to error, such errors would have been revealed with the improvements in technology applied to science, and the theory of Natural Selection would have been rejected. It hasn’t, because Darwin was fundamentally correct (evolution was dependent upon inherited characteristics).
Heartlander, your personal accomplishments, although laudible, are irrelevent in your attempts to support your blatant intellectual dishonesty on this topic.
Because you are still ignoring the elephant in the room.
heartlander,Are you affiliated with the Discovery Institute in any way?
Ben,Thanks for the correction on the Catholicism. I assumed you were based on your support of various Catholic charities. And, you know what they say about the word “assume”. :-)
I think one of the questions I hear in this discussion is whether a scientist can integrate his faith with his profession, or if that is impossible, he can totally separate his profession and faith.
I think if you can integrate it, as Ben has done, that has integrity.
Totally separating what you do on the job from what your moral compass or religion says, seems to me to be the very definition of a lack of integrity.
My experience? Being in integrity is always more powerful than being out of integrity.
ERV
You have never been so wrong. My son will do fine. You forget that fame, fortune, and status are not the “dream” of this Christian young man. His dream is to develop the skills that he can use to help underprivileged people in dirt poor countries. To help and provide for others, and to serve God. I would be willing to challenge that he has done more for his fellow man in his young life than most adults I know.
No ERV.. if the boy died today, he has already made a difference in people’s lives. His salvation is secure, and his life is already a success. Nothing you say can ever change that!
“Uh, court after court disagrees with you there. Creationism doesn’t try to form a theory based on observation, it starts with the end-state and attempts to prove it from there.”
Frankly, I think many court decisions are asinine and defy logic. However, if one does not teach using “god” or any doctrine, I feel – personal opinion here- we are talking philosophy not religion. And it is what some people believe. Have they taken all mythology out of literature courses? I don’t know – just asking. But what we call mythology is someone else’s religion. Should students be denied exposure to ancient Greek and Roman culture? The Iliad, the Odyssey? Can’t have it both ways – but activist courts say you can. It’s a real shame that education is being narrowed so much!
There was a time in the old Soviet Union when they tried to force science to fit Marxist ideology. As a result, they developed their own version of ‘genetics’ under Lysenko. It was a farce. Unfortunately for them, its application set back Soviet agriculture in a time when other countries were progressing. Thus, allowing a ‘religion’ (Stalinism) to trump science (genetics) caused massive harm.
In Africa there are those who reject the virus causality od HIV/AIDS. Their influence has hampered efforts to control the desease.
In the petroleum geology field they use our understanding of ‘old-earth’ to help find oil. That is by trying to understand the genesis and migration of hydrocarbons over millions of years.
In medicine – if I reject virus/bacteria causality of desease can I successfully study epidemeology? If I don’t believe in antibiotics?
heartlander: Its cute you decided to ignore every point in my response to you, but instead chose to fake indignation and attack the fact I am attempting to help cure cancer.Of course our current procedure for treating cancer patients is barbaric. Youll never hear me suggest otherwise. The point is, Im using evolution to make currently available treatments more efficient at clearing the cancer while protecting other tissues, and it would be impossible without evolution.How are you using Creationism to cure cancers? But before you get to that, why dont you go back and address my previous responses to you.
AFN– I didnt realize people involved in technology and engineering required an understanding of evolution to complete their jobs. Care to elaborate how your Creation myth enhances your work performance, and descent with modification would hinder your efforts? Otherwise, I have no idea why you are comparing yourself to geologists and biologists.
kansassam– What a coincidence! I also do HIV research in ‘dirt poor countries’! I can assure you that treating and preventing HIV infection also require evolution. His potential has been handicapped, through no fault of his own.
And where did you get the idea that fame and fortune are my goals? Do you know how much research scientists make? ~$30,000 a year. I make $20,000 (minus taxes). Wonder how much Dembski pulls in every year doing nothing at all…
heartlander: Its cute you decided to ignore every point in my response to you, but instead chose to fake indignation and attack the fact I am attempting to help cure cancer.Of course our current procedure for treating cancer patients is barbaric. Youll never hear me suggest otherwise. The point is, Im using evolution to make currently available treatments more efficient at clearing the cancer while protecting other tissues, and it would be impossible without evolution.How are you using Creationism to cure cancers? But before you get to that, why dont you go back and address my previous responses to you.
AFN– I didnt realize people involved in technology and engineering required an understanding of evolution to complete their jobs. Care to elaborate how your Creation myth enhances your work performance, and descent with modification would hinder your efforts? Otherwise, I have no idea why you are comparing yourself to geologists and biologists.
kansassam– What a coincidence! I also do HIV research in ‘dirt poor countries’! I can assure you that treating and preventing HIV infection also require evolution. His potential has been handicapped, through no fault of his own.
And where did you get the idea that fame and fortune are my goals? Do you know how much research scientists make? ~$30,000 a year. I make $20,000 (minus taxes). Wonder how much Dembski pulls in every year doing nothing at all…
Thank you Typekey.
OK — For all of you ID supporters, Genesis(first book of the Bible) decribes two different Creation scenarios. The FIRST has everything on Earth being created in what it calls 7 “Days”.
THEN, the second scenario… The MAN (Adame`) is created FIRST… THEN a Garden is planted, and the MAN placed in it. No 7 days there… NO progressive Creation like the first account… And MAN is made FIRST, followed by everything else…
Follow that?? Good!!
NOW… there is NOTHING in Genesis that can possibly be construed as being SCIENTIFIC… Not one word of it!! In fact, the FIRST Story has GOD creating light and dark, and THEN after light and dark comes Sun and Moon… as rulers over the domains of Light and Darkness… or Day and Night… Again, NO SCIENCE there… It is ALL religious belief… Intelligent Design, or not, it is RELIGION!!!
Now, the BIBLE says that the sun stood still during a battle… and kept the daylight long enough for GOD’S people to win…
Therefore, the SUN must move around the earth, according to the BIBLE… Where will this intelligent design BS stop??
And you know, as crazy as it might sound, There is not ONE THING in this Bible about a given YEAR of all this Creation??
It might have been 10,000 years ago, or 10 BILLION years ago!!
What we DO know is that RECORDED history first appears about 10,000 years ago… And THAT can be backed up with good scientific methods… Call it whatever you want, but humankind HAS INDEED evolved… In life span, in language, in inventive prowess, in transportation, in medical treatments… EACH ONE of those areas involves Evolution… Natural Selection if you please… We no longer use the horse and buggy, because we have EVOLVED beyond that basic means of transportation… We no longer use “smoke signals” to communicate over distance… or signal drums… or even telegraph lines… We have EVOLVED… You dont do laundry by beating clothes on rocks beside a river… Because that method is no longer fit, and thus did not survive in OUR culture…
I wish people would pull their collective heads from their collective butts, and just THINK for a change!!! And by all means, Get the Evolution/Creation bit OUT of the political arena??
I know terriffic scientists who are Republicans, AND Democrats… I know people of FAITH who are both Democrats and Republicans…
And as for the Creationist not being able to do his/her job and keep his/her faith??? Tell that to these flaming fundamentalist pharmacists who are refusing to fill certain prescriptions because of their PERSONAL religious beliefs!!! THAT is just plain BAD SCIENCE!!!
ERV..
You appear to have a mistaken belief that Creationists do not believe in evolution. That is simply not true. Evolution is a fact of everyday life, but it only explains things that happened AFTER the world was formed, it doesn’t explain HOW the world came to be. Believing that God created everything should have no bearing on the results of some scientific experiment! His potential is hardly handicapped.
I apologize for assuming your goals in life, as you know, fame and fortune are how most of the world defines success.
kansassam– Being a theistic evolutionist (as you seem to indicate you and your son are now) is vastly different from being a ‘Bible believing Creationist’ as you indicated in your first post in this thread.
My evolutionary biology professors were theistic evolutionists. I disagree with them on a epistemological level, but I cannot use science to argue against their position. They are fantastic biologists, and one was my undergraduate research mentor.
However, radical Christians that deny evolution (thus deny the medical advances that keep them and others alive and healthy) cannot and never will use their radical beliefs to contribute to science, nor can they explain why evolution works so well if its so terribly wrong (see heartlands posts).
I would also caution you against telling your god how it can create things (re the Big Bang). I really cant imagine you think that advanced physics should have been included in the Bible.
ERV..
Now YOU are assuming things that aren’t true.. just let it go. You are fine, we are fine, our relationship with our God is fine. ‘Nuff said.
What am I assuming?
What am I supposed to drop?