Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?

Thanks Holmes.You combine patience and the needed look at the importance of methodology. The thoughts on evo/creo in schools and the necessity of a cohesive creationist model were useful.ABB

I'm not sure why you're disputing what should be a straightforward point. "Science" doesn't simply mean "knowledge". Science is a systematic means of studying the universe to figure out how it works. Science is conferred much respect and credibility in our society because of its record of success and its significant contributions. Views are automatically given more credibility by the lay public if they can lay claim to being scientific. This fact is why one of the staples of flim-flam advertising is to include "scientific" in the advertising as much as possible.The mantle of being scientific isn't something that one claims for one's own theory. It would be like calling yourself a doctor without ever having gone to medical school. The mantle of science is earned by entering one's views into the scientific arena in the form of journal articles and conference presentations. If the relevant sub-community of scientists in a field finds the views persuasive because they are able to replicate the experiments and/or observations and come to the same conclusions, then those views become incorporated into the fabric of science.But Creationism hasn't gone through this process. Knowing that they can't take their views to the halls of science because they aren't scientific, and knowing that their only chance of success is to convince the lay public that Creationism is science, and knowing that only scientific views will be taught in science class, they've simply given themselves the label of science without ever having having submitted their views to scientific scruitiny. This can be addressed on a couple levels. One is by example. The inability of Creationism to explain radiometric dating has persisted for more than half a century. There has been no progress whatsoever. All that has changed over time is the means Creationists use to dismiss radiometric dating, ranging from the simple "It's wrong" to the somewhat more honest "It's a puzzle" to the dissembling of Snelling's "Let's misrepresent." If radiometric dating truly had significant problems then Creationists would have little difficulty going into the field, conducting their own scientific radiometric studies and submitting them to scientific journals. That they haven't speaks volumes.Let me be clear by putting this example in the same terms that you used to characterize Creation Science. You said they investigate natural phenomena. I say they don't, and the absence of any legitimate Creationist work in the field of radiometric dating, probably the most significant single problem for Creationism, tells us that they definitely do not investigate natural phenomena.On another level one can examine the details of how Creationists actually conduct science. Most notable on the list is the common requirement of Creationist organizations like ICR and CRS that their pledge allegiance to a statement of belief that includes adherence to the Biblical account of creation. No true scientist at any legitimate university or research lab would ever have to sign a statement of religious belief.If there were a creed that scientists had to sign, it would probably be one where they pledge to work as hard as possible to overthrow existing paradigms. One does not earn Nobel Prizes by adding one more digit of accuracy to Planck's constant. The young guns entering upon science careers are as interested in making names for themselves as any young football running back or seven foot basketball center, and that requires pushing out in new directions. The scientist who overthrows the evolutionist paradigm will ensure himself a Nobel prize and a place in history along side Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein, and if Creationism were a fertile area for fruitful investigation then its ideas would have found their way into mainstream science decades ago. But no one has ever succeeded in providing a scientific foundation for Creationist ideas.The contrast between how Creationists and scientists think of science is stark. Creationists think of science as something timeless and permanent that you believe, like the creation account in Genesis, and that you then go off and try to justify and find evidence for. Scientists think of science as a way of approaching the study of the universe in which we live, and as an ever growing body of knowledge and tentative theoretical frameworks that reflect our current understanding of that universe.Another important detail highlighting the impoverished nature of Creation Science is the lack of consistency in their ideas. Some Creationists believe the frequency of magnetic field reversals increased enormously during the flood year, others believe there's no such thing as magnetic field reversals. Some believe the rain came primarily from a vapor canopy, others that it came primarily from beneath the earth's surface, and yet others believe it came from both. Some believe the fossil shells on mountain tops were deposited by the flood, others believe they were on an ocean floor that was pushed up to be mountains during the flood year. Some believe the rate of radioactive emissions increased enormously during the flood year, others just claim radiometric dating is wrong. Perhaps most significant is that court rulings have forced Creationists to recognize that the veneer they've put atop Creationism to make it appear scientific is not fooling anyone outside the evangelical community, and so they're changed horses and begun to advocate the teaching of ID in science class. This is a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of forced alliance. Just wait until traditional Creationists begin to realize that ID accepts an ancient earth.It is evident that there is nothing in Creation Science to support your claim that it "employs scientific concepts in investigations of natural phenomena and theoretical formulations." What they actually try to do is build a facade that appears scientific to the lay public, and they make almost no effort at all at promotion within legitimate scientific arenas. Then isn't it premature for them to be going to school boards requesting representation for their ideas? Isn't the fact that they are doing so worthy of contempt rather than respect? This is yet another example of Creation Science not doing science. Science works by submitting one's ideas to the criticisms of the scientific community. The first stage is usually submission of a written paper to a journal where it undergoes peer review, meaning that the paper is distributed anonymously (the authors' names are removed) to other scientists in the field for comment. The feedback is also given anonymously. Depending upon the severity of the feedback, the authors might only need to make some changes to the paper, or they might actually have to go back to the laboratory or field to gather more data to answer issues and questions raised by the reviewers. Why wouldn't Creation Scientists want to benefit from this process?Once a paper is published, or perhaps even presented at a conference, it is scrutinized by the larger scientific community. If other scientists are unable to replicate the results, then the paper becomes forgotten. But if other scientists are able to successfully replicate the results, as would become apparent by the submissions of papers in the future and by the number of references to the original paper, then the results become incorporated into the fabric of science. Why wouldn't Creation Scientists want to benefit from this process?Progress in science comes from enduring the process of feedback and criticism from the scientific community. Isolating oneself from that process only hinders, not enhances, progress. That Creationism is still struggling with the same half-century old problems is because of this isolation.Another way of assessing whether Creation Science is truly science is to examine the normal pattern of scientific progress, which is usually marked by a pattern of refinement over time. For example, Newton's laws were not overthrown by Einstein, but refined and modified. The concept of atoms was not overthrown by the discovery of sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons, but refined. And the discovery that the sub-atomic particles themselves were made up quarks did not overthrow the concept of sub-atomic particles, but merely refined and enhanced our understanding of them. If superstring theory is confirmed, then it will mean that quarks are actually manifestations of superstrings in a multi-dimensional space, but it won't overthrow the concept of quarks.In other words, scientific progress builds on what went before. New ideas build upon and modify old ideas. And so we can ask if the currently accepted ideas of Creation Science follow this normal pattern of science.Before considering this question one must ask, "What are the currently accepted ideas of Creation Science?" We must know which ideas are currently accepted so that we can examine how those ideas have changed over time in order to can see whether it was a process of refinement or not.But in attempting to answer this question we quickly discover a problem: there is no set of broadly accepted ideas within Creation Science. There are Creationists who accept a young earth, and Creationists who accept an old earth. There are those who accept hyrdroplate theory and those who accept vapor canopy theory. There are those who believe radioactive decay rates change, and those who don't. There are those who accept ID, and those who don't.Since we can't even find an answer to the question asking which are the currently established principles within Creation Science, it seems safe to say that the history of Creation Science does not bear any resemblance to the normal patterns of scientific progress.And yet even though Creation Science cannot point to anything that resembles scientific progress, even though it has no coherent established set of principles and ideas, it nonetheless wants to be considered as science and be taught in science class. And so, once again determinedly sticking to the topic of this thread, which despite the very helpful diversions into into dinosaur fossils and geological layers actually concerns the integrity and legitimacy of the Creationism movement, we see that Creationism is not deserving of any respect. Only when it brings its ideas for review to the scientific community, and only when it advocates representation of ideas in science class that are actually accepted by the scientific community, will be it worthy of respect.--Percy

I volunteered to participate in that thread because you expressed an interest in continuing. Now it looks like the cycle of "pile on Faith" is continuing in this thread probably to the same end.I can see why you are getting frustrated with this forum but you also need to look at the amount of time and discussion that has gone on in order to try to make this place more comfortable for you. That was the whole point for moving the sedimentation thread over to the GD forum was to mitigate exactly some of the things that were causing you grief. I can imagine. I don't think I could post with nearly any quality if I had to try to keep up with the amount of responses you are getting. Realize that if you do choose to participate in the GD topic that the exchange will just be between me and you, no time limits on when you need to respond, and an agreement to be civil. Even though we have had our share of fiery debate in the past there is no reason we cannot agree to conduct ourselves in a more calm fashion now. Isn't that what you want? Just remember that all the effort that has gone into setting this up was becuase it seemed like you were keen on continuing. That was of course until this thread started up and you have gotten into some, what I can only assume have been, discouraging conversations with others.Realize now that the admin on this board can be very accomidating at times and they have basically given you free will to isolate your self in a discussion with me or whoever else you want; one on one or one on many if you choose. This is an attempt to allow you to directly mitigate the flood of responses you get and to control who you feel like talking to.One thing I can say for sure is that if you do decide to participate in the topic that I plan on doing my best to play it calm and collected. There is no emotional investment in my being wrong about sedimentation and I have no scorn for dealing with topics that I may consider trivially wrong. My "first" post in the GD is an attempt to simply an attempt to explain things without having to resort to trivializing your position.My ultimate goal is to prove to you you and other creos both active and lurking that a patient conversation between highly dissenting positions can continue and be entertaining.The ball is in your court now. What do you want?This message has been edited by Jazzns, 03-24-2005 08:25 AM

---

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

You might notice that nobody is challenging the true sciences such as chemistry. What creationists challenge are the EXTRAPOLATIONS, the IMAGINATIVE SCENARIOS built on a few geological facts (or in the case of biology, drawn completely from the ToE) that evolutionists come up with. They imagine the scene that fits their assumptions, and creationists imagine the scene for the same observations that fits their own. This is in my observation a war of competing explanations of established facts, not any kind of challenge to science as such.I don't know about debates here centering on schooling as that is not my focus and hasn't been. My view has been consistently that Christians should abandon the public schools en masse. They should take heed from Christian theologian:

And here I thought a lot depended on how amazingly consistently ordered the fossils are. The point is that most things buried in the strata of the "Geo Column" don't look much like modern creatures. They're from the pre-Flood world, varieties that no longer exist. That's a reasonable answer, though I doubt it holds up past much scrutiny. By just looking at the moon I suppose I'd be avoiding the evidence of the sun too.Oh well.

It is off topic but see my answer to Holmes, 229 I think.

So you're saying the Archean to Cretaceous strata are pre-flood, suggesting the flood happened in either the Tertiary or Quaternary?

But you are Faith!! The different branches of Science don't stand alone, they are intertwined and support each other. A lot of the evidence in geology and biology (including evolution) is supported by chemistry and physics. When you disavow one branch or section of science you are in effect disavowing all of Science. This annoys those of us who have studied Science because it is such an ignorant position and in many cases it appears not only to be willful but almost gleeful ignorance. I know you've been told this before, but you really need to educate yourself in geology and biology before you declare these sciences invalid.

Surprise, surprise! Actually the usual idea is that the land animals all headed for high areas when the deluge began. During the Flood tons of marine life would have been precipitated out along with sediments, covering the lower land areas in particular. The land animals meanwhile would have died on the higher land. As the waters receded and exposed the higher land, those animals would have been washed down on top of the marine sediments. As for rivers, there is no concession as I already said. What evolutionists do is observe exactly what a FLood would predict but co-opt it to their own assumptions. The "river" had to have been created by the runoff from the high places as the Flood receded, and the bodies of dinosaurs would probably have had a part in creating the channel as they slid downhill with the muddy water. Because they'd already been destroyed by the flood waters and were carried along with the sediments anyway. I didn't say normal and I don't think normal. The Flood was worldwide, there was nothing normal about any of it. I assume enormous tides as the waters were receding from the land areas. There would likely also have been underwater earthquakes that would have caused tidal waves. The idea of a pre-existing sea is what is consistent with the long ages theory, not the Flood scenario. Many high tides. You'll have to spell out most of the above at some other time as I'm not sure what you're getting at. There is also no attempt to show that the river channels represent LONG-lived drainage on the part of evos. That is simply assumed by the timeline. Apparently the evidence of this riverbed is found within the layers. To you that means long time, to floodists short time. How does seaweed get deposited on beaches? How do whales and porpoises get beached? Dead bodies of all kinds wash up on shores. Why is this a problem? Most of the marine life was precipitated out DURING the Flood, over that year, and tides during its retreat would have brought in other types. Why toward the sea? Just from high places following the receding Flood waters. They didn't survive. They all died. Mostly dead creatures were carried in the flood waters.

Firstly there is nothing in the idea of a pre-existing sea that in any way contradicts the Flood. Why are you trying to suggest otherwise ?Your claim of "cooption" is equally worthless - in the usual Flood scenario these strata are believed to be deposited during the Flood and so there should be no signs of rivers.And please realise that calling a massive flood a "high tide" is odd to say the least.As for your ideas on marine life you do realise that you are proposing that the marine life killed in the Flood - that supposedly is on the very bottom - is dug up again and again. That is certainly not what happens when cetaceans get beached !As for the rivers, I notice that you caqn produce no geological evidence for your assumption that they were simply short-lived drainage channels, cut into loose sediment and quickly buried. Want to actually try producing some evidence that favours your view ?No, I'm afraid that your explanation is not as good as the conventional view - as can be seen by the fact that despite your disparaging remarks you can produce no serious problems in it.

At the moment I'm interested in what is going on here. I'm sure that will soon come to an end and I will go back to the GD thread. OK?

Of course most fossils are of extinct life - this is one of the things that caused the collapse of creationism. The Bible does not mention anything about pre-Flood life being significantly different.And the order is amazingly consistent - but that doesn't mean that there were no successful branches of life that eventually went extinct. But that's what you are trying to argue.As for your later claims I have to point out that the wrist joint in maniraptoran dinosaurs is the same as birds have - and nothing earlier does. Good luck refuting that !And yes, if you wanted to claim that there were no yellow celestial bodies than you would be ignoring the evidence of the sun if you only looked at the moon. And that is directly analagous to what you are doing here. Overall the life from the strata associated with the dinosaurs IS closer to that we find now than in lower strata. But if you only look at dinosaurs and ignore, say, the fact that birds make their first appearance in those strata then you are ignoring relevant evidence.

Because it is simply a layer of marine flotsam and jetsam which fits the Flood. But there would have been channels eroded by water draining from high ground, which is what a river is after all, except in the Flood scenario there would have been many temporary such rivers as the waters drained away. The evolutionist would look at such channels within layers and call them rivers and assume a landscape that lasted millions of years instead of just long enough for the flood water to drain. The "worthless" idea that the evo view is merely a co-optation of the Flood evidence is really quite reasonable. I didn't call a flood a high tide, I said that a worldwide flood when receding would have included high tides. The tides didn't stop with the flood. How they occurred when there was no land for waves to crash on I don't know, but the tidal pattern certainly had to be there. It seems to me it would have been only as land was exposed that tidal effect on the land would be noticeable. And if underwater earthquakes were causing tsunamis that can certainly be considered as having quite an effect on what ended up on the land. Are you talking about shellfish again? What happens when they die? Do they float? {edit: anything that lived near the bottom of the oceans would have been disturbed by two factors during the Flood: the release of the "fountains of the deep" from beneath the ocean floor, and the stirring up of sediments in the water. If they survived either of these effects they probably sought higher levels in the water and died later anyway. No more geological evidence than you give for their being long-lived channels. They are found between the layers. Your system gives long ages, mine gives short ages. The actual geological evidence is comprehended by both. You do tend to overlook the fact that much of evo theory is nothing but the spinning of tales from the evidence, not evidence itself, just stories. Most evo presentations to the public are nothing but these fanciful stories, with precious little if any actual geological evidence given at all. There is no reason to disparage either theory on this particular point about the dinosaurs. The evo theory built its story of the dinosaurs on its assumption of great ages and a few observed geological facts that work better for Flood theory. Evo theory has to be challenged on its assumptions of long ages, but particular scenarios that build upon those assumptions are easily answered with more logical scenarios.But I WOULD question the silly idea that dinosaurs for some reason go to die alongside a river, enough dinosaurs over a great period to end up in the beds as we see. And even if that were the case that the river would wash them down before they decomposed so that they could be fossilized in the sediments deposited is just as farfetched.But that many corpses were washed from high places along with sediment eroded from those high places and buried all at once does fit the actual evidence quite well.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-24-2005 02:38 PM

Why were the dinosaurs not burnt to death with everything else during the flood?

Yes, well the 19th century theorists hadn't thought through the scenario properly, but of course they didn't have the information we have now either. Knowledge of genetics tells us that enormous genetic potentials would have been killed in the flood. It would have been a genocide beyond any genocide before or since. Whole varieties of Kinds would have been killed, never to appear again. But of course floodists read the pre-flood world FROM the strata which record its burial, which evos use to prove great ages instead, and THAT kind of extrapolation was available to the early theorists, who instead got enamored of the highly dubious notions of great ages in the ordering of the fossils. Not following you. ALL the life that was wiped out in the flood was "successful." The extinctions we are seeing now are the end product of a severely reduced genetic potential in remaining varieties that are severely challenged by selective events. No interest in refuting it at this point. I'll give it a thought or two later. The birds sought high ground too. What's the problem here?