Pharyngula

Opportunity for geologists!

Looking for a job? Want to travel, meet people, promote good … uh, “science”? Then here’s your chance: the Creation “Museum” is hiring! They really, really want someone with a doctorate in geology to work with them and use their degree to lend them a little credibility (don’t worry, it won’t help them at all—but after you’ve worked there a while, your degree won’t have any credibility, so you’ll be able to use it as toilet paper).

To apply, they want a “resume” and a few other things that I don’t remember ever having to submit when I was on the job market.

  • Salvation testimony
  • Creation belief statement
  • Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG Statement of Faith

I guess you don’t have to fill out an affirmative action form with AiG.

The Statement of Faith is an intensely loony document, and one of their beliefs ought to be posted outside their “museum”.

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

In other words, any evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs is rejected by definition. If I had a grad student trying to earn a Ph.D. in a science, I wouldn’t let them have it if they could endorse such an anti-scientific sentiment.

(via McCranium)

Comments

  1. #1 Dan
    June 6, 2007

    Cool. I’m not a Geologist, but I really do want to send them my resume and then sue them for discrimination. That could make for a fun summer, if nothing else.

  2. #2 Caledonian
    June 6, 2007

    I thought they claimed that the evidence actually supported their interpretation of Genesis.

    If that were the case, why would they need to stress that no contradictory evidence could be valid?

  3. #3 Evolving Squid
    June 6, 2007

    Bummer, the job posting seems to have been taken down. Either that, or they can detect my atheist tentacles and prevent me from seeing it.

    I wonder if (hope that) this blog had an effect on them, perhaps.

  4. #4 Dan
    June 6, 2007

    Bummer, the job posting seems to have been taken down. Either that, or they can detect my atheist tentacles and prevent me from seeing it.

    I wonder if (hope that) this blog had an effect on them, perhaps.

    Posted by: Evolving Squid | June 6, 2007 09:00 AM

    Ooops… I guess I shouldn’t have mentioned that whole discrimination thing, huh?

    I really should learn not to telegraph my punches. I think a “rope-a-dope” approach is probably best from now on.

  5. #5 jim a
    June 6, 2007

    Of course there is a valid theological problem with their statement of faith. Since the universe was created by the hand of god, IT constitutes scripture. To say a priori that a particular interpretation based upon the Creators writing trumps any interpretation of His actual works seems to me to be saying that one’s own intellect is great enough to definitively determine Truth. That may constitute a great example of faith, but falls rather short of humility.

  6. #6 tceisele
    June 6, 2007

    The job posting is still there, you just have to go to the sidebar and click on the country you are interested in (pick “US” to get a list with a geologist position)

  7. #7 Sanguinity
    June 6, 2007

    4. The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.

    The ‘gap’ theory? What are they referring to? ‘Cause I’m inclined to read that as an admission, finally, that the fossil record and the lineage of species is unbroken. Which couldn’t possibly be what they mean.

  8. #8 OneMadClown
    June 6, 2007

    No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

    The best part of that statement is that it would disqualify even honest scholarly theologians from working there.

  9. #9 Mike Haubrich, FCD
    June 6, 2007

    Too bad that Google is such a tattle-tale. I think it would be great fun to send away for a paper geology degree and “get inside” the CM. Cincinnati is not such a bad place to live and it would be easy work for someone like me who hasn’t taken any geology since high school. I also know all of the creationist buzz words. But, alas, I have this damn blog and a trail of atheist bread crumbs…..

    Unless…unless…I could pull an Anthony Flew and become another “famous” atheist turned believer. Seriously, no one has ever taken me seriously or considered me famous. Just the sort of feather in the creationist camp that they need!

  10. #10 Viktoria
    June 6, 2007

    I’d be more surprised at the geologist job posting, if it wasn’t par for the course. Creationists only like science if it works for them, or if they can twist it so it works for them.

    You should really give a glance at the other postings, as well. Even the baristas have to be passionate about God. *headdesk*

  11. #11 J-Dog
    June 6, 2007

    What possible use could they have for a real Geologist?

    I suggest that someone go to Kinko’s, get a Doctorate diploma printed up, from say… Patriot University… apply, sign their weird statements of faith, get hired and then sit back and collect the money they will pay you for a year. Then, ala Dembski, announce It Was All Street Theater, have a good laugh at their expense, and move on.

    Too bad I am an atheist, and have moral qualms, and couldn’t really do this con. Maybe someone out there, an Evolutionary Theist perhaps, could do a little Lying For Jesus(TM) and take full advantage of this tremendous opportunity!

  12. #12 Brian Thompson
    June 6, 2007

    I have a bachelors in Electrical Engineering. I believe that according to the DI’s requirements I qualify as an expert in biology, geology, quantum mechanics, theology, politics, and creole cookery! Sweet!

  13. #13 CalGeorge
    June 6, 2007

    No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

    I love that sentence. So categorical. So obstinate-sounding. So reflective of their blind opposition to openness and curiosity. So dumb.

    Sums them up perfectly.

    Very nice.

  14. #14 rlrr
    June 6, 2007

    I suppose one could attain a “doctorate” in geology by claiming to have a degree from East Nowhere College of Biblical Knowledge…

    It’s not like the slack jawed troglodytes who would patronize the Creation Museum would care that much.

  15. #15 Carlie
    June 6, 2007

    The ‘gap’ theory? What are they referring to?

    The gap theory is a way for them to try and shoehorn actual data into the Biblical story. There are two versions of it that I know of.

    One is that in the Genesis creation story (stories), each “day” is actually many millions of years, therefore the earth can be old and not contradict scripture. They like to then say that the fact that plants came before animals in the verses matches that plants are seen on land earlier in the fossil record than, say, mammals. Never mind about all the trilobites and graptolites and such.

    In the other version, there is a gap of the entire history of the planet up to 6000 years ago between two of the verses, I think between Genesis 1:10-11. (might be wrong there) That version allows for most of earth history in terms of geology, but still says that all of life was in the last 6000 years. I’m not really sure how that one’s supposed to work. I guess stratigraphy is valid until fossils show up.

  16. #16 raven
    June 6, 2007

    There is an astronomer looking for a job and would work well as their resident expert on their young universe model. One G. Gonzalez, formerly of ISU. This is a perfect fit. He has already been martyred, is resting in the tomb of his career, and will arise in a few days as a zombie scientist.

    They will have no trouble getting one, although sanity will be questionable. This travesty has to one of the biggest pack of lies in one place. Voluntary ignorance would be stunning if it was not so common

  17. #17 Ginger Yellow
    June 6, 2007

    “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

    I’ve said it before, but it never ceases to amaze me how remarkably fragile these people’s faith is. Any exposure to something that doesn’t mesh with their rigid worldview is deemed as an existential threat to their belief in God. Books that even mention homosexuality or witchcraft have to be banned. Films that deal with “sin”, even if they follow it with bad consequences, must be shunned. Evidence that contradicts a particular reading of scripture is simply ignored.

  18. #18 Jim Lemire
    June 6, 2007

    they want a geologist with a PhD to grant them some credibility yet they deny that any scientific evidence contrary to scripture is invalid? Amazing.

    Though, I guess that guy from URI has a job opportunity now.

  19. #19 MartinM
    June 6, 2007

    There is an astronomer looking for a job and would work well as their resident expert on their young universe model. One G. Gonzalez, formerly of ISU. This is a perfect fit.

    That would be great. The Discovery Institute would look even more ridiculous.

    Yeah, I didn’t think that was possible either.

  20. #20 wjv
    June 6, 2007

    They seem to have the same requirements for all their posted jobs, from Geologist to web programmer to catering staff to cashier.

  21. #21 Spook
    June 6, 2007

    Christian tolerance – fun for everyone, unless they happen to disagree with your particular brand of kookery.

  22. #22 Selma
    June 6, 2007

    Why don’t these guys just face the fact that what they have is a Bizarro version of Disneyland?

    Our little friends in Alberta are trying to get in on the action too:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070606.wcreationism06/BNStory/National/home

  23. #23 dogmeatib
    June 6, 2007

    No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

    I love this statement. Creationists and biblical literalists finally figured out that the historical record contradicts the bible far more often than it supports it. Gotta suppress that!

  24. #24 IanR
    June 6, 2007

    To apply, they want a “resume” and a few other things that I don’t remember ever having to submit when I was on the job market.

    Sadly, there are a lot of schools that ask for “statements of faith” these days. Some of them also expect you to abide by their morality policy. I remember one job ad that required the applicant and spouse to attend their church regularly and become a member within two years…and this was a real job posted on the Chronicle of Higher Education. I have seen job ads for biologists for Liberty University and Cedarville that require you to be a biblical literalist. Sadly, there are places with far more credibility than AiG which require you to declare YEC-like beliefs.

  25. #25 June
    June 6, 2007

    A system of logic in which the legend of Genesis is specified as an axiom can have no concept of ‘evidence’ at all. Where there is no doubt, there is no need for proof, and thus no need for evidence either way: Contradiction is impossible; confirmation is superfluous.

  26. #26 Eamon Knight
    June 6, 2007

    Well, now we know where Malcolm Ross’ first job will be ;-).

    No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

    This (and similar statements from the ICR, Kurt Wise, et al) of course gives the lie to creationist claims that the evidence points their way, or even that they are interested in evidence at all. It admits that they will ignore or distort any and all geological evidence in order to support their foregone conclusion. It should be thrown in the face of every creationist who tries to claim otherwise.

  27. #27 Jim Lippard
    June 6, 2007

    Ronald Numbers’ _The Creationists_ tells the story of how the young-earth creationists wanted for years to get a creationist to obtain a Ph.D. in geology from a mainstream university and support them, but they would abandon young-earth creationism as a result of their educations (Nicolaas Rupke) or get kicked out of their program for inadequacy (Clifford Burdick).

    They finally succeeded with Steve Austin. Andrew Snelling is another one.

  28. #28 OneMadClown
    June 6, 2007

    Hmmm…this is the kind of wingnut welfare that any self-respecting ne’er-do-well can’t pass up…I plan on attaining a PhD from Hamburger University. My doctoral thesis will be two-fold: First, that the texture and consistency of a McDonalds matter-patty is such that by studying them, I am in fact a Geologist, and Second, that Creation is fact, as science is wholly unable to locate a transitional fossil between the chicken and the McNugget.

  29. #29 Chayanov
    June 6, 2007

    “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

    Finally! They admit that reality contradicts their fantasy.

  30. #30 Berlzebub
    June 6, 2007

    Wow. This is the first job description, that I’ve seen, that actually requires you to be a delusion moron to be eligible for hire.

    -Berlzebub

  31. #31 ColoRambler
    June 6, 2007

    There is an astronomer looking for a job and would work well as their resident expert on their young universe model. One G. Gonzalez, formerly of ISU. This is a perfect fit.

    Answers in Genesis already has an astronomer: Jason Lisle. As you might imagine, he’s already doing a fine job of making them look ridiculous. Either he’s lying blatantly or he’s completely unaware of much of the last 50 years of astronomical research, despite getting a Ph. D. in the field.

  32. #32 mothra
    June 6, 2007

    Which Scriptural word, King James, Revised Standard, Tyndell?? I seem to recall that Marxism made similar statements (badly paraphrased here) such that objective facts could not exist, only information whose interpretation was rooted in Marxist-Leninist doctrine. Lysenko- your genetics works, SEE what you’ve spawned! And the YEC’s etc. try to link evolutionary theory to Marxism, ‘ptah.’ 3:}X

  33. #33 hoary puccoon
    June 6, 2007

    What a coincidence. I was thinking about Lysenko just the other day. When I read Sam Brownback on evolution, as a matter of fact. If AiG and the Lysenkoists ever realize they’re twins separated at birth and start trading strategies, we’re going to be in big, big trouble.

  34. #34 mothra
    June 6, 2007

    One final thought, why are we referring to the DI (dis-information institute) and its satellites as ‘museums’ Perhaps in all posts, refer to the DI ‘creations’ as mausoleums since they are full of dead ideas rather than educational displays.

  35. #35 J-Dog
    June 6, 2007

    “Your Dad” – WTF are you trying to say? Dude, you make no sense. You can “Smell jealousy”? Really? Uh huh. If you were my dad, I would have to take you back to the nice men in the white coats that take care of you. And you might want to consider taking a remedial writing course before you try to communicate again with people that for the most part have a better than 8th grade education. This ain’t your Bible Study group you know.

  36. #36 comfortably numb
    June 6, 2007

    I’m available and looking for work. While I don’t have a degree in geology, I did graduate from the University of Rhode Island. That should count for something. Fellow alum, Marcus Ross landed a real good job with Liberty University and he didn’t beleive half the stuff he wrote in his dissertation.

  37. #37 David Marjanovi?
    June 6, 2007

    and he didn’t beleive half the stuff he wrote in his dissertation.

    Not that I had any hard evidence, but I think it’s the other way around: he only claims to be a YEC so as not to shock his family or whomever.

  38. #38 David Marjanovi?
    June 6, 2007

    and he didn’t beleive half the stuff he wrote in his dissertation.

    Not that I had any hard evidence, but I think it’s the other way around: he only claims to be a YEC so as not to shock his family or whomever.

  39. #39 Jim A
    June 6, 2007

    This rather points out the central schizophrenia of ID. Now there’s nothing wrong with a religious organization requiring a statement of faith. In fact I would do much to guarantee the right of organizations to do so. But even as they are so afraid of any reasoning or argument that contradicts their faith that the insist that there can be no deviation from their tennants; they also believe that the process of scientific enquiry is so powerful that they MUST co-opt it somehow. This leads them to ape without understanding scientific memes and externalities. The very idea that open-ended scientific equiry is compatible with religious preconditions is…an oxymoron.

    They seem to believe that “secular humanists”* have an equivalent axiom to theirs: that God doesn’t exist. The non-existance of God is logicly an unprovable assertation. But the logical positivism that is the basis of science is founded upon the working hypothesis that all physical processes aren’t caused by angels pushing atoms around but are the result of impersonnel processes that are understandable by men. This has been an incredibly useful epistomology with much greater predictive power than “The gods are angry, it will rain Friday.” They feel that they can’t simply say “I believe,” which would be fine, but instead they try to cloak their belief in the sheeps clothing of scientific language. They’re not fooling any of the sheep, but they might fool each other.

    *or whatever they’re calling those who AREN’T evgelicals these days.

  40. #40 Corey Schlueter
    June 6, 2007

    I have been thinking that these creation museums are being discriminatory. Why do they not include all the other creation stories in their museums?

  41. #41 Mike Haubrich
    June 6, 2007

    I’m available and looking for work. While I don’t have a degree in geology, I did graduate from the University of Rhode Island. That should count for something.

    Okay – but have you ever stayed in a Holiday Inn Express?

  42. #42 Lab Lemming
    June 6, 2007

    re they advertizing a salary? Due to the high resource prices caused by China’s economy, there is a wordwide shortage of geologists at the moment. As a result, fresh geology grads can walk out of college and into jobs that pay 60-100 grand per year. I’d love to see the museum’s attempt to offer either better pay or a more intellectually stimulating work environment.

  43. #43 Mats
    June 6, 2007

    PZ Meyers,

    No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

    In other words, any evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs is rejected by definition.

    It sounds like you and your religious beliefs, which say something like this:

    No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including biology and geology, can be valid if it contradicts the theory of evolution/geological column/naturalism….

    You have your own religious view. The diference is that yours is payed by everyone, while AiG’s is not state suported. 🙂

    If I had a grad student trying to earn a Ph.D. in a science, I wouldn’t let them have it if they could endorse such an anti-scientific sentiment.

    “Anti-scientific” *IF* we define science as *you* do (naturalism).

    Secondly, what makes your presupositions better than AiG’s? What makes deep faith in Naturalism more “scientific” than deep faith in the Holy Bible? You should take some courses in philosophy.

    Remove the plank in your eye first.

  44. #44 Carlie
    June 6, 2007

    Secondly, what makes your presupositions better than AiG’s? What makes deep faith in Naturalism more “scientific” than deep faith in the Holy Bible?

    Um, because they work?

  45. #45 jim a
    June 6, 2007

    I do rather believe that Mats has proved my point. You see, they DO believe that “SCIENCE” has a similar set of preconceived notions. It’s NOT that science has the preconception that God doesn’t exist and that there are naturalistic explanations for everything. It IS that by limiting itself to looking at naturalistic phenomena, science has been able to discover many useful predictive patterns in the natural world. Science doesn’t say that god doesn’t exist, just that science is useless at talking about Him.

    What I don’t understand is why evolution is THE scientific insight that so upsets fundamentalists, and not, say heliocentrism, or meteorology or cell theory. Why is it that when we talk about Newtonian Physics without invoking God is is ignored by most fundies, but for some reason the fossil record makes them feel like a beleagured bunch. Why can’t they just settle for a mixture of faith and oomphalism and just say “Okay, it may look like that, but REALLY what happened is…” After all scientists don’t insist on a chemical analsys of pre and post consecration wine to see whether there is any difference. Many Christians are perfectly happy to admit that there is NO physical evidence of transsubstantiation. Nonetheless the believe that that wine now IS blood. Why do fundies believe that they have to cloak their beliefs in the mantle of science? Is that how weak their faith is? Can’t they recognize that it may be useful to talk about evolution through geologic time just as it would be useless to get a transfusion of transsubstantiated wine?

  46. #46 Caledonian
    June 6, 2007

    Science doesn’t say that god doesn’t exist, just that science is useless at talking about Him.

    Those are the same thing described two different ways.

  47. #47 Jim A
    June 6, 2007

    Caledonian, they’re NOT the same, and the distinction IS important. The idea that “Science doesn’t explain everything, therefore God must exist” is a paper tiger often used by the religious.

    The existance of science as an ontology does NOT preclude others. Sceince can hardly claim to be the source of all useful and interesting knowlege. It does not tell us why we might like Beetoven and not Robert Glass for example. This doesn’t mean that’s worth talking about. It doesn’t mean that music theory is somehow invalidated because it’s not scientific. Even as it can tell us about frequency, and superimposition of soundwaves, it is silent on the beauty of music.

    Similarly, science avails us little in questions of faith. “What can we say about the universe in the absence of active intervention of the supernatural.” is NOT a statement that God does not exist, merely that science is not a forum to talk about Him. The fact that science as a means of inquiry has provided us with many truths simply does not mean that it is the only way to truth. I’ll leave it to religious zealots to say “I have the only truth, all else is false.” That kind of thinking really has no place in the scientific method. There’s not point in setting up science in OPPOSITION to all faith based, non-verifiable beliefs. There’s nothing WRONG with theology, it’s just not science.

  48. #48 Chinchillazilla
    June 7, 2007

    “Anti-scientific” *IF* we define science as *you* do (naturalism).

    Uh, the way scientists define it? Yeah, it is anti-scientific if you define science as scientists do. You know the scientific method, which you sort of have to follow to count as an actual scientist? Yeah, you can’t use that on gods, because GODS AREN’T TESTABLE.

    Good effort, though, you get a silver star!

  49. #49 Mats
    June 7, 2007
    Secondly, what makes your presupositions better than AiG’s? What makes deep faith in Naturalism more “scientific” than deep faith in the Holy Bible?

    Um, because they work?

    So when it stops working, can we discard naturalism?

    Secondly, how is naturalism “working” on the origin of life?

  50. #50 Mats
    June 7, 2007

    You know the scientific method, which you sort of have to follow to count as an actual scientist? Yeah, you can’t use that on gods, because GODS AREN’T TESTABLE.

    Naturalism is not testable.

  51. #51 MartinM
    June 7, 2007

    Naturalism is not testable.

    Naturalism is coherent, which is more than can be said for the alternative.

  52. #52 PZ Myers
    June 7, 2007

    how is naturalism “working” on the origin of life?

    Read any Wächtershäuser, Ellington, Cech, Hazen…? It’s a combination of computer modeling, a search for chemical traces in the rocks, and experimentation with chemical synthesis.

    Naturalism is not testable.

    Funny. We make assumptions about how the natural world works every minute of every day—we are constantly testing those explanations. It certainly is testable; you may have confused “testable” with “provable”. But since we don’t care about some absolute level of proof but are only concerned with what is operationally effective, passing an uncountable number of tests is adequate for us.

  53. #53 Jim A.
    June 7, 2007

    The flip side of “Science can’t explain everything” is “Believe whatever you want, just don’t call it science.”

  54. #54 Carlie
    June 7, 2007

    how is naturalism “working” on the origin of life?

    I think you mean methodological naturalism, which means assuming that the world works the way it looks like it works, and there’s no need to capitalize it the way you did the first time you posted on it. PZ just addressed the actual origin of life question, but I’ll go out on a limb and presume that you conflate geologic time scale evolution and origin of life issues and might really have been asking about naturalism and evolution, so I’ll address that just to cover both bases. In that case, naturalism works really well; it looks like there is a certain pattern to fossils in the fossil record, and when you test it by going back and checking, you find things in the places they’re supposed to be. If you find a bunny in some Precambrian strata, you let me know.

  55. #55 Mats
    June 7, 2007
    how is naturalism “working” on the origin of life?

    Read any Wächtershäuser, Ellington, Cech, Hazen…? It’s a combination of computer modeling, a search for chemical traces in the rocks, and experimentation with chemical synthesis.

    In other words, inteligent scientists working in the labs will “confirm” that life apeared on earth by solely natural means, right? I am sure you can see the problem in there.

    Naturalism is not testable.

    Funny. We make assumptions about how the natural world works every minute of every day–we are constantly testing those explanations.

    One thing is making an assumption in how the natural world works. Quite another thing is assuming that the laws we see working at the present are enough (and suficient) to explain even what we don’t fully understand.

    In other words, “we don’t know how such event happened, but the answer we want has to be restricted to this little field of inquiry of ours”.

    Naturalism is an assumption made BEFORE the evidence is checked. It’s not something you conclude after considering the evidence.

    This goes back to my initial responce: you don’t like THEIR assumptions (that the Bible is the Word of God) however we are to accept YOUR assumptions.

    It certainly is testable; you may have confused “testable” with “provable”.

    No, I meant testable. Most scientists accept (on faith) that Naturalism explains, and will explain everything, however there is no way for us to know if Naturalism is suficient. There is no way we can falsify Naturalism. Or is there?

    But since we don’t care about some absolute level of proof but are only concerned with what is operationally effective, passing an uncountable number of tests is adequate for us.

    What kind of “tests” would falsify Naturalism? What kind of “tests” gave people the confidence (faith) that Naturalism is suficient?

  56. #56 Mats
    June 7, 2007

    Carlie,

    If you find a bunny in some Precambrian strata, you let me know.

    You and your religious brothers in the darwinian church would readly shout that there MUST have been a mistake with the dating methods. Why? Because we all know that evolution happened!

    Even if we were to find baby elephant’s body parts inside a T-Rex stomach, darwinists would readily make an interpretation that “rescued” goo-to-you evolution.

  57. #57 Rey Fox
    June 7, 2007

    So Mats, what’s your “way of knowing” that’s better than naturalism? And how do you know it’s better? Or are you just here to dazzle us with sophistry? Wait, I just saw your response to Carlie: you’re here to whine about the mean old scientists not paying proper respect to your old book of fairy tales and your insecure desire to be Cosmic Daddy’s favorite son. Never mind.

  58. #58 Kseniya
    June 7, 2007

    I call strawman on Mats. Your heavily biased and projected personal speculations on what scientists would or would not accept as compelling or irrefutable evidence are irrelevant. As if denying such evidence is somehow equivalent to declining to believe in something for which there is no evidence!

    To echo Carlie: When you find baby elephant parts inside a T-Rex stomach, you let us know. Until then, you’re just making shit up and pretending it means something.

    If you want to talk about the problem with induction, that’s another matter.

  59. #59 kmarissa
    June 7, 2007

    …In other words, any evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs is rejected by definition.

    (In response to which:) The only strawmen I’ve read so far is from evolutionists.

    Do you need your memory refreshed as to what AiG requires geologists to sign?

    No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

    How on EARTH is what PZ said above a strawman of AiG’s statement?

  60. #60 kmarissa
    June 7, 2007

    receive a PHD? What on earth are you talking about?

    I didn’t realize you wanted to imply that both statements were strawmen Most people would provide, you know, a little explanation. I really don’t know what you think you’re talking about.

  61. #61 Jim A
    June 7, 2007

    Okay, I think that Mats has a point here. “God isn’t messing with everything all the time” can be characterized as a “working assumption” of scientific endeavors. Much of the Universe seems to function predictably on a day to day basis according understandable rules. It is much more important to study the works of Maxwell than the book of Matthew if you’re designing an electric engine. Statisticaly, this is also true if you’re trying to prevent your house from being destroyed by lightning. As we understand more and more of the universe, we have less need to explain occurances with a simple “Because God willed it.” Instead we get things like: “Smallpox is caused by the variola virus.” Arguably, this has been a great boon to human existance, with medicine, engineering, meteorology etc making life MUCH easier on us all. Science has made alot of progress by limiting itself to talking about the non-divine.

    Again that’s NOT an outright statement that there is no God, merely that it is quite useful to find out what explanations we can come up with without recourse to “God wills it.” GWI is a logicaly all encompasing explanation, but one that has relatively little predictive ability. Because the nonexistance of God is unprovable, because the form (or forms) seem to be subject to multiple, mutually inconsistant descriptions, and because people hold their beliefs very deeply indeed, it seems best to allow people the freedom to believe as they wish. Arguably, the religious wars of the 17th century prove this. Believe whatever you want, just don’t call it science.

  62. #62 Peter
    June 8, 2007

    NO THEOLOGICAL INTERPERTATION OF SCRIPTURE, CAN BE CONSIDERED VALID IF IT CONTRADICTS SOUND SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT IS ROOTED & GROUNDED IN FACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT IS LOGICALLY CONSISTENT.
    I.E, EVOLUTION.

  63. #63 peter
    June 8, 2007

    Woops, sorry about the caps, I got a bit carried away.

  64. #64 Keith Douglas
    June 9, 2007

    Sanguinity: Some creationists think that there is a “gap” of some undetermined amount of time between the creation of non-human stuff and humans, as sort of a compromise. The non-gappers take the 6 days as consecutive.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.