Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action

American Society for Clinical Investigation ^ | 01 May 2006 | Alan D. Attie, Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, etc.

[Liberal Classic]

As Judge Jones indicated, the creationists have fostered a false duality between science and religion. A majority of people do not hold a literal young-earth interpretation of the Bible. The clerical community has a shared interest in keeping science and religion apart. They do not want religion to be presented as science and, like a large block of religious scientists, do not see any conflict between religious belief and evolutionary theory.

BUMP!

[furball4paws]

"When (at least since the Enlightenment) has religion seriously threatened or impeded science?"


What? you don't want to deal with the Dark Ages? Any Islamic State does this and the stated goals of Creationists/IDers to eviscerate science because it's too inconvenient for their interpretation of the bible will lead to same.

A Theocracy of any type will kill science and rational thought and set back mankind a thousand years.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Science isn't capable of providing an answer. Unfortunately, the author, if there was one, failed to leave his fingerprints on the manuscript. God is simply not capable of scientific examination.

I would dispute the fingerprint point. But still, even to say since we cannot know, we cannot consider is wrong. One possibility is completely eliminated from consideration. The "cannot know" works both ways. If He is the author of all that exists, you will never understand how He did it until you understand Him. You will always come up short if you eliminate the possiblity of the truth.

[Dr. I. C. Spots]

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=117

Good article on carbon dating. Some facts:
1: rock fossils can not be dated with any reliable technique. Only real bone or living tissue can be dated with radio carbon.
2: most accurate technique to date is tree ring dating.
3: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=submitsearch&f_context_any=any&f_search_type=all&f_keyword_any=dating+techniquies&f_submit=+Go+
good articles on Radioisotope dating. Only used for dating volcanic rock.
4: sedimentary rock can not be dated reliably. Most evolutionists use circular reasoning to date these layers.
5: skull fossils have either shown to be human, ape or fakes (combinations of both spliced together to support evolution)

Nice try...next.

[Coyoteman]

Sorry, I do not find your link convincing.

Taxonomic discussions do not constitute lack of data nor indicate weak science. They are, rather, the signs of a good, healthy science, constantly re-evaluating the existing data and seeking better explanations.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

They're switching to political mode, issuing tips for how to combat people who don't buy Darwinism. They're launching into campaign mode. Waging a PR war. Cranking up the propaganda. All those things that you really don't expect cold, hard, objective science to be doing. Fascinating.

Fight fire (and brimstone) with fire (and evidence).

[Dr. I. C. Spots]

I'm sorry THAT I am not as perfect as you are, my humble apologies for the mis spell

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"But still, even to say since we cannot know, we cannot consider is wrong."

No it isn't. Science class isn't for bandying about theological claims that are untestable. ID is such a claim.

"The "cannot know" works both ways. If He is the author of all that exists, you will never understand how He did it until you understand Him."

That's an untestable *if*. The only way to objectively know what has happened is to do what science has always done; use only testable claims. It sure beats going on a mystical tangent.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm sorry THAT I am not as perfect as you are, my humble apologies for the mis spell"

What misspell? I was talking about your silly strawman about evolution being hydrogen to Man. That was too funny to resist mocking. :)

[PatrickHenry]

A Theocracy of any type will kill science and rational thought and set back mankind a thousand years.

But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore.

Source: Martin Luther.

[JmyBryan]

Religionists primarily believe science is evil. Faith in a unquestionable text is what is important. Anything that questions that faith is of Satan.

[Coyoteman]

Good article on carbon dating. Some facts:

1: rock fossils can not be dated with any reliable technique. Only real bone or living tissue can be dated with radio carbon.

2: most accurate technique to date is tree ring dating...

5: skull fossils have either shown to be human, ape or fakes (combinations of both spliced together to support evolution)

(Your point 5 is so ridiculous I will ignore it.)

I will address your information on radiocarbon dating, as that is something I do a lot of.

In point 1, you can also date shell, and a host of other items. The only requirement is that it contains carbon.

In point 2, you mention tree ring dating. That is a very good method, as you note. However, are you aware that radiocarbon dating is calibrated in reference to tree rings? They have gone past 12,600 years or so dating the tree rings every ten years, and creating a calibration curve to account for the small variations in the atmosphere. These variations were noted in either 1957 or 1958, less than ten years after radiocarbon dating was invented.

You supply a link from icr.org. I will take a look, but I tend not to trust any data from creationist websites.

Here are some links I have personally examined and found to be credible:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

[metmom]

I love all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on as some scientists bemoan the fact that for all the years of indoctrination teaching evolution, people are apparently more and more leaning towards belief in creation or ID.

[trashcanbred]

What? and evolution is not faith based? It takes more faith for someone to believe that, given enough time hydrogen will turn into a man, than for me to believe that GOD created everything

Um... well that isn't exactly what Evolution says now is it? You have the wrong talking points... Those are the talking points against the Big Bang theory that you were given... Go to Chapter 4, "Atheism is Darwinism" of your "How to Argue with a Scientist" handbook.

All of our so called brilliant scientists can't even duplicate an ant with all their collective reasoning brain power and your trying to tell me that it all just happened all by itself?

Hmm... I am not sure anyone has ever actually tried. Of course, scientists have created viruses from scratch before. I admit, that isn't the same as an ant but given we have only been at it a small number of years compared to the age of the Earth (no not that 6000 year age you keep throwing around, the REAL age) is it any surprise? But it is funny how you attack scientist by calling them "so called brilliant". You are typing on a computer whose initial components (can you say transistor) were designed by some very brilliant scientists.

Cut all the mumbo-jumbo show me the validating experiments. At least bring back to life something that was once alive!

Um... ok.. check out http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7064. 32,000 year old bacteria was brought back to life. However I am confused still as to what the heck that has to do with Evolution? You must be very enlightened.

There are no scientific facts to support evolution that's why 58% still don't believe it, after all the years of brain washing. ...and the arguments go on...

Do you mean "macroevolution","microevolution" or Evolution in general? For microevolution... even the "smart" IDers agree it exists. We have seen it in our lifetimes and it is a fact. Macroevolution take a longer number of generations to witness first hand. That is why we use fossils. To say there are no facts to support Evolutionary Theory is like saying there are no proof to support Gravitational theory. Your talking points are very very old, most IDers have moved on from this.

Oh and as for 58% of Americans not believing in Evolution... did you know that 50% of the American population cannot identify Mississippi on a map. 60% also cannot find Iraq. I have a funny feeling that a high percentage of the 60% that cannot find Iraq or Mississippi are the ones who do not believe in Evolution. What does it all mean? It means that most children in the US are being raised by people who don't give a damned about their children knowning fact from fiction... such ID'ers.

"Only a fool says in his heart, there is no GOD"

Funny... I never said it, you did. I believe in searching for the truth in a scientific fashion, because that is how we have advanced ourselves and our country. Why that seems to threaten "your beliefs" is something I often wonder about. Most people aren't bothered by understanding and believing in both Evolution and God. I wonder what is wrong with the few who do?

[LibertarianSchmoe]

You would have been right in tune with the 17th century Church when it prosecuted Galileo. Same arguments.

So the Church (religion) persecuting Galileo (science) for contradicting fragile beliefs is like scientists (science) defending evolution (science) from ID-based (religion) attacks? Galileo had evidence, the Church had an interpretation of the Bible (and a perceived threat to their power).

Hmmmmm...

[puroresu]

Isn't George Soros funding this upcoming "Republican War Against Science" schlockumentary? This is one of the hottest leftist memes in the moonbat blogosphere. Of course, it'll make its way into the conservative blogosphere through the usual routes.

[Dr. I. C. Spots]

To all the so called Christians who believe in evolution:
to believe in evolution is to deny Your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Bible (which is the only book used for doctrine for Christians) says that sin entered the world by one man, and the wages of sin is death, therefore death entered the world through one man, Adam. Jesus Christ by His death and resurrection conquered death, sin, hell and the grave. If sin did not bring death, and death existed before man was on the scene, then Jesus Christ died for nothing and his death on the cross was useless, therefor there is no forgiveness of sin, death has not been conquered and your so called faith is in vain.
Facts:
1: Jesus Christ quoted Genesis in several accounts in the Gospels particularly Adam and Eve, and Noah's flood.
2: Paul the Apostle talks about Adam and Eve and Christ being the second Adam.
3: Peter talks about Noah and the flood.
4: According to Biblical dates the earth is only @ 8000 years old 10,000 at the most. (supported by earth's molten core experiments)
5: The original Hebrew text uses language that denotes a literal 6 day creation not a fairy story, this same language is again used in the book of Exodus.
If these are just nice stories from an old book, then what is your faithed based on?

Tell me again what you believe in?

[Liberal Classic]

This is one of the hottest leftist memes in the moonbat blogosphere.

Yes, and sadly some people are doing their damnest to make it come true.

[puroresu]

Yep! And there are now plenty of ways around the government schools that the ideological evolutionists rely upon.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"To all the so called Christians who believe in evolution:
to believe in evolution is to deny Your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Or not.