Why "YEC"/Fundamentalist Creationism is BAD for America

Except when it comes to the Darwinian explanation for the history of life, which can't be questioned. Apparently, accepting a flawed theory is better than saying "We don't know."

Everything can be questioned and tested - everything. But the ToE has been questioned and tested for 150 years and all that's changed are details. My personal opinion is that our understanding of how evolution actually works is still very naive. I think we'll find out that it's vastly more complicated and messy than we think it is now - and certainly how we discuss it here.But to actually test it you have to first understand it and then work professionally in the field. It can't be successfully challenged by people with no understanding of it and disagree with it for purely religious reasons. You need scientific reasons with evidence to support it.The ToE is real science so it can be falsified - all you have to do is provide the falsification. The simplest being a fossil found out of order in the fossil record. That's all it takes, one mammal in a rock older than mammals are found in. (In practice it would take a few to be conclusive, but if the ToE is wrong, that should be easy, you'd find no order in the fossil record.) The problem you have is showing the *fatal* flaws.There have been lots of flaws and there'll be many more, but none of them fatal and all add to our understanding. When science doesn't know, it says so. That all life on earth evolved is not something we don't know, it's now a fact accepted by all but those with religious reasons not to.

Actually, all scientific theories are flawed in this manner.
And, yes, it is better to accept the flawed theories, in this manner, then saying "we don't know."Because it leads to testing.
And the testing leads to better understanding.This is the crucial point:
The 'better understanding' never, ever gets to "right" or "true" or anything like that.
It is always flawed. It will always be flawed.It's just less-flawed.This isn't a weakness in science. It's science's greatest strength - the ability to increasingly become 'less flawed.'But, yes... no matter how 'less-flawed' it gets... it's always "flawed."This is a strange concept, and not very intuitive.
It is extremely understandable to not incorporate it into your thinking immediately.
For some, it can take years to fully appreciate how this works - so your mistake is not to be blamed on you.Here's a quote from an article also attempting to explain this same, strange concept:

quote:

---

...when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

​

The Relativity of Wrong
By Isaac Asimov

---

Science isn't about "being right."
It's about making progress and doing whatever-possible to become "less wrong."The reason is that we will never, ever know when or if "less wrong" will ever become "right."
There is no answer sheet to reality.
Every idea, every answer anyone ever comes up with - cannot be checked against some answer-sheet to know if it's actually "right" or just "less wrong than before."
Therefore, we are forever stuck in being "less wrong."We will always be "flawed."

There are several problems with this statement.First, ID/creationists aren't questioning the actual theory. Instead, they erect a strawman version of the theory and attack it. One great example of this is your false comparison of breeding programs conducted by humans and how evolution actually works. Another example is ID/creationists expecting one modern species to evolve into another modern species. This shouldn't happen if evolution is true.Second, ID/creationists don't listen to the answers. I have presented the evidence to creationists over and over, but they seem to ignore it.

Furthermore, their misconceptions about evolution have them expecting a member of one species to give birth to young of an entirely different genus or other higher taxon -- eg, dogs giving birth to kittens, "a snake laid an egg and a bird hatched out".That's how they think that evolution works even though it is completely contrary to evolution. And I have yet to see any creationist even begin to try to explain why they expect that.I also see a lot of creationist statements to the effect that they expect a new species to arise instantaneously when a member of the ancestral species (100% of that ancestral species) gives birth to a single member of the new species (100% of that new species). Of course, that is not at all how evolution works, but again no creationist will even begin to try to explain why they expect that. Of course not. Their immoral souls depend on them being right and you being dead wrong. They cannot allow themselves to listen to a word that you say.For that same reason, they cannot allow themselves to explain what they expect, since that would draw them into a discussion which would require them to listen to you. Therefore, they must do everything they can to avoid having an actual discussion. 
The sad truth is that creationists don't listen and refuse to discuss or support their claims because they have no clue what they are talking about. All they know is what their handlers tell them, which they memorize and repeat, but they understand nothing of the science that those claims are supposed to be based on. As a result, they are completely incapable of supporting or discussing those claims, so they have to resort to avoidance tactics (eg, changing the subject, slipping into troll mode, refusing to respond, running away).For example, my research into Hovind's solar-mass-loss claim was started by an email I received in which a high school kid sought verification on a claim he was told by a fundamentalist summer camp counselor which stated that the sun loses half of its mass every year. That flagrantly false statement was obviously a corruption of a few simple facts: 1) that the sun loses mass, 4-5 million tonnes per second, through its fusion reaction, 2) that that fusion reaction takes place in the sun's core, and 3) that the sun's core contains half of the sun's mass. I originally assumed that this was a case of the Telephone Game Theorem (parlour game in which a message is whispered from person to person and then you compare the final version with the original and marvel at how much it had been corrupted in the transmission) and that the original claim's repeated retelling by creationists who didn't understand any of it had resulted in its corruption. But now I'm no longer certain that it wasn't created with its gross falsehoods. Either way, it is a prime demonstration of the consequences of creationist ignorance. BTW, the kid did listen and walked away knowing that he must verify any claims that he encounters, especially creationist claims.

I can't imagine where you are seeing such stuff. Creationists here come up with some odd ideas, but I don't think I've seen anything that wrong here.My problem is that mutations aren't going to occur in a coherent enough way to produce anything you could call a species that evolved from another species. Even taking millions of years.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And what mechanism would keep a genome from accumulating enough new alleles to make a daughter species from an older one?

You mean lots of alleles for one gene or many genes?Any single allele for a single gene would just do what mutations do: mostly nothing, since most mutations are "neutral" and don't affect the phenotype.Sorry, I'm about to fall asleep at the switch. See you later.

quote:

---

In this thread I propose to discuss why "creationism" in general, and "Young Earth Creationism (YEC)" in particular are BAD for the US.

​

Reason #1: It interferes with the proper education of young people, both in terms of rational thinking and in terms of scientific literacy.

​

Reason #2: It interferes with the supposedly informed behavior of elected officials, at the local, state and national levels, both in terms of rational thinking and in terms of scientific literacy.

​

The earth is very old -- over 4.5 billion years old -- according to objective empirical evidence and sound, validated scientific processes. ⁽¹⁾

​

There was no world wide flood (WWF) -- according to objective empirical evidence from genetics that show no universal "bottleneck" of every single species living or extinct at any singular time in the natural history of life on earth. ⁽²⁾

​

Anyone who claims to believe otherwise is, to borrow from Dawkin's, either

​

1. stupid -- unable to understand the evidence, or
2. ignorant -- unaware of the massive amount of evidence for this, or
3. misinformed -- taught false information (see ⁽³⁾ definition #2 below), usually by a "trusted" source, or
4. deluded -- developed a false belief on their own (see ⁽³⁾ definition #3 below), for reasons of their own, or
5. insane -- clinging to a belief that has been falsified by evidence (see ⁽³⁾ definition #4 below), or
6. malicious -- lying in order to delude others.

​

Why is this BAD?

​

It seems rather obvious to me that any teaching in schools that is based on stupid, ignorant, misinformed, deluded, insane or malicious information is bad education, leading to misinformed or deluded students at best. Certainly this is not appropriate for education in a "leading" country.

​

It also seems rather obvious to me that any governmental decisions, whether at local, state or national levels, based on stupid, ignorant, misinformed, deluded, insane or malicious information is a bad decision.

​

Symptomatic of this in the US is the degree of Climate Change Denial by members of congress, based on false beliefs that are interfering with rational action regarding this pending massive change to the world as a whole.

​

Perhaps there should be a scientific literacy test for government representatives ...

​

Enjoy.

​

References:

​

1. ) See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for some of the evidence that refutes a Young Earth.
2. ) See No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood for discussion of this evidence.
3. ) de•lu•sion -noun (Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2013. )
   1. an act or instance of deluding.
   2. the state of being deluded.
   3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
   4. Psychiatry: a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

---

In brief, "creationism" in general, and "Young Earth Creationism (YEC)" in particular are BAD for the US because it involves wrong and misleading information and that interferes with scientific literacy.Enjoy

Don't think as an individual. Think as a population. How many genes are there? How many different alleles are there for each gene?Eye color is a good example. How many different eye colors are there. Every shade of blue, brown, and everything in between. Eye color is the result of multiple proteins from multiple genes. So there are literally thousands of alleles all of differing proteins scattered among the population gene pool just affecting eye color.[aside]The proteins in the eye are produced for various reasons, eye color not being one of them. The physics of light frequencies absorbed/reflected off the structures in the eye made by those proteins, like the iris, determine the outward appearing color. The color is of no importance. Only the structure and operation. It takes a lot of different proteins to build and operate an eye. That means a lot of different genes. Each one of those genes with thousands of alleles in the pool to give it expression. Only a few will be available within the parents to pass to a specific offspring. But in a gene pool of billions of individuals there are, quite literally, several million alleles all doing the same thing ... but different ... any one of which the offspring can pick up from the general population in the form of a mate.[/aside]So what. In a population of billions that still leaves many millions of new alleles each generation that may be beneficial now or in some future phenotype. You have no way of knowing. Yes, the various phenotypes resulting from a future gene pool will differ significantly to the phenotypes producible from the present pool.

I want to say that it happens all the time, but that would be hyperbolic. Still it happens extremely often with sickening regularity. I have seen them do it over and over again over the decades that I've been involved. That "a snake laid an egg and a bird hatched out" quote comes straight from a local YEC activist (who in a correspondence spanning two decades completely refused to present or discuss any young-earth claims). It seems like almost every time there's a video with rank-and-file creationists they end up including as "evidence against evolution" the fact that you never see dogs giving birth to cats or vice versa. And I have seen that same claim used over and over again in forums, and every time they refuse to support or even discuss it. We have even seen it used here, more recently by candle2 and by dredge -- so you haven't been paying attention.So your objection that it doesn't happen feels very familiar. Whenever I bring up a creationist claim like, "Why are there still monkeys?", creationists will immediately howl in indignation and try to claim that I just made that up because no creationist would say such a thing. And yet I have observed that very claim occurring several times in the wild, albeit nowhere near as frequently as dogs not giving birth to cats. Even Answers in Genesis included "why are there still monkeys?" in their "Claims we wish creationists would stop using" articles. IOW, it happens.Now certainly, we hear such ridiculous claims much more from the yahoo ranks of creationism than from the higher ranks, but those yahoos are getting it from somewhere, namely from what they're being taught by the higher ranks. Also, I've seen a highly intelligent creationist, far from a yahoo, try to avoid discussing young-earth claims before ending up by presenting Niagara Falls as proof of a young earth. So even the most intelligent creationist will revert to the stupidest false claims.The biggest problem that I see is not just that creationists will use stupidly false claims, but then they do everything they can to avoid discussing and supporting their claims (eg, explaining the basis for their claim). dredge keeps changing the subject and ignoring the question (or slip yet again into troll mode) while candle2 just plain disappeared.

OK, I haven't seen it myself, but then a lot of the creationist arguments I have seen aren't very sophisticated either.

Just like all of yours.

Each gene NORMALLY has TWO alleles. If there are more in a population for a particular gene, those are mutations. In some cases such as the genes in the Immune System that is a decided disadvantage for the species. As I recall there are few hundred genes in the Immune System, and most, or all, of them have many alleles. That means many alleles scattered throughout the population since an individual will have only two per gene. Where are all the other alleles for that gene? Scattered throughout the population in different individuals.So what started out as a system to protect against a few hundred diseases is now scattered so that any given individual may have protection for that collection of diseases, while another individual has protection against a different collection. While you may be protected against a particular immune-deficient disease your neighbor may have no protection at all against that disease but could have protection against a disease for which you have no protection. That's what happens when you get lots of alleles for a particular gene scattered through the population. Many alleles for many genes just compounds the problem if we're talking about the immune system. Of course MOST of them won't alter the function of the gene, and that's a mercy, but over time with the proliferation of mutations the situation I describe above is only going to increase, which amounts to a form of Russian roulette for individual inheritance of disease protections. Some get a particular protection, some don't.For some genes it may not be a particular problem of course even if the mutated "alleles" get fixed in an individual, or a subpopulation. Yes I've had in mind that there are many genes for eye color in order to explain the great range of eye color. Each gene normally has two alleles but many genes each with two alleles should be able to create many shades of eye color. That would be the normal situation, but if there are also multiple alleles for some or all of those genes they may not create a problem similar to that for the immune system but it's hard to see how they would contribute anything new or useful anyway. Since most will be neutral those aren't any problem, but if the original system provides for all the shades of eye color needed then we don't need the additional alleles, and I'm not sure how to imagine what they might do. I guess some could change the eye color, but probably just changing it to a color that's already available in the system anyway. But there is no need for all those thousands that I can see, because the combination of possibilities just from those genes should be enough to bring about all the possible shades of color. If you get a mutation that destroys the function of the allele altogether what would happen to the eye? What would that destroyed protein do? And could you even get something unique and new, say a uniquely new eye color? A brand new protein for a brand new eye color?I don't see how you're even going to get a really new and different eye color no matter how many mutations you've got in alleles for genes for eye color. I know it SEEMS like all those mutations MUST do something but when you think about it it's really not clear if that could happen at all. It's often difficult to figure out what's essential and what's superfluous but since we're focused on eye color at the moment, whatever affects that is what's essential at the moment.However, if you want to say the proteins produced by the genes affect the eye in many other ways, making the iris color an accidental byproduct, OK, then now we are talking about other properties of the eye. Llke what? And what happens to Mendel's observations about how BB, Bb and bb are the formula for blue and brown eyes? So now you're saying the genes aren't particularly for eye color at all, but are all involved in forming all the eye functions? Is this known for sure? But those thousands of alleles are scattered through the population, so the expression you say they give the gene are available only to separate individuals. Is that a good thing? Is that what you have in mind? So an individual here gets one kind of expression and an individual there gets a different kind? But again most of them won't do anything, being neutral. Hard to see how this situation is beneficial at all to any population. Not clear what you have in mind here. "Within the parent?" "pass to a specific offspring?" For any given gene only one allele per parent will be available to pass along. If you're talking about many genes, then only one allele per each of the many genes will be available to pass along. And if there are thousands of alleles in the population, any given parent will have just one per gene to pass along anyway. The other thousands-- most of which would be neutral, and probably those possessed by our parent here too for that matter -- will be scattered among thousands of other individuals. I really doubt this is a good thing, or a normal thing, or even if it really is the actual situation. But all those mutations aren't really doing anything "different." Why should they? Most, again, are neutral anyway, not changing the protein or the protein's function. And just because you've got thousands or millions of them why should any of them, even a very few of them, do something really different? And what sort of difference do you have in mind? HOW different? IN WHAT WAY different? And why should it be different in a good way? And if only a few have this difference it's a very few individuals that have it. First, as I've saying, this idea that new alleles per gene just keep accumulating is either not happening as you think it is, or it's so abnormal it can only cause problems as it does in the immune system. Or do nothing at all despite so many of them. To get new phenotypes, even really dramatically new phenotypes, all you need is an isolated gene pool, the smaller the better, and the more isolated the better. It won't take many generations in a small gene pool to produce a whole new population of something completely new and different in a given species. It will be obviously that same species, but maybe smaller or larger, a different color or range of colors, different behaviorally, whatever, lots of differences. You guys make much too much of mutations. They really aren't necessary and they don't do what you think they do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.