Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Nightline did a story on a couple of young earth creationists who take homeschooled kids on museum tours and feed them nonsense like this:
They said the T-Rex was vegetarian because at the time of the Creation, there was no such thing as death, so a T-Rex could not have eaten meat. There was no death until Adam and Eve ate forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge, they continued, and God's revenge was to curse the world with death.Jack asked, "If this creature was designed to eat meat from the very start, what would he have to do until Adam and Eve sinned and death entered the world? What would he have to do?" The children replied in chorus, "Starve."
"Fast and pray for The Fall. Is that likely?" Jack asked. "The answer is, everyone look at me and say, 'No.' Try that with me.'"
"No!" the children replied.
That's almost creepy, isn't it?
Known as "young Earth creationists," Jack and Carter say the Bible tells them Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. In the scientific community, the earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. Jack and Carter describe both Creationism and the theory of evolution as "philosophies" and "world views" that are essentially on a par with each other; it's just a question of which you choose.
Right. You can choose the one that actually explains the evidence, or you can choose the ridiculous superstition that requires you to perform mental gymnastics and try to explain away all the data that makes no sense. And the idiotic call and response continues:
"This is a fairy tale, " Jack declared to the children. "How do they know your teeth evolved from scales? Everybody, try that with me, how do you know?"How-do-you-know?" the kids repeated in unison.
Teeth evolved from scales? Only if those teeth are found in the straw men they continually invent, like this one. But the funny part is this: if you ask a scientist how we know that this or that explanation is true, they will give you the data that supports it. If you ask a creationist the same question they'll say "the bible says so." And they not only think those are equally valid answers, they think "the bible says so" is THE answer, the one that trumps all the evidence. Quite odd.
Here's another lie they tell the kids:
Out on the museum floor, Jack and Carter stopped the group in front of a window display that contains samples of sandstone that have ripples created by water and fossils of ancient life. Bill Jack asked his group, "How do they date the fossil? By the layer in which they find it. They date the layer by the fossil and the fossil by the layer," he said. "That's circular reasoning."
Let's just ignore radiometric dating entirely. Why let inconvenient little facts get in the way of a compelling lie?
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
In the video, they keep asking the kids questions and wait for unanimous answers. The kids look so confused and never answer....
Posted by: Chris Bell | March 24, 2008 9:18 AM
Hummm, no death before Adam and Eve sinned. That means that plants could not die either. Ah, but you can eat parts of the plants, but nobody would at so much of that plant that it would die. Cool!
Posted by: Kim | March 24, 2008 9:21 AM
I loved this
Yes think for yourself... as long as you think for yourself in the framework of creationist belief.
Ahhhh yes. Taste the freedom.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 24, 2008 9:27 AM
The kids seem to be around 4-5. At that age, its not so bad for the instructor to tease out answers like that. Children at that age don't always volunteer an answer. Not that I'm excusing these guys. I mean, seriously. I just stained the noble word instructor by associating it with those guys.
Posted by: Flying Fox | March 24, 2008 9:34 AM
Forget evolution. This guy is saying that the T-rex ate apples and coconuts its whole life. Then the banishment happened, and the T-rex thought to itself, "Whoops, better go eat meat now." I'm pretty sure digestive systems don't work that way.
Posted by: Brandon | March 24, 2008 9:38 AM
I'm a little slow, but I have a hard time understanding how T rex's obvious adaptation for eating meat, and the consequential fact that it must have gone hungry before the Fall if nothing could be killed, argue for the creation myth.
Posted by: BaldApe | March 24, 2008 10:22 AM
If I had been there I would have asked Bill & Ted, whoops Jack & Carter, if T-Rex ate fruits and nuts why the BIG SHARP TEETH? -DJ
PS And here was me thinking T-Rex died due to a mini accident.
Posted by: DingoJack | March 24, 2008 10:25 AM
Maybe T-Rex subsisted entirely on iguana tails. Hmm, maybe I could use that as the premise for an Answers article. Publication in "a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal," would look great on my next performance evaluation.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 24, 2008 10:31 AM
The creationist T-rex sounds a lot like Bruce, the great white shark in Finding Nemo, who joined a support group to swear off his predatory instincts. "Remember, Bruce! Fish are friends, not food!" I suspect this is not the only inspiration the museum got from Disney.
Posted by: Ex-drone | March 24, 2008 10:46 AM
DingoJack: When asked this question, Ken Ham explained that the teeth were for opening coconuts. So there goes your crazy evilution theory.
Forgive my lack of biology knowledge, but when you eat fruit off a tree, you're not technically killing anything, right? It's like giving the tree a haircut.
Posted by: Brandon | March 24, 2008 11:12 AM
Just coincidence that all carnivores have sharp teeth then?
Guess it must be animals that really open hard nuts (like parrots for instance) should have sharp teeth too. Nope no sharp teeth there, just re-inforced bony pads. White Pointer Sharks on the other hand... DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 24, 2008 11:30 AM
Yup, every single carnivorous organism on the planet is actually omnivorous. They just eat meat because God told them too. And sharks can totally understand complex religious issues.
Posted by: Brandon | March 24, 2008 11:47 AM
I guess neither fungi and other detritous-feeding organisms were created by God, but rather Satan since they require death of other organisms to live.
I guess Satan put all those E. coli in Adam and Eve to help them absorb vitamin K. For after all, those E. coli must die so people can poop.
Posted by: Royale | March 24, 2008 11:48 AM
If men and dinosaurs existed concurrently, why do we not see any cave paintings of dinosaurs? All the other animals important to the cave dwellers' lives were depicted.
Posted by: Uhclem | March 24, 2008 11:52 AM
If men and dinosaurs existed concurrently, why do we not see any cave paintings of dinosaurs? All the other animals important to the cave dwellers' lives were depicted.
Posted by: Uhclem | March 24, 2008 11:52 AM
Sorry about the double posting...
Posted by: Uhclem | March 24, 2008 11:53 AM
The scales found in shark skin and teeth are indeed evolutionarily related, although I can't recall which came first, IN THE EVILUTIONIST FAIRY TALE!
You're all failing to see the obvious sanity of the creationist position. Consider the simple elegance of the cheetah. Before the fall, this creature's powerful muscles were wasted chasing down wild bananas, it's short digestive system incapable of properly digesting the plant matter it consumed. Why? TO PROVE GOD! Adam and Eve could not deny the existance of god because the ridiculously ill-designed creatures around them could not possibly result from a sensible system like evolution. BAD DESIGN PROVES SUPERNATURAL INTERVENTION! Honestly, nobody could believe the cheetah evolved to eat plants. Sheesh.
After the fall, some animals decided to fall as well. With their sharp teeth, powerful running legs, and short digestive system, the cheetahs decided to be lazy and took to killing and eating meat. Cheetahs are sinful!
No death before the fall is the only say organisms make sense. Imagine all the bacteria living inside Adam's intestines, reproducing rapidly (in accordance with the laws of Genesis!) and never dying. With the bacteria unable to die, Adam would have swollen up to the size of a blimb in a matter of minutes without god's holy gift: diarhea! Does diarhea make any sense in an evolved world? HA!
You guys have such a lame "theory".
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 24, 2008 11:56 AM
Abby, or perhaps Iguanodon tails, assuming they possessed the same tail shedding mechanism. (And why shouldn't we? They have nearly the same name.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iguanodon Why, I bet a single Iguanodon tail could fill a T-rex for several days, assuming its diet was augmented by vegetation.
You should write up your controversial hypothesis. I bet some Creationist rag would leap at the opportunity to publish such a compelling and plausible idea.
Posted by: H. Humbert | March 24, 2008 12:00 PM
Uhclem - didn't you see the doco on the late Pleistocene cold period called "Ice Age" - no picures of Sabre-toothed Lions on the cave wall.
Oh it was an ENTERTAINMENT? Silly Dingo. ;) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 24, 2008 12:01 PM
Because those paintings were made AFTER the flood. The dinosaurs were long gone before some groups of humans degenerated and were reduced to painting in caves like primitives. Are you ready to give up on EVILution yet?
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 24, 2008 12:01 PM
I see they're teaching the kiddies the concept of "circular reasoning." Playing with fire, there, don't you think?
Posted by: Dave M | March 24, 2008 12:08 PM
At another point the Head Whacko posed the question, "How do you know?" and promptly received the Pavlovian response, "It's in the Bible!"
Posted by: mark | March 24, 2008 12:52 PM
That's why the kids need to be home schooled. You put them in a public school, or 90% of private schools (I'm wild guessing that number), and they're going to hear stuff that will expose these beliefs as embarrassingly preposterous.
Posted by: soboco | March 24, 2008 1:06 PM
@Brandon
Hair isn't alive, but fruit is made of living cells. So eating fruit is killing cells (more comparable to eating lizard tails or drinking blood). Eating seeds, on the other hand, involves killing a genetically distinct individual (the term used in ecology is seed predation). So eating a coconut is killing.
Posted by: IanR | March 24, 2008 1:28 PM
Thanks for the tip Humbert. And might I say I look forward to reading your essay on Proust. My best to Lo.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 24, 2008 1:31 PM
I met with a Pastor recently and stated: "60 to 80% of the children in your church will go to college and become an atheist." I was telling him about how concerned I was about how dumb Christians look in the public debate(me included sometimes) because we are all indoctrinated and never check out what people are feeding us.
Here is what that means in reality as I got up in a Baptist Church and talked about for a Father's Day sermon:
"My ex wife was brought up in church and indoctrinated to be a good little girl because Jesus said so. I was brought up in a house where Jesus did not exist and you got the crap beat out of you. We were headed for a collison course in life where "world views" would clash. Guess who got converted? She did and 9 months later the evidence was a reality."
Now I did not tell this Pastor this story because I did not want an argument. But he did start to share some about how his 21 year old son was getting rebellious. I asked him how his son was doing with being confronted with new ideas like evolution and all. I asked this because I had been getting my ass kicked and being really made to think in my discussions on here and I actually came from a non-Christian home and went to Public School (Although I never paid attention in Science class). His response as he quoted me Romans 13 about submitting to all authority in reference to his son and me as well:
"Oh he has been to the creation museum." How many people want to bet that the signs of rebellion could very well end in some real evidence in about 9 months judging from those quotes above."
YES ED THIS IS CREEPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 24, 2008 1:54 PM
I've always wondered what Rabid Rightwing Christains eat. Since eating (nearly) always involves killing. Isn't this (nearly) contradicting the "thou shll not kill" comandment, or is that just an entertainment too? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 24, 2008 1:58 PM
Sigh.
People, people, people. You don't understand. GOD created all things and GOD can change whatever He wants whenever He wants. Logic, reasoning, science, and other myths don't apply. ONLY GOD matters and GOD does what pleases GOD. Why would T-Rex even eat?
Posted by: Jim Spencer | March 24, 2008 2:02 PM
KoI - Woudn't the parable of the prodigal son be applicable in this case? Anyone, according to Christian doctrine, is worthy of redemption. "Amazing Grace" comes to mind. -DJ
PS: Keep "fighting the good fight", KoI!
Posted by: DingoJack | March 24, 2008 2:05 PM
Ed stated:
"Right. You can choose the one that actually explains the evidence, or you can choose the ridiculous superstition that requires you to perform mental gymnastics and try to explain away all the data that makes no sense."
When you say Creationism what does this mean to you? Is it creation of man seperate from other animals and all or the Universe itself. When people here talk about "Creationist talking points" and the like what are they saying? This statement when I read it seems to say: "God did not create the world and Science proves it." Now realize I said "seems" here. I think my confusion at times is over what in the hell you guys are talking about. I understand it is my job to get up to speed if I want to be understood here but these terms mean something totally different to a Christian.
I did go to some of the websites suggested and the discussion about Abiogenesis vs. Evolution and the difference came up. I think you mentioned this a while back. Is there a difference? I think I am starting to get what you are trying to say.
This is how evolution is explained by Christians:
This guy Darwin came up with this thoery(not explained what is means in Science) that we all evolved from monkeys. This could not be true because the Bible says that we were created by God. Our evidence is that Science says it can explain everything in the world and the only way this could be explained is if we had the transitional forms of the species to study and we do not. Thus, what he said cannot be proved.
I understand the narrowness of this argument. But a great deal of it is produced by just a narrowed minded and dogmatic blowhards that state that Science disproves the existense of God. If I am understanding you correctly then I would think the best way to protect Science from superstition is to eliminate this line of argument. With some it will be impossible because they want to put words in your mouth no matter what you say. Trust me they do it to me all the time. But there are more than you think that are open minded.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 24, 2008 2:16 PM
DJ stated:
"I've always wondered what Rabid Rightwing Christains eat. Since eating (nearly) always involves killing. Isn't this (nearly) contradicting the "thou shll not kill" comandment, or is that just an entertainment too? -DJ"
Want to mess with someone who was indoctrinated in church their whole life? Ask them why God would say though shall not kill and then tell people to go kill? The command is though shall not murder. Murder is killing for no reason. Anyone who is interested in a just society understands that at times you have to fight a just war that will require killing someone.
I tell you, I am a part somehow of this movement we call Christianity. But I think it is ironic when I spend Easter Sunday yesterday talking to you guys and not in church. Which is better time spent? Honestly, getting my ass kicked on here because I did not pay attention is Science class. At least we are discussing things that matter in the world. I have not heard much that did given in the speech on Sunday that we call Christianity and is supposed to reflect a complex and intelligent God in the world!!
I still believe though.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 24, 2008 2:28 PM
Seriously - I respect a person more for trying to find the truth (no matter how distasteful, or antithetical) to their long held beliefs, than the narrow-minded bigot who quotes scripture as if it was from the actual mouth of god. Believe me when I say I DO respect you KoI.
However "murder" has a secular meaning that is defined somrthing like (I'm no lawyer) as:
Killing a human being with malice aforthought, without any mitagateing circumstances (such as insanity, self defenfese, resonable self defense based on "perceved threat", reducuded responisblity due to mental illness or defect &etc). But I'm sure REAL lawyer could fill in the blanks. W\hat is the the orginal wording in the earilest text? -Curious & repectfully DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 24, 2008 2:53 PM
"W\hat is the the orginal wording in the earilest text?"
-Curious & repectfully DJ
In the Greek when it is quoted from the Old Testament it can mean kill, slay, or Murder. In the Hebrew it means to slaughter and the root word seems to imply to human sacrifice. I got it off of BlueLetterBible.com if you want to check me. I never knew about the human sacrifice connection there. This confirms what I was thinking when I began to wonder about how Christians say there are abosolute morals. To take thous shall not kill on the surface this seems to be a contradiction to that stance. Another one is thou shall not lie. It never says that. It says to bear false witness. This is slander not lying. If I am at gun point and someone asks where I kid is to go kill them I am not telling him and will lie to protect my son. Anyway food for thought.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 24, 2008 3:09 PM
Ed went online to look up common descent and it had this post ironically at number 4 and I saw this quote of yours from March 28, 2006:
"Two other points. First, I don't think it's true that "outspoken evolutionists" rule out design as a legitimate subject of scientific inquiry. It certainly is true that virtually all scientists rule out supernatural design as such a subject, and for good reason."
Can you explain this more thoroughly. I am not giving you crap I really want to understand all this stuff. I do not understand why the first is legimitmate and the second is not. Would you agree with those who did research of the former presenting it in a Philosophy class to stimulate a debate on the latter?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 24, 2008 3:15 PM
Human srfice - wow. I'm amazed. So realy it was a commandment aginst the kind of choice that certain OT figures had to make (I'm being vague due to ignorance). But in the context of the times I guess it would be quite relavant, and would fit into the whole "not having other gods before me" thing. I was a way of controlling WHO sacrifices WHAT to WHOM. The plot thickens... DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 24, 2008 3:22 PM
Ed stated:
" It certainly is true that virtually all scientists rule out supernatural design as such a subject, and for good reason."
This did not occur to me before I asked my last question but does not rule out mean that you have already ruled out something before you start your inquiry? Is that what you meant?
The way your worded this seems to state that it is ok to look for design at the start of the inquiry but have to rule out the supernatural in advance. If this is what you are saying this is metaphysical materialism from my understanding of the term. Thus, by your account the you would disagree with the Dover judge when he says the assumption of methodical materialism is inherent in Science today? If I am misreading what you meant here please explain. I am not trying to put words into your mouth.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 24, 2008 3:23 PM
"Human srfice - wow. I'm amazed. So realy it was a commandment aginst the kind of choice that certain OT figures had to make (I'm being vague due to ignorance). But in the context of the times I guess it would be quite relavant, and would fit into the whole "not having other gods before me" thing. I was a way of controlling WHO sacrifices WHAT to WHOM. The plot thickens... DJ"
Jesus stated I desire mercy not sacrfice. It is interesting in the light of Easter and the death and resurrection I read in the book, "Earthly Powers" by Michael Burleigh about a dude named Mazzini in the 1800's that wanted to revive the third Roman Empire. He argument against "rights" was that they eliminated "duty". It is on p.187 and it talks about the old conservative view that individualism is wrong because, "Duty builds and creates collaboration... Right undermines sacrifice and eliminates martyrdom from the world."
Most of the relgious world focuses so much on the sacrifice that it leaves out the mercy. This line of thinking that this dude Mazzini had was what kept Popes and Kings in power. Sacrfice yourself for the cause. I see it in modern corporations insistence on teamwork. It seems good but an collectivist idea that does not keep in mind the importance and value of the individual and his rights will turn into tyranny.
The story you are talking about was Abraham that was asked to sacrifice his son. Some look at an insane God who would ask him to do that. I look at a great illustration that leaves it beyond a shadow of a doubt that his God did not want this. Yes it was relevant to those times.
And now too. As New Age thought takes more of a place in Western Culture the darkside of the Eastern philosophies will rear their head. People can say what they want about Hitler and why he did what he did but in my opinion it was the occult crap from the Eastern religions that caused him to do it. I saw on the Military Channel that he went to Tibet looking for some kind of power. Indiana Jones and the temple of doom implies that he was looking for the physical arc that the Jews had. It could all be crap I never checked it out in detail but I think it is a fact he was into the occult.
At the center of it is human sacrifice. The Old Tibeatan relgion is Bon. I heard that it is Bon like bonfire. It is some freaky stuff. Buddhism is what replaced it. As I read the quote from above I wondered at how much this smacked of Hitler as far as the third Roman Empire and all. I might not agree with you guys on everything but I am glad the Enlightenment happened. Europe' collective head came out of its ass and we are better off for it. I just cannot throw the baby of God out with the bath water of pricks with titles in the name of God.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 24, 2008 3:43 PM
I looked up Biblically Correct Tours and they do a tour to the National Center for Atmospheric Research which is about one mile from my house. On the site it says "No one knows the future except God. So waht (sic) can weather teach us and how can we use it to bring people to understand a biblical approach to meteorology?...You will be cured of all enviromentalistic thinking and will be able to debunk any argument that is based in evolutionary meteorology."
All you need to know about meteorology is in the Bible. Why have scientists study hurricanes, tornados, drought, and climate induced famines, when all you need is right there in the King James Bible?
Posted by: soboco | March 24, 2008 4:07 PM
Thank you, I learned something new today!
By the way, am I the only person that, when eating eggs, goes, "Hurr hurr, I'm eating babies!"?
Posted by: Brandon | March 24, 2008 4:10 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
When I say creationism I mean rejection of evolution on religious grounds. Whether their preferred alternative is young earth creationism, old earth creationism or some ultra-vague "intelligent design" creationism is irrelevant to me.
Science deals with mundane, natural design all the time. Forensic science does so when they look at a murder. Archaeologists do so when they examine human-made artifacts like pottery or arrowheads. They propose and test theories on how those artifacts were designed, and by whom, and for what purpose, and so forth. We even do this with other species that manipulate their environment (like termite mounds or anthills). Science does not rule out the study of design at all; many fields of science deal openly with design.
What science cannot do is test any hypothesis that involves supernatural design, for reasons I've already explained. Again, look at the patterns of the fossil record. Those patterns MUST be the way they are if evolution is true. But if creationism is true, if each species was designed by God, then there is no possible pattern of appearance that the God hypothesis could not explain. It is consistent with every possible set of data. In science, that makes it utterly useless.
Let me give you this hypothetical example. Billy says that rain is caused by an invisible leprechaun and that the leprechaun told him he was going to make it rain tomorrow. Tomorrow comes and it doesn't rain. Does this falsify the hypothesis that the leprechaun causes it to rain? Billy says of course not - the leprechaun changed his mind. He wasn't in the mood to make it rain, or he just wanted to mess with your head. But since the leprechaun allegedly has the power to make it rain whenever he wants, regardless of the actual meteorological conditions that operate according to the laws of physics, he is supernatural - he can overrule the laws of nature. And that makes all attempts to test such a hypothesis impossible.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 24, 2008 4:37 PM
It seems to me there are interesting parallels to the way cognitive dissonance builds up fantasy worlds in paranoid schizophrenia. In order to reconcile new evidence with a faulty, but core-to-your-worldview assumption, you construct some new, even more absurd assumption rather than reject the initial assumption. Over time these additional inventions outweigh your connection to reality. In schizophrenics this eventually results in breakdown or withdrawal into oneself, with fundamentalists it fosters isolation from exposure to evidence-based worldviews, or indeed any other worldview at all.
Life begins at conception, remember!
KoI:
Yes - they are completely different. Abiogenesis is the study of how the first life on earth began (or how it might begin elsewhere). Life from non-life, as the creationists like to put it. Evolution describes how we got from the first life to the current diversity of life on earth. It's possible that some of the mechanisms are similar, but it's absolutely not necessary. Nothing in evolutionary theory says that God didn't create the first organism. Some evolutionary scientists do actually believe that. Most don't think it's necessary for God to have done so, however.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 24, 2008 4:52 PM
"And that makes all attempts to test such a hypothesis impossible."
I understand that. But most people do not realize that the supernaturalis ruled out as an assumption before the inquiry begins. Again I think most of the time this is good in general and maybe good all the time in Science. But their are people of other disciplines that try to use Science to keep the discussion of God out of their discipline as well. This is my problem and you are right. Most Christian apologists never seperate the two. Most atheist apololgists never do either and very few get called on it.
This will take some time to set into my mind. I have been examining both sides of this. This is a more complex debate than I ever thought. Just reading about common descent and natural selection and all the varied views on that hurt my head. I think some of this a laymen can learn. Some of it there is no way. These guys take years of grad level classes to come up with most of this stuff.
Thank you as usual for working me through this. I still think you are brushing over some things but I think I understand at least where you are coming from. I still do not understand though why stereo types and false information that makes its way into society about homosexuals needs to be corrected in the classroom at public schools and stereo types and bad arguments used to defend atheism, socialism or other things does not need to be addressed. False application of evolution has killed more people than bigot rednecks that have not seen a text book with a gay couple on it to straighten them out. That is food for thought and an open question for anyone?
Posted by: kingofireland@yahoo.com | March 24, 2008 4:55 PM
King of Ireland:
Scientists (and evolutionists in general) disagree on the relationship between science and religion, and the natural and the supernatural. I'm going to indulge myself here while I wait for my cold to get better and set out what I see as the quick and dirty lowdown on the two different approaches (broadly and very simply defined). Ed's fans have people in both camps -- and it can get confusing.
One approach is conciliatory: Science and religion do not and cannot conflict, because science can't say anything one way or the other about God and whether God exists or not. Science examines nature only -- it is not equipped to deal with the supernatural. Supernatural explanations, by their very nature, are mysterious, inexplicable, and closed to scrutiny. Therefore, our scientific explanations simply don't and can't consider them. This is called "methodological naturalism." The method assumes naturalism -- but that says nothing about whether the supernatural exists or not as a metaphysical position. God is above and outside of what science can look at.
If God exists, it is not just a God of revelation (which is filtered through man), but it is a God which reveals itself in nature. If you are religious, you study nature in order to understand how God works -- and atheists and believers would do science the exact same way, and arrive at the exact same conclusions. And NO FINDING will ever show that God does not exist -- OR make any impact or implication on that question, either.
We have discovered that evolution happened, on this 4.5 billion year old earth, in nature. If you are religious, you have now found out how God worked. If your sacred revelations appear to contradict this finding, then it is more likely that you have misinterpreted your revelation somehow, than that God has not done what He has clearly done in nature. Nature does not lie, nor does God. Interpreting texts or mystical experiences is difficult: the fault is more likely to be yours.
Science only conflicts with religion, then, when people are more concerned with keeping their dogma intact than they are with understanding and appreciating God and what He has done.
------------
The other approach is more head on:
------------
There is nothing in the methods of science which make any distinctions between what is "natural" and what is "supernatural." If it has regular effects, it can be studied. There is no such thing as "methodological naturalism." Science studies what is -- it does not rule out the supernatural in advance, nor does it assume that the supernatural could not be studied if it does exist.
Taken as a hypothesis, however, the existence of God is not consistent with our discoveries in biology, neurology, cosmology, etc. It is a poor explanation, it is usually vacuous, and when it does have content it turns out wrong. We cut it out then just as we do other poor explanations and models of the world. "Metaphysical naturalism" -- the belief that there is no supernatural -- was not a starting assumption. It is, instead, a tentative conclusion and a working theory. It is always open to being proved wrong by new evidence for the supernatural (or paranormal, which is basically the same thing.)
Evolution happened. Evolution does not "prove there is no God." You can believe in both. But it is consistent with the existence of God only if you draw a strict dividing line and say that science cannot say anything about the supernatural.
A universe created by a divine intelligence or which was infused with supernatural essences and forces would look like a very different universe than one where intelligences, minds, and values grow slowly out of interactions of matter and energy. Evolution explains design from the bottom up, and makes the top-down supernatural explanations unnecessary. Thus, evolution does not lead to the conclusion that God exists if you follow it all the way down. Neither does physics, or any other branch of science -- if you follow theories to their conclusion, and draw no special lines. And if the evidence does not lead to a conclusion, you shouldn't believe the conclusion anyway.
God is an unnecessary hypothesis cluttering up our understanding of how the universe works. The supernatural was not ruled out by science in advance. It failed to make its case.
----------------
Creationism is basically following the second approach -- but claiming that the evidence DOES support the supernatural. Science can -- and did -- find God. Unfortunately, their evidence for the supernatural is either entirely negative and vacuous (if we don't know X, then it must be supernatural) or it's just plain wrong (the earth is 6,000 years old.) Supernatural explanations could, in theory, have content -- but these ones don't. They could have been right -- but they weren't.
Opinions on which approach to use are very divisive. The first approach means that no discovery will ever harm faith. It allows science and religion to exist in harmony. But it has the disadvantage of making God's actions look exactly like nature without God. Both theists and atheists support this approach.
The second approach would allow God's existence and miracles to be discovered and confirmed through science -- but it also means that if this does not happen, then God, like any theory which makes no useful predictions, will have to be discarded. Both theists and atheists support this approach as well. They have simply drawn different conclusions.
This is where I see the debate. I'm in the second camp (with Dawkins), and Ed in the first (with Genie Scott, among others). I hope it helped sort some things out on where people are coming from. Sometimes you need a score card ...
Posted by: Sastra | March 24, 2008 5:11 PM
Okay, just for everyone's enjoyment, here is an explanation for the pre-Fall behavior of spiders that went the rounds of talk.origins:
Spiders wove webs before the fall to catch grapes as they fell from the vine. They then used their fangs to suck the juice from the grapes, leaving, in the fullness of God's plan, raisins for Adam and Eve to eat.
I'm pretty sure that was a parody ...
Posted by: John Pieret | March 24, 2008 5:48 PM
Hi KOI, there are so many different versions out there that all come under the banner of creationism or ID. Creationism usually comes in two forms that are different only in that one group thinks that the earth (and universe, I guess) is only 6000-10000 years old, and the other is willing to accept that it is much older. This difference arises due to the biblical meaning of days, I believe, and how long exactly it is referring to.
As far as I know, both groups maintain that Genesis is an accurate account of how the earth (and universe) formed, and how life got here. They usually believe the story of the flood, as well. The "Answers in Genesis" site is the most well known that popularizes these beliefs.
While science can't say for certain what happened before, or at the moment of the big bang (or even if these are actually useful questions, at this point), and we are not entirely sure how life first arose on earth (though much work has already been done that shows that it could have happened through natural means), we can certainly say that the universe (in its present form, which is crucial) is 13.7 billion years old, the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, life has been around for roughly 3.5 billion years, and homo sapiens have been roaming the earth for over 200,000 years, and are related to over twenty other hominids that all share a common ancestor.
Therefore, science has conclusively shown that most of Genesis is simply not true. Of course, it is still possible to say that God created the universe and life on earth, and there is no problem with that, even if we cannot know for sure - yet.
"Yet" is important because there is nothing worse for a Christian (or any religious believer) than to form your beliefs - and become attached to them, emotionally - if they are open to challenge by scientific findings. This really explains why YEC's have to go to such lengths to distort the evidence. They are committed to the idea (and it is often drummed in to them at a very young age) that Genesis is a literal account of how this all came to be. The evidence simply doesn't support any of it, so they have to create unbelievably strange excuses for why the evidence looks a certain way. I am afraid to say that it often leaves them with no choice but to resort to outright dishonesty. That is why scientists find it to be so offensive.
and
"Methodological Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses. Some naturalists also insist that a legitimate distinction between supernatural entities and natural entities cannot be properly made (focusing on the conceptual distinction itself), and that when someone is talking or thinking about supernatural entities, they are actually referring to natural entities."
This is entirely consistent with what Ed said, KOI. As far as science is concerned the supernatural doesn't exist, because we have no way of distinguishing between the natural and supernatural, if we are testing the natural world.
So, we can certainly investigate design, but the only thing that we will (ever) be able to credit it to, is that which is natural. For instance, let's say that I hypothesize that life on earth was started by an alien species. The only time that I will be able to show that I am correct is if we find that species and can link the two lines of evidence together. As far as we are aware, that can never happen when it comes to the supernatural. We don't even really know what supernatural might mean, and if we did find a way of going beyond the natural, wouldn't that then also become natural?
Also, science has to be useful, otherwise it will no longer be funded. The assumption that in-so-far as there is a scientific explanation, it is a natural explanation, is held to because it enables us to move forward and explore further. Once we allow supernatural explanations it prevents further exploration because we can not conclusively show that to be true (having no access to the supernatural), and thus, everything that we do after that point could well be based on a false premise. In other words, science is not just a huge collection of facts. There has to be something linking all of it together to create a narrative, if you will. Each link in the chain has to be open to falsification, so that we can know if we are heading in the right direction.
I hope this helps.
Posted by: Damian | March 24, 2008 6:06 PM
"Nature does not lie, nor does God."
That's quite some assumption. Most religions throughout history have had trickster gods.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 24, 2008 6:10 PM
KoI - Bon did predate Buddhism, but there was no human sacrifice involved! The evidence suggests that it was a form of Buddhism, or that it incorporated Buddhist ideas, and introduced those ideas to Tibet before the "official" date of the 8th century. Some websites will tell you that it was a form of shamanism or animism; that's an old idea that is no longer held in academic circles. It seems to have been the religion of the court or aristocracy. There's even an opinion that it was an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, and that it originated in Afghanistan. There was an indigenous shamanism, which influenced the development of Tibetan Buddhism, but that didn't involve human sacrifice either.
By many accounts, Hitler was interested in the occult, but please don't blame Asian religions. Twentieth century interest in the occult, resulting in the New Age subculture, began largely with the Spiritualists and Theosophists of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Then, as now, they misappropriated ideas from Indian religion ("Hinduism"), and from Buddhism, but they mostly just made it up as they went along - again, as they do now.
Posted by: cipher | March 24, 2008 7:14 PM
What i think is funny (not in a good way) is the whole negativity of it. They go to a museum and tell you that just about everything in the museum is wrong, then they go pray and get back to reading the bible.
Posted by: Richard Eis | March 24, 2008 7:17 PM
If you're interested, this Talk.Origins page gives a fairly good overview of the various stances on the creationism controversy. The dividing line tends to be between IDC and Evolutionary Creationism, as the four groups to the right of that line differ only in their metaphysics, not on the evidence.
Well, not most of Genesis, just the first eleven chapters. Most of Genesis is the account of a nomadic Sumerian warlord and his family, and you're probably not going to find archaeological evidence for that at the best of times.
Posted by: Turcano | March 24, 2008 9:48 PM
King of Ireland said:
A 1999 study conducted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educators Network found that most students are taught that overt behavior, such as the use of religious, racial or ethnic slurs, is intolerable. However, homophobic name-calling and anti-gay taunts such as "fag" or "you're so gay" are rampant in most schools and are dreaded by students. 69% of homosexual and perceived homosexuals faced harassment and/or violence in schools. Specific acts of school violence included students being urinated and/or ejaculated upon, attacked with weapons, receiving death threats, having their clothes pulled off, and gang rape. In one-third of incidents of anti-gay harassment, adult witnesses did not help.
In high school a friend of mine required emergency surgery when he was attacked by 6 members of the basketball team. They beat him, dragged him into the janitors closet and shoved a broom up his ass. The school took no disciplinary action. There were no witnesses and they wouldn't take the victim's word on who attacked him. Not only did he have to see them every day in school, but they would taunt him, making jokes about sweeping up and how much he must have loved what they did.
That's the environment in which I grew up. I went to school in three states, one in the mid-west and two on the east coast, and it was the same everywhere. I tried to deny who I was. I tried to make myself straight. I prayed. I meditated and fasted. I punished myself with pain and self-mutilation. Do you have any idea what it's like to grow up as a homophobic homosexual?
It was not my parents or family that made me loath myself. They supported me in all my interests, whether it was needlepoint or wrestling, He-man or Barbie. It was in school that I learned I wasn't how I was "supposed" to be. And my story is not unusual or even particularly harrowing compared to many.
I'm sure you've never been a gay student in school. You've never had to deal with the constant fear. You've never had to deny your true self just to survive. Real psychological harm is being done to these children and it's happening in schools. How would you suggest we put a stop to that kind of intolerance if not through education?
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 24, 2008 9:52 PM
Sastra - I think that was a great summary of a really complicated argument. I agree with almost everything, and you said things much better than I could have.
One disagreement is defining all theists that in your second group as creationists. I think there some theists might argue that they see evidence for god, the disagreement with atheists is more how good is that evidence. I've seen quotes from people like Ken Miller that seem to fit into that category. Some people might argue that this is where the more liberal theists could find common ground with the creationists against atheists, though I still think there are places that a distinction is reasonable.
Posted by: mcmillan | March 24, 2008 10:03 PM
Sastra - I think that was a great summary of a really complicated argument. I agree with almost everything, and you said things much better than I could have.
One disagreement is defining all theists that in your second group as creationists. I think there some theists might argue that they see evidence for god, the disagreement with atheists is more how good is that evidence. I've seen quotes from people like Ken Miller that seem to fit into that category. Some people might argue that this is where the more liberal theists could find common ground with the creationists against atheists, though I still think there are places that a distinction is reasonable.
Posted by: mcmillan | March 24, 2008 10:05 PM
Most creationists (in my experience) simply deny that plants are "alive" in the Biblical sense, because "the life is in the blood." So yes, T-Rex, you can has coconut.
Posted by: Jeffrey Kramer | March 24, 2008 10:29 PM
A couple of years ago I took the boys to COSI (Columbus) when we were in the area to visit relatives. One of the exhibits was a little mini-theater laser how on evolution. I was in there with the boys and two other children - two girls, maybe 6 & 8. We were all watching when the other girls' mother came into the room, saw what they were watching, and none too gently grabbed them and told them they were not going to watch another second of this fiction, and off they went.
So sad.
Hey Soboco - thanks for posting BCTours. I had never heard of them. We just went to the Denver Museum of Nature and Science Fiction last week. :)
Posted by: Andrea | March 24, 2008 10:42 PM
"But most people do not realize that the supernatural is ruled out as an assumption before the inquiry begins.."
KOI
well, because we can't measure it, account for it or predict it...its really hard to include it in a methodology that is supposed to be repeatable... Like how are we supposed to rule out an infinity of possible supernatural causes?
When you add heat to water, at some point blah blah blah. THen a scientist has to explain the phase transition from liquid to vapor. and show that the results are repeatable over various pressures and impurities.
or should we just say that the pixies did it?
Posted by: Kevin | March 24, 2008 10:50 PM
As usual, Sastra does a brilliant job of explaining a complex issue.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 25, 2008 12:30 AM
I would also point out that not only is it open to being proved wrong, many people are actively looking for such evidence. There have been scientific tests done on the efficacy of prayer, psychic powers (for many different variations of psychic powers), dowsing, astrology, etc. See the James Randi Million Dollar challenge, for instance.
Posted by: Skemono | March 25, 2008 1:39 AM
"When you say Creationism what does this mean to you? Is it creation of man seperate from other animals and all or the Universe itself."
It's interesting that you phrase it like that. Creationists focus on the "I didn't come from no monkey part" of evolution, but for a biologist it's just a trivial corollary. The interesting bits are common descent of all organisms, of which man happens to be one, and the mechanisms for change, speciation, extinction etc. So from a biologist's perspective, people who believed, say, that everything up to the first mammal was specially created, but mankind evolved from chimp-like ancestors, is just as much of a creationist as a conventional YEC person. Or, to take an even more bizarre example, famed creationist crank John A Davison believes that man did evolve, but the evolution was predestined in our genes and that evolution has somehow stopped.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 25, 2008 4:57 AM
No, brandon, there's at least two of us sickos out there.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 25, 2008 7:47 AM
Sastra, from someone who's probably in camp 1 of your typology, great explanation.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 25, 2008 7:50 AM
Abby,
Thank you for sharing that horrifying story. That is exactly why we have to teach tolerance in high schools--to save kids' lives, and protect them from the terror of going to school every day knowing they could be next.
The worst part is that people like Sally Kern are so eager to call gays evil that they end up supporting this kind of brutality. While they whine that they are persecuted because people send them emails, they don't care at all about a poor high school kid getting raped with a broomstick, which could kill him or leave permanently debilitating physical injuries, and even if the kid's lucky on that count, will leave long-term mental trauma.
But they say God hates the sin and loves the sinner, and love your enemy as yourself. So why don't they love these gay kids--even if they see them as sinners--enough to protect them from such violent assaults? They'd damn well better hope that hell isn't real, because Jesus already warned them.
Oh, yeah, if this business of God, the afterlife, and heaven and hell is real, there's going to be some really shocked "Christians."
Posted by: James Hanley | March 25, 2008 8:05 AM
Sastra,
Thank you very much. It took me many months to begin to see that there were two camps here. I synthesized much of what is written on this blog in my mind. That is not a good idea I see. You think people are contradicting themselves when they are not. I would imagen the first camp that you talk about are mainly Deists and Theists and the second camp are the Athiests. I am sure that people of all views are in both camps though as you stated as well.
If I was the ID people I would try to start a war between the camps and then conquer and divide. It sounds like they have started. I have to educate myself further but I think I would put myself in Ed's camp. I think he is right when he says that no other Science is attacked the way Evolution, and I think Geology, at times too are. You cannot fault materialism in one case and not the other without doing real harm to the progress that Science makes. Most Christians are closet Luddites.
But I will say this, if there is this divide then we may need an explanation of the assumption that methodical materialism makes. Or explain both methodological materialism and metaphysical materialism in the Science class. You cannot have it both ways without confusing the hell out of the average person. Plus, most religious right people put all materialists in the second camp. So when someone like Ed talks it makes him sound like he is lying. I am fairly well read and intelligent and it took me many months to see the difference here.
Cipher,
There are good and bad parts to every Philosophy, Religion, and Ideology. I have said that over and over. It is the how it is applied. Some who do not agree with Evolution will state that Hitler believed in it so evolution must be evil. Others say that we was into Eastern occultic stuff so it must all be evil. Others say he was a Christian so it must be evil. He borrowed from many ideologies to create his own.
Ed points out correctly that I do not have a problem with Science. I do not have a problem with, at least, certain aspects of Evolution. I do not have a problem with some forms of materialist philosophy. I may not agree with it all but I want others to be free to believe what they wish. What I and everyone should have a problem with is the use of even good things or ideas for evil.
Can someone look at Maoist China and say that Marx and Darwin killed millions of people? No, but someone can say that someone who took these ideas to crazy conclusions killed all these people. I think many of you see it in Religion. Sure it has probably killed more people percentage wise in its times of tyranny than Mao and Stalin killed. I see that.
Hard core atheism ruled China for 50 or so years. They will tell you themselves that morality suffered. Hard core religious assholery ruled Europe for centuries and morality suffered. To attack one and ignore the other can cause you to dig a hole for others that you will fall into. Read about
Robespierre.
Abby Normal wrote:
How would you suggest we put a stop to that kind of intolerance if not through education?
Let me make it clear. This is wrong. I believe all you say. In my opinion, you get to the kids that are the leader types in the schools and you have a seminar explaining and desribing all of what you just said. You ask them how they would go about dealing with it. Listen intently to them and put a plan into action. If the big football player is convinced( I was the prick these kids feared in HS) he can influence the others.
Some of the teasing is not going to be stopped. They will just do it when the teacher turns their back. I am not from a small town but lived in one when this issue came up. When it is politicized it actually causes more violence I would think. It incites paranoia I think.
Here is what I am saying. They would come in with the big do not drink and drive seminar. We would all go and all laugh and then go drink and drive. A picture of a gay couple in a book is not going to solve this problem. Good teachers that can relate to the kids solve problems. Get the good teachers to reach the leaders and you will have a start. I know that is vague but it will work I have done it in other types of teasing and harassment.
I just cannot believe that people who want to change school cirriculum for this(I am not saying it is wrong just that is does not work) to eleviate misconceptions and stereo types will not advocate it to eleviate the misconceptions about Evolution and how it relates to the supernatural. Wrong ideas about religion can cause gay kids to be beat. Wrong ideas about evolution can cause a whole race of people to be exterminated. Why deal with one and not the other?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 25, 2008 1:20 PM
"Wrong ideas about religion can cause gay kids to be beat. Wrong ideas about evolution can cause a whole race of people to be exterminated. Why deal with one and not the other?"
Well, I'd be perfectly happy for more time to be spent explaining evolution and what it does or does not imply in school. You might want to talk to the creationists about that. As for what the difference between "wong ideas" about homosexuality versus wrong ideas about socialism and atheism, the obvious answer is that socialism and atheism are ideas themselves, whereas homosexuality is a state of being. Once you start getting the state to tell people what is the right thing to believe, you're entering very dangerous territory. The same can eventually be true of teaching/enforcing tolerance and respect (not note endorsement) of other people as they are, whether it's race, gender or sexuality, b