The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. A Review.

New Statesman ^ | 28 August 1992 | Richard Dawkins

[Dimensio]

While some new research suggests (note: that is suggests, as in it has not been subject to sufficient peer-review for any conclusions to be drawn) that the speed of light might have altered slightly, even those suggestions are not enough to greatly skew the approximated age of the universe. Any significant changes in c would mean that a lot of current theory based on E=mc^2 is bunk (which includes atomic theory) or it would have catastrophic implications in the "early" universe when c was somehow "very high".

If God created the planet as-is with apparent ancient age in a matter of days, then science can only speak of the apparent age of the earth. Science cannot take into account supernatural intervention when observing the universe.

Comparing the formation of the earth to the construction of a golf ball is somewhat pointless until you come up with a working theory for the formation of a golf ball.

[Junior]

Number one, carbon dating is accurate to about 50,000 years (there is a dead spot at about 4,000 years, but I don't know enough to explain it). Number two, carbon dating does not work on rocks as they are not organic. Number three, there are numerous radiological dating methods that are used to date rocks and they consistently give an age for the Earth of about four billion years.

[beckett]

Dawkins definitely got the idiom wrong. It is not "want a bet" but "do you want to bet," abbreviated in slang as "wanna bet."

A bet cannot be given away, as the question "want a bet?" implies. Betting is a collusive act, and the preposition "to" must precede the infinitive verb "bet" for the phrase to have meaning.

[Dimensio]

It became another issue because it couldn't be replicated.

No, it is another issue because evolution is a very specific field. Evolution deals with existing populations of life forms. It does not deal with how those life forms ultimately came into being. It's kind of how like how studying electron flow in a circuit does not depend on the ultimate source of either the electricity or the components of the circuit.

"Scientific theories are never proven"

Sure they are...but they start calling them "laws."

No, scientific "laws" are theories that have withstood rigourous analysis and testing and have proven useful as a reference basis for further experimentation and testing. That does not mean that the theory was "proven", it means that falsifying that particular theory can have very broad implications.

[John H K]

There are basically one of two conclusions you can draw:

1) Scientists are correct about the ancient age of the earth.

2) Young-earth creationists are correct about the young age of the earth, but God went out of his way to falsify literally millions of pieces of evidence that any sane, logical observer would interpret as evidence of an ancient earth, either as some sort of weird test of faith or as a simple practical joke. Is that a God worth worshipping? I think not.

[steve-b]

Would they publish - for this book is approximately as silly - a claim that the Romans never existed and the Latin language is a cunning Victorian fabrication to keep schoolmasters employed?

We have a security leak. Terminate with extreme prejudice.

[steve-b]

I believe God created the heavens and the earth as well as all that is upon it. He even gave it the appearence of great age.

I know that there are plenty of DemocRats who worship the ground Bill Clinton walks on, but this is the first time I've ever seen it seriously suggested that God is, in fact, Bill Clinton.

[Dimensio]

Black helicopters on standby.

If you are not a member of the EAC (which does not exist), please disregard this and the previous message (which also do not exist).

[BMCDA]

Sure they are...but they start calling them "laws."

Nope, they don't.

[John H K]

That you find quite a few more conservatives among creationists, on average, than the general population, and a few more left-wingers among evolutionists, on average, than the general population, isn't an embarassment for evolution, it's an embarassment for conservatism.

[Woahhs]

I don't believe in "evolution" , I simply work with it every single day.

Please elaborate.

[kpp_kpp]

you are correct. "difficult" is not the word i was looking for either.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the ping.

[Khepera]

Yes but it is that which comforts us. What comforts the athiests? Are they comforted knowing that their lives are without purpose and when they die they are dead forever to be no more? Science is a neato gadget to play with I admit.

[berned]

My (admittedly silly) analogy of the golf ball in # 38 was to say this... Suppose God really DID create the Earth in a matter of days. Any way, or "style" that God chose to make the earth would, by necessity, leave some "Geology".

If God made rocks and trees and a core and a mantle, etc, they took the forms he chose them to take. If man comes along and makes inferences into those forms, with a bias towards "evolution", than one can postulate just about anything and any age.

If one accepts the basic supposition that God made the Universe, and Earth as a HABITAT for people, (and not people coincidently being a bi-product of earth) then he would make that habitat livable and pleasant and orderly. It would have a ready-made "geology". No?

[Khepera]

OK how did I suggest that? It was not my intention so it must be your mistake.

[Dimensio]

Atheists who want comfort typically find it where they can; they just typically don't find comfort in an afterlife belief.

[tictoc]

... snotty, cynical, know-it-all, ad hominem attack artist par excellence like Dawkins ...

Have to agree with you. Even tho I'm a big fan of the scientific study of evolution!

[Dimensio]

I've another proposition.

The universe is six days old. A cat named Queen Maeve created it in its entirety last Thursday. The appearance of age and all of our memories prior to last Thursday were part of the creation.

Such a proposition is just as meaningful to science as yours. It's also just as falsifiable (which is to say that it is not) and it has just as much evidence (which is to say that it has none).

[PatrickHenry]

This guy can write!

Agreed. It's possibly the most erudite and elegant demolition job on junk science I can ever recall reading.