Using Religion to Suppress Debate on Evolution

The Washington Post ^ | March 27, 2009 | John G. West

[GodGunsGuts]

Using Religion to Suppress Debate on Evolution

By John G. West Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute

Evolution was back in the headlines this week as the Texas State Board of Education voted 13-2 to require students to "analyze and evaluate" major evolutionary concepts such as common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations, as well as adopting a critical thinking standard calling on students to "critique" and examine "all sides of scientific evidence."

The vote was a loss for defenders of evolution who had pushed the Board to strip the "analyze and evaluate" language from the evolution standards and gut the overall critical thinking standard.

Evolutionists typically cast themselves as the champions of secular reason against superstition, but in Texas they tried to inject religion into the debate at every turn.

Indeed, this past week it seemed that they couldn't stop talking about religion. They boasted about their credentials as Sunday School teachers and church elders. They quoted the Bible and appealed to theology...

[Buck W.]

Sure.

[tacticalogic]

I was in school a long time ago. Back then they were satisfied with a few million years. I don’t trust government sites to give me facts anyway. I have yet to see what Obama meant by a tax break for 95% of Americans. I must be missing something in my calculations (and in my wallet!)

While there were some earlier, lesser document theories, the origin of "Old Earth" theory is generally attributed to a Scottish geologist named James Hutton, who first theorized that sedimentary rock took millions and possible billions of years to form. Hutton was a contemporary of the Founders, and his theories pre-date Darwin by several decades.

[Phileleutherus Franciscus]

So now are we saying the earth is billions of years old? That’s the first I heard of that.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.

A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

The resulting plot has data points for each of five meteorites that contain varying levels of uranium, a single data point for all meteorites that do not, and one (solid circle) data point for modern terrestrial sediments. It looks like this:

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp

[Gordon Greene]

“I will try to do better if you will try to understand that for them to make the assumptions you want them to make”

Pointing out an elitist-like statement. Not for the point of slamming you but because you don’t seem to know when you do it.

Your answers are, again well thought out and I appreciate that, but just as you are convinced of your logic in these matters I see the point I’m trying to make just as vividly. We only know so much past 100 years or so but assume we have become so intelligent in that time we can answer the mysteries of the universe. It’s no different than the global warming argument... to think the earth is, as the evolutionists claim billions of years old and we could destroy it with an SUV in 40 is ludicrous, yet you ask me to trust those same scientists when it comes to millions of years? Better yet, You believe them? You seem smarter than that to me.

[tacticalogic]

I don’t trust government sites to give me facts anyway. I have yet to see what Obama meant by a tax break for 95% of Americans. I must be missing something in my calculations (and in my wallet!)

I'll wager the same information was there when Reagan was in office.

[tacticalogic]

We only know so much past 100 years or so but assume we have become so intelligent in that time we can answer the mysteries of the universe. It’s no different than the global warming argument... to think the earth is, as the evolutionists claim billions of years old and we could destroy it with an SUV in 40 is ludicrous, yet you ask me to trust those same scientists when it comes to millions of years? Better yet, You believe them? You seem smarter than that to me.

Again, if you want perfect answers that is your perogative. Are you willing to hold religion to the same standard - as long as there is disagreement and conflicting opinions among it's proponents, the none of it is to be trusted?

[Phileleutherus Franciscus]

Those constants do not exist in a vacuum, they are a necessary consequence of the properties of the matter and forces they study and if they changed then everything they affected or interacted with had to change too.

And we can measure what those constants were (or, more precisely, the ratios of some of the constants) by viewing very distant objects today and measuring their values when light left them. Here are two recent examples using two entirely different molecules for measurement:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3081v1

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/7080

The conclusion? There is no evidence that any of the constants have varied in the last 6-8 billion years.

[tacticalogic]

The conclusion? There is no evidence that any of the constants have varied in the last 6-8 billion years.

Unfortunately I don't believe an absence of evidence that they have changed is sufficient. What's being demanded is documented contemporaneous proof that they have never changed.

[Gordon Greene]

“I’ll wager the same information was there when Reagan was in office.”

I’d take that bet... I was in school when Reagan was in office and I was taught millions of years not billions. Either way, I don’t think Reagan was as active in the internet as Al Gore at the time and there was no Government website in the 80’s. There was no public internet to speak of. Arpanet was just getting started and few had access.

What’d I win?

[tacticalogic]

I’d take that bet... I was in school when Reagan was in office and I was taught millions of years not billions. Either way, I don’t think Reagan was as active in the internet as Al Gore at the time and there was no Government website in the 80’s. There was no public internet to speak of. Arpanet was just getting started and few had access.

What’d I win?

You win an admission that I may be wrong about it being available on the internet. I seriously question your memory about what the accepted estimate of the age of the Earth was then.

[Phileleutherus Franciscus]

Unfortunately I don't believe an absence of evidence that they have changed is sufficient. What's being demanded is documented contemporaneous proof that they have never changed.

Well, the first measurement would not be possible if the value of the proton to electron mass ratio had changed more than 1.8x10-4%.

The second indicates that the fine structure constant, equal to the square of the charge of the electron divided by the speed of light times Planck's constant, did not change over a 4 billion year period.

We can measure what the constants must have been at the time light left distant stars, is my point. And if the constants had changed, what we would see would be very different from what we do see.

[Gordon Greene]

“as long as there is disagreement and conflicting opinions among it’s proponents, the none of it is to be trusted?”

I don’t use people’s opinions as a standard for my faith. That would be pretty ignorant. Whether you agree or not, my standard is the Word of God. I could care less about religion or the opinions of other men.

Disagreement and conflicting opinion among the proponents of evolution is a different matter. Why should I take in faith something that the evidence doesn’t fully support and that even the believers in the evidence disagree wildly on.

I admit what I believe about the Bible is faith, but evolutionists are afraid to do the same with their chosen religion.

[tacticalogic]

Is it possible, for the purposes of this discussion, to separate the “hard” science of physics and the issue of measureable physical constants with the “soft” science of biology and evolution and keep to that line of argument?

[Gordon Greene]

“What’s being demanded is documented contemporaneous proof that they have never changed.”

Where? Maybe that’s the problem. You’re making an assumption that’s what is being asked for. The premise of my argument is not that at all. I’ve asked for no proof of the constant although I don’t think the constants are a given. I’ve just voiced my doubt about the validity of the given methods based on the length of time the samples span. If the scientists are even a day off over 10 years the exponential nature of the error would be unnacceptable by most scientific standards.

[Gordon Greene]

“You win an admission that I may be wrong about it being available on the internet. I seriously question your memory about what the accepted estimate of the age of the Earth was then.”

Good grief! That’s enough for me... it’s like winning the lottery (and yes I believe the lottery is a tool of Satan).

That’s the closest to an admission of error I’ve gotten from an evolutionist on this site! Still incorrect even in the “admission” but you were close. Are you really so young that you don’t know there was no government website of that nature that was available to the public in the early 80’s?

Of course, even in the admission there was an elitist attitude. Just pointing it out for your benefit.

[tacticalogic]

If the scientists are even a day off over 10 years the exponential nature of the error would be unnacceptable by most scientific standards.

That's a margin of error of 0.00027. What's good enough?

[tacticalogic]

Of course, even in the admission there was an elitist attitude. Just pointing it out for your benefit.

I don't supposed it ever occured to you that anything you've posted is arrogant and condescending.

[Fichori]

You might like to read some background regarding this general subject... (if you have time)

Starting at posts 144 [through 177], and 210 [through 283] (both on the same thread)

[Gordon Greene]

“Is it possible, for the purposes of this discussion, to separate the “hard” science of physics and the issue of measureable physical constants with the “soft” science of biology and evolution and keep to that line of argument?”

I’d love to do that, but I’m more of a philisophical - logic kind of guy. I’m not really trained in physics. Where it’s kind of hard for you to jump into the religious faith-based side of things, I have no education in physics so I can only take your word for it on physics.

Hmmm.... I do see the problem. Of course, as I said I have faith in God and believe the Bible because of my faith and what I see in the natural world. For these reasons I can’t promise I can limit the discussion the way you propose. Which is part of the problem. I cannot separate my faith from the discussion... I know that’s not exactly what you’re asking me to do, but alll of the physics you’re citing is directly related to trying to prove the case for evolution. At least that’s how it appears and that makes it kind of tough for me not to argue that direction.

[Gordon Greene]

“That’s a margin of error of 0.00027. What’s good enough?”

What period of time... using what as a standard (standard in the traditional sense)?