…and this is a 
We're in big trouble on our trip to the Creation "Museum", people. We're going on 7 August, and on that very same day, they are planning to present…
THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF CREATION!!!
What is the Ultimate Proof of Creation, you might ask?
There is a defense for creation that is powerful, conclusive, and has no true rebuttal. As such, it is an irrefutable argument--an "ultimate proof" of the Christian worldview. This presentation will equip you to engage an unbeliever, even a staunch atheist, using proven techniques.
Holy crap! It's a trap! I'm going to be bringing along a whole mob of young atheists from the Secular Student Alliance, and this speaker, Jason Lisle, is going to be like Darth Vader among the younglings. I might be able to put up a fight against Emperor Ham, just like Samuel Jackson, but then his apprentice will show up and zap, blam, zowee, I'll be chopped up and blown out a window. We're doomed. DOOOOOOOMED.
At least I insist on being informed before going to my ignominious fate. The first chapter of the Ultimate Proof of Creation is available online, so I read it cautiously, fearing that I would see science demolished with an irrefutable argument.
Wait a minute.
This thing is complete garbage. It's the same old routine that Answers in Genesis always trots out: "We're using the same evidence," they say, "only we're just interpreting it differently. We're just as sciencey as you are!" Only they aren't. They're leaving out all the evidence that contradicts their views, and twisting the bits they want in inappropriate ways. And then they make stuff up! Here's an approach I've been seeing a lot from creationists lately: they invent scientific "laws" and then declare that evolution is unscientific because it violates those "laws". The most common one is the so-called "law of biogenesis" that dictates that life can only come from other life, but here's a pair that Lisle pulls out of his butt:
There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter.
When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender.
These are quite simply false. Chance can generate new information in genetics, so we know the first law is bogus, and since we can trace a useful piece of genetic information back to unguided mutations, we know the second is yet more baloney.
I don't think I'm too worried about the Ultimate Proof of Creation anymore. I suspect it is going to be more like this.
Comments
Posted by: Brock | July 13, 2009 11:09 AM
Wow, that's pathetic. Should have expected so much given the font size and exclamation marks.
Happy Monkey for another great SMBC comic, though :)
Posted by: smillachan | July 13, 2009 11:12 AM
Darnit! I just saw that on SMBC and thought immediately of this blog. No need to send the link, I'm guessing.
Posted by: Tim Awake | July 13, 2009 11:13 AM
It is almost as if they don't know what the word information means. Not to mention what a scientific law is, or matter, or mind, or...
Posted by: tsg | July 13, 2009 11:13 AM
Oh, I was hoping for Kirk Cameron's Coke Can argument....
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 13, 2009 11:13 AM
Nah, about 50 people already sent me the link. I have something better than an RSS feed -- I've got a legion that jumps up and down and points me right at the best stuff.
Posted by: Berner | July 13, 2009 11:19 AM
I always like their argument about violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It's funny because they don't realize that the Earth isn't a closed system but is part of the larger system of...THE WHOLE UNIVERSE!
Posted by: Aj | July 13, 2009 11:20 AM
I know it really shouldn't bother me, but those dice are really badly put together.
Unless you own a glass table, or memorize the faces, you can't tell what you've rolled.
Posted by: LadyH | July 13, 2009 11:21 AM
I so wish I could go to that. Watching both the stupidness and the takedown would be awsome!
Posted by: spacecataz | July 13, 2009 11:22 AM
+10 for SUPER BIG FONTS! I'm guessing that is how the material will be presented: large and loud.
And what's this crap about matter not producing information? Absolutely insane. A simple counter example is waves generated by (insert favorite method here.) This clearly is not only information generation but also propagation. By studying waves, one obtains a tremendous amount of information about the source (inanimate as it may be).
Posted by: JT | July 13, 2009 11:23 AM
Paladins get to roll a D6 instead of 2D4.
Posted by: spacecataz | July 13, 2009 11:28 AM
+10 for SUPER BIG FONTS! I'm guessing that is how the material will be presented: large and loud.
And what's this crap about matter not producing information? Absolutely insane. A simple counter example is waves generated by (insert favorite method here.) This clearly is not only information generation but also propagation. By studying waves, one obtains a tremendous amount of information about the source (inanimate as it may be).
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 13, 2009 11:29 AM
"We can make shit up. Hence the creator, who made shit like us up."
Well, they do have a slight point there, you know.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 13, 2009 11:30 AM
It's hilarious that they try the "information" argument again, never bothering to define what they mean or how they measure it.
Of course, IIRC, in Shannon Information Theory, randomness pretty much by definition increases information. Of course, that's why Creationists reject Shannon, and probably have similar reasons for rejecting that other one, K-C.
Posted by: Mu | July 13, 2009 11:31 AM
My guess is information generated by natural processes like radio waves emitted by pulsars isn't information UNLESS an intelligent being interprets it.
Posted by: Randomfactor | July 13, 2009 11:33 AM
There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events
The unifying factor here is "known." If you don't know much of anything scientific, the whole world must be a blurred mystery.
Posted by: Steven Thomas Smith | July 13, 2009 11:35 AM
Probably for the one-thousandth time by now, but here it is anyway: Dazed Giant Squid Wash Up On California Beach After Earthquake.
Posted by: Aaron | July 13, 2009 11:38 AM
I THOUGHT I recognized that name...
http://www.csharp.com/lisle.html
Not that PZ needs any extra training on dealing with YEC's, but that site might provide slightly more insight into some of the TYPE of arguments Lisle HAS used in the past. Typical stuff.
Posted by: SEF | July 13, 2009 11:39 AM
Even tree rings are evidence against that one. By a process of quite natural and sequential seasonal growth, and with no intention of doing so, they store up information, on how old they are, which can be read later by humans.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | July 13, 2009 11:39 AM
They really do remind me of the pacific island cargo cults. They see that we have science to help us explain things in a believable way and that as a result wealth comes our way (we're only in it for the gold after all), so they decide that they will create some "science" like ours in hopes of explaining their things in a "believable" way. In this case the cargo is replaced by young minds, which are ever so much more valuable. We'll have to start referring to PZ as John Frum.
Posted by: Phantom Hugger | July 13, 2009 11:40 AM
I appreciate the answer generating dice being 2d4. I guess they didn't burn enough DM Guides back in the 80s.
Posted by: Lorax | July 13, 2009 11:45 AM
Lame and pathetic PZ. All true fans know that Anakin Skywalker killed the younglings, Darth Vader wasn't created until after Young Ben Kenobi flamebroiled Anakin and the emperor had to put Anakin on permanent life support later.
Posted by: SEF | July 13, 2009 11:47 AM
Unless you turn them over to look, you can't tell what cards you've been dealt face-down in a game of stud poker* either. Gambling must be really hard for those whose religious rules preclude any looking for evidence.
* I hope that's right because I had to search wikipedia for a card game which included face-down cards! I knew such games existed (eg from StarTrek NG) but I don't play them myself.
Posted by: CT | July 13, 2009 11:48 AM
I would have liked to have seen more rebuttal of the life from non-life argument. It seems to have been skipped over to get to the easy bits.
Has PZ dealt with this in the past?
Posted by: Roland Branconnier | July 13, 2009 11:49 AM
"When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."
Is the "sender" a code word for GOD? If so, the "sender" (i.e. God) needs to go back to engineering school.
Evolution is a kluge. It is not the result of a non-intelligent design by non-existent designer.
Posted by: ajbjasus | July 13, 2009 11:52 AM
Aha the old information argument. I must confess, that in my efforts to be one step ahead of the Creo boys and girls I have attempted to read some of the reams of waffle produced by Werner Gitt, who seems to be a favourite at AIG. I can plough through some boring stuff, but not that. Filibustering is the word that springs to mind for me.
Posted by: Becca Stareyes
|
July 13, 2009 11:54 AM
Lorax, I thought Palpatine/Darth Sidious dubbed Anakin 'Darth Vader' when he made him his apprentice, after Anakin turned on the group of Jedi coming to arrest Palpatine. He might not have gotten the Vader-suit until he lost a fight with Ben and the lava, but he was still Vader.
Granted, I've only seen RotS a grand total of once...
Posted by: Habebe | July 13, 2009 11:55 AM
Hmmm, is it possible that God himself found out about your visit to the museum, PZ, and wants to welcome you there in person? You do realise you'll be personally responsible for the Second Coming starting early?
Posted by: SC, OM | July 13, 2009 11:57 AM
CT:
Here you go:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html
Posted by: BKB | July 13, 2009 12:03 PM
Chance can generate new information in genetics, so we know the first law is bogus
Actually, increasing entropy/chaos IS increasing information. What's interesting about evolution is that it allows the input of energy to fashion a localized increase in order, which is actually a local decrease in information.
-Your friendly neighborhood statistical mechanic
Posted by: Gilian | July 13, 2009 12:04 PM
I wish they'd make a Norse Mythology Museum. With various scenes from the Edda and the hero tales. Maybe a Snorri the Priest who leads groups around and explains everything. Oooh and there'd be the Quaffing of the Ale and throwing axes at beer barrels. And raiding other museums and plundering their exhibits.
Every time I read something about that silly Creation Museum this pops in my mind. Scientifically it would be just as correct as the Creation Museum, but a lot more fun to go to :)
Posted by: JMk2 | July 13, 2009 12:05 PM
SEF writes at #18:
Sorry SEF - you're not thinking sufficiently like a creationist. (My brain cells hurt as I do so!) The tree program was written by Jesus, doncha know?
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
July 13, 2009 12:06 PM
IDiots say: "When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."
Science is really so much easier when you start knowing all the answers and work backwards, isn't it?
Posted by: No Guy in the Sky | July 13, 2009 12:08 PM
Do we get a group rate if we all show up? I am interested in being there, but need to do it on the cheap. Can we see if the have an Atheist Package. Do they have non-religious accommodations? Rooms without Gideon etc. I might be a believer, provided their evidence is in order. :)
Posted by: Rev Matt | July 13, 2009 12:11 PM
Isn't that second die unnecessary?
Also, I would think that the Creation Museum would be free to atheists just on general principle. Unless the principle of profit is more important...
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 12:13 PM
Here in the UK there is a 7 mile long stretch of shingle/cobble beach known as Chesil Beach.
One of the curious things about this beach is that the size of the stones vary along its length, with small shingle like stones at one end and large cobbles at the other. Some people can tell exactly where they are in the beach by checking the stone size.
The geologists and geographers tell is this because of the way a thing called long shore drift works on the beach.
Jason Lisle would not doubt think that someone goes out everynight moving stones to the right part of the beach.
Posted by: Dan! | July 13, 2009 12:15 PM
I'm coming with you on August 7th, PZ, and I'm very excited.
Posted by: Jewbacca, chaotic good warlock | July 13, 2009 12:17 PM
Whoa. These guys found a physical law outside the weak nuclear force that isn't time-symmetric? Give them a Nobel Prize! They've solved the arrow of time problem!
JT @10: Win.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 13, 2009 12:20 PM
Follow the first link up there to the SSA. They've got a group rate: $10 each.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | July 13, 2009 12:24 PM
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
Shit like this is just painful. Have these people not done even the most basic reading up on the subject on which they claim to speak? (Don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question). Shannon's original 1948 paper* derives many conclusions about the nature of information by considering the rate at which information is generated by a stochastic process. That sort of puts a big hole in the Dembski/Gitt contentions about information requiring an intelligent source (whatever that is, incidentally).
* Claude Shannon "A Mathematical Theory of Communication", Bell System Technical Journal, November 1948.
Posted by: coyotenose | July 13, 2009 12:27 PM
What the HELL? Where's the spoiler alert notice?!?
I spent the second half of Revenge of the Sith staring at the theater ceiling because that movie is so goddamn bad, and now you've ruined it for me with one sentence!
Thanks a LOT.
Posted by: raven | July 13, 2009 12:28 PM
Both of these are just lies. We see information originating by RM + NS all the time.
A classic example is the new swine flu virus. By sequencing nearly a thousand flu virus genomes, we have a good idea of its evolutionary trajectory. It traces back in a tangled fashion to the 1918 flu virus. By numerous mutational and gene segment reassortment events.
Creationists are about to be scared, probably sickened, and maybe killed by a rapidly evolving and newly evolved human pathogen. They will have to do some heavy lying to explain this one away. But I'm sure they are up to it.
We can already predict the next step in its trajectory. Tamiflu resistance. There are already a few cases.
Fake Law number 2 is particularly lame. When we trace biological and physics type information back, it has never, ever been shown to originate in a mental source or a mind. This is just bafflegab and obviously wrong.
Posted by: Interrobang | July 13, 2009 12:34 PM
Werner Gitt sounds as though his name alone conveys as much information as is required about him. I have never encountered such a perfect monicker for the type, in fact.
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
July 13, 2009 12:42 PM
"Information" itself is a poorly-defined word at the best of times. Without a proper definition, the proposed "law" is completely incoherent. The current structure begs the question, as it seems to use "information" in the sense of, "the result of intelligently processing data."
I really, really wish creationists (or religious apologists in general) could come up with something new and interesting. It seems they've played out every single vein, from epistemology to hard sciences like physics, to new areas of math like information theory. It's getting quite tedious, and excruciatingly boring.
I'm thinking of picking up the gauntlet. I wonder if an atheist could be better at apologetics than most Christians?
Posted by: JMk2 | July 13, 2009 12:44 PM
Do the creationists still explain fossil stratigraphy by 'hydrodynamic sorting' during the flood? If the declaration under discussion means that only intelligence can produce order/information (as they appear to define it): angelic sorting, anyone?
Foot, meet bullet.
Posted by: Travis | July 13, 2009 12:46 PM
Gee, that is convincing, I do not really need to hear the full talk or find out the rest. I am now an AIG convert!
Posted by: Alverant | July 13, 2009 12:47 PM
At what point does Hammy make the leap from saying the Universe has a creator to justifying the claim that creator is the one in his bible? That's been the biggest problem with creationists. They automatically assume the god they worship is the right one and never justify that assumption.
Posted by: Ted Herrlich | July 13, 2009 12:48 PM
Well at least he didn't use a fishing lure as an example of an insect (ala The Atlas of Creation)
Actually you should have known it was an AIG-thing simply form the name Jason Lisle. Jason was the target of a little 'Turnabout is fair play' deal with the BBC. (http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2009/03/turnabout-is-fair-play.html)
Posted by: Ranson | July 13, 2009 12:48 PM
Now that's a museum tour I could get into. Not much of a quaffer, though.
Posted by: Ted Herrlich | July 13, 2009 12:50 PM
Well at least he didn't use a fishing lure as an example of an insect (ala The Atlas of Creation)
Actually you should have known it was an AIG-thing simply from the name Jason Lisle. Jason was the target of a little 'Turnabout is fair play' deal with the BBC. (http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2009/03/turnabout-is-fair-play.html)
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 13, 2009 12:51 PM
but but but...
I did not come from a monkey now did I? did you?
And if I throw random chemicals in a jar and shake the blazes out of said jar can I produce maggots let alone humans? well can I?
And why why why will I become 3/4 ounce lighter at death? and you will too! it's a fact!
You godless morons, when will you learn that all you have to do is close your eyes and let revelation happen. For the answers are written and waiting and the spirit moves us if we let Him. It's fact! It's Truth!
Signed: I. M. Babbu
Posted by: 386sx | July 13, 2009 12:52 PM
When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender.
This might be a good example of a "category error" which was discussed in a previous thread. It's hard to say though, because it's so stupid that it couldn't possibly be that stupid, so nobody really knows for sure if it's really that stupid or not. Surely there must be a lot more to it. (Not.)
Posted by: Ted Herrlich | July 13, 2009 12:52 PM
Well at least he didn't use a fishing lure as an example of an insect (ala The Atlas of Creation)
Actually you should have known it was an AIG-thing simply from the name Jason Lisle. Jason was the target of a little 'Turnabout is fair play' deal with the BBC. (http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2009/03/turnabout-is-fair-play.html)
Posted by: amphiox | July 13, 2009 12:53 PM
So sayeth THE LORD unto the HOST: Lo! They have eaten of the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE, and now their curiosity hath no bounds. E'en unto the roots of the TREE OF LIFE they dig. So let us lay falsehoods as layers on the face of the earth, and weave a tapestry of fantasy into the essence of the fish and fowl and the creeping thing, and every one of the BEETLES, and paint with hanging photons upon the firmament, that their curiosity be diverted and their reason confounded, lest they discover the truth of all the errors that We, in Our haste, did wrought, and Our GLORY in their eyes be diminished.
Posted by: Ted Herrlich | July 13, 2009 12:55 PM
Well at least he didn't use a fishing lure as an example of an insect (ala The Atlas of Creation)
Actually you should have known it was an AIG-thing simply from the name Jason Lisle. Jason was the target of a little 'Turnabout is fair play' deal with the BBC. (http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2009/03/turnabout-is-fair-play.html)
Posted by: tsg | July 13, 2009 12:59 PM
That's all they've got after 2000 years of looking. The reasoning is so bad that it's gone beyond not being able to convince me and well into causing me to wonder how they got the idea in the first place.
Posted by: Ted Herrlich | July 13, 2009 1:02 PM
Yes, You ar right, I need to read the instructions when a comment appears to fail. My bad!
Ted
Posted by: Josh
|
July 13, 2009 1:02 PM
Some of the more extreme YECs absolutely still do.
Posted by: Mixter | July 13, 2009 1:05 PM
Read as much of the first chapter of "proof" that I could stomach. The graphics were particularly annoying.
We will find in the next chapter that the biblical creation worldview must be true, because it is the only rational possibility.
Yikes.
Hey, what is up with "worldview," anyway? Go to a Xtian blog (if you must) and you will notice that "worldview" is their new buzz word.
Mixter
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 13, 2009 1:11 PM
I didn't even make it through the first page, where the noun evidences is coined - why do I only encounter this strange plural usage in Creationist arguments? (And pre-1900 sources.)
Posted by: Malastare | July 13, 2009 1:11 PM
That creationist text is actually quite enlightening - not in any useful sense, obviously, but it does give me an insight into how people can believe such obviously incorrect, indeed moronic things.
The author then goes on to dismiss empiricism as a valid way of approaching evidence. If you can do that, then you can basically do or say anything. Plus, putting pathetic little cartoons in a supposedly scientific texts went out with primary school textbooks.
Posted by: Sam C | July 13, 2009 1:14 PM
I like the book's explanation of why the presence of radiactive carbon 14 proves, yes PROVES!, that the world cannot be billions of years old because even if the entire earth was made of C14 it would all have decayed by now because it has a half life of about 6000 years.
Fantastic argument, which would only be proved false if there was a continuous process creating more C14 all the time. Such as energetic cosmic rays turning nitrogen into C14 by neutron capture. Oh.
But that couldn't possibly be the explanation because it's not mentioned in The Holly Bibble.
Shame chapter 2 isn't available. Apparently "... the biblical creation worldview must be true, because it is the only rational possibility." I'm sure I would be convinced, oh yes, bring on the enlightening bananas!
Posted by: bsk | July 13, 2009 1:16 PM
INDEED, THERE ARE MANY EVIDENCES.
Posted by: G.Shelley | July 13, 2009 1:17 PM
"Just as a person wearing red glasses perceives the world differently than a person wearing clear, prescription lenses, so evolutionists “see” the world differently than creationists. We have the same facts. But what we make of those facts is colored by your worldview. Thus, creationists and evolutionists interpret the same facts differently. This point cannot be overstated."
They try to hide it, but what they mean by world view is that they have the worldview that the bible is correct, that the world was created in seven literal days six thousand years ago and that two thousand years later, the Creator killed off all apart from eight humans and two of most other species in a mass flood.
The worldview that results in evolution is that science is a valid way of learning about the world.
Posted by: Rick R | July 13, 2009 1:22 PM
#58- "Hey, what is up with "worldview," anyway? Go to a Xtian blog (if you must) and you will notice that "worldview" is their new buzz word."
That's been their buzzword for a while. You know, evolution/atheism and creationism/ christianity are just different worldviews. Which makes evolution a religion. Or something.
And it's all the rage to confuse the words "belief" and "knowledge". I read a blog post one time from a public school science teacher(!) who wanted to teach intelligent design, and in about 2 paragraphs proved conclusively that she had no idea what those words actually mean. I see that a lot.
What you know is just what you believe! I believe what I know is true! Do you know?
Ugh.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | July 13, 2009 1:32 PM
Okay, I'm in. I ordered tickets for my son and I. This is going to be too much fun to pass up.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 13, 2009 1:38 PM
Also, where did they get this defintion of information from?
So information can now only be said to come from that class of things containing a purposeful, encoded message? What?
(Not addressing the utter stupidity of the boring unoriginal pseudoscientific arguments.) Even the English is incoherent:
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 13, 2009 1:40 PM
Garbage in, garbage out, and in the end, still and forever garbage. It would not take much to devastate those Lunatic Museum cretins and make garbage, er, mincemeat out of them. Don't you just love their pathetic attempts to circumvent reason? Will they never cease to brand themselves as morons and continually amaze us with examples of abject insanity? A circus and a movie!
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 13, 2009 1:49 PM
One real killer argument is provided in the discussion of comets:
Written in all seriousness, apparently...Eight pages of lies about evidence, only to finally admit that the author actually gets their "facts" from God's Big Book of Fun (now with added incest, rape, and genocide).
Oh, by the way; I tried on a pair of Biblical Glasses, but all that happened was that they made me shit my Irony Pants.
Posted by: noodles | July 13, 2009 1:51 PM
Don't bother asking. The IDiot strategy isn't to propose alternative explanations but rather to scrounge for unresolved minutia in science then assert since science "doesn't have all the answers" that supernaturalism is equality valid.
Posted by: rob | July 13, 2009 1:59 PM
i haven't read up on information science, but i will go out on a limb and guess that lisle's use of the term "information" is the colloquial definition and not the information science definition. kinda like laypeople misuse the terms "energy" "force" "momentum" "theory" "law" etc.
also, i was curious about the claim that after 1,000,000 years even if the whole earth is C-14, there would not be an atom left. here is the back-of-enevelope calc (actually i used a post-it note)
earth 6x10^24 kg.
mole of C-14 0.014 kg
if earth was all c-14 it would be 4x10^26 moles worth.
half life of C-14 is 5736 years, so after 10^6 years this would be about 174 half lives. this means a fraction of 4x10^-53 C-14 would be remaining, or 1.7x10^-26 moles. since a mole is 6x10^23 atoms, there would be about 0.01 atoms left, which is pretty much zero.
so, lisle is correct, that after one million years there would be no C-14 left.
however, C-14 dating is not used to date geological specimens, precisely because it quickly decays to unmeasureable amounts. i think (from memory) that C-14 dating is only used on organic specimens less than 70,000 or so years old.
so lisle's "proof" that C-14 dating can't be used to date old stuff is very misleading.
that is why scientist use other radiometric dating methods. for example K-40, Rb-87, Th-232, U-235, U-238. these elements have half lives of 100's of millions or billions of years, so they *can* be used to date geological specimens that are a good fraction of the age of the earth.
Posted by: CatBallou
|
July 13, 2009 2:14 PM
"Some people can tell exactly where they are in the beach by checking the stone size."
I kinda laughed at this. I know what you mean, and that beach sounds interesting, but I imagine that most people can tell where they are on the beach because they know where they started! So now I have an image of blindfolded people being led onto the beach and having to guess where they are by picking up stones.
Posted by: JMk2 | July 13, 2009 2:26 PM
noodles wrote at #69, replying to my post at #44
My apologies to anyone else who got my original point - and to you if you got it - though perhaps I did not express it clearly. To hammer it home, my point was that at least some creationists still rely on 'hydrodynamic sorting' during the 'flood' to explain fossil stratigraphy. This surely would have been order (in their terms, information) being created without intelligence - i.e. the creationist mentioned in PZed's post has contradicted his own side. Thanks to Matt Penfold for inspiring my remark with his note at #35 about the UK's Chesil Beach.
Posted by: consciousmachine | July 13, 2009 2:30 PM
I think that this SMBC is more appropriate to the content of the post:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1295#comic
Posted by: co | July 13, 2009 2:30 PM
Rob's calculations (in #70) confirmed. 10^6 years is about 175 half-lives of C14, which implies a fraction of only 2.9*10^(-53) left after that 10^6 years. Gosh, it's amazing that those silly geologists haven't ever recognized this, and that scientists keep trying to use C14 for dating things in deep time!
Posted by: consciousmachine | July 13, 2009 2:32 PM
The Physiological Proof is definitely the most compelling proof of god.
Posted by: consciousmachine | July 13, 2009 2:34 PM
The Physiological Proof is definitely the most compelling proof of god.
Posted by: raven | July 13, 2009 2:44 PM
Of course it is nonsense. C 14 dating is only good back to 50,000 years or so, because it decays so rapidly. So other methods are used for longer time periods, many different radioisotope decay series such as Ar Ar and Uranium lead.
If the earth was only 6,000 years old, then all organic carbon would have half the original amount and there would be no reservoirs of "dead" carbon like coal and oil.
BTW, Lisle knows this and he is deliberately lying. Guy has a Ph.D. in astrophysics from Harvard. Religion can really warp one's brain and sense of morality.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 2:53 PM
I know what you mean. The beach is also unusual in that there is a lagoon behind it, and the only access by foot is at either end. The demonstations of knowing where you are on the beach have been done with blindfolded individials taken out on a boat and then landed at random locations. It was a pretty impressive display, and yes, it could have all been rigged. Given my experience's with the place I do not think I was1
1 I have never walked the beach, as it is bloody hard going for 7 miles over cobbles, but I have kayaked the its length when I was a student. A geology student with me stopped every few hundred yards to collect samples. Looking at them later you could clearly see the change in size.
Posted by: Dr P | July 13, 2009 2:58 PM
Confused Joe @50,
And if I throw random chemicals in a jar and shake the blazes out of said jar can I produce maggots let alone humans? well can I?
And why why why will I become 3/4 ounce lighter at death? and you will too! it's a fact! Poe, right? You can't possibly be this retarded.
Posted by: Dutchdoc
|
July 13, 2009 3:06 PM
Read the "More about Dr. Jason Lisle" (see link in PZ's post):
it's almost too ironic for words!
While put in slightly different words and order, it comes down to this:
1. Dr. Lisle concluded that scientists are often biased by their own worldview.
2. He saw that evidence (?) for "creation material" (??) always supported the biblical account
3. His own worldview: "He grew up in a Christian home, and ..." (his family) believed in the authority and accuracy of the Bible.
So, it appears Dr. Lisle failed to apply his conclusion about "biased by worldview" to his own insights.
Not uncommon. I would like to coin the phrase "The Creationist's blind spot".
It's all too familiar: sad and pathetic.
How someone with a Ph.D. in astronomy, specializing in solar astrophysics, and having an interest in developing models of cosmology and stellar aging (!!) can still think the universe is only 6000 years old, is beyond me.
Speaking of 'biased by worldview': here is your ultimate example.
Posted by: Ben | July 13, 2009 3:28 PM
First off, I do believe in God. Saying that is probably setting me up for some criticism, but that's fair. I knew the risks when I wrote it.
Second, I really appreciate this site for two reasons.
1. I love the scientific information PZ posts and the discussions in the comments that follow. I'm going back to school soon to study biology so I've been reading as many books as I can. I'm far from ready to delve into the scientific journals, so I stick to books written for the mass market. I'm currently reading Evolution What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, and I've already read Your Inner Fish, The Seven Daughters of Eve, Monkey Girl (not really a science book, I guess), Scientists Confront Creationism Intelligent Design and Beyond, The Whole Shebang, Relics of Eden, The Language of God, Finding Darwin's God, and Just a Theory (Those last three might lead to more criticism, but like I said before, I knew the risks). Next up is Why Evolution is True. Although I've loved each of these books, sometimes I need a break from them, and this site lets me get away from the books for a while each day and still learn things from regular people who really love science.
2. This site shatters my preconceptions (instilled by my rather strict fundamentalist upbringing no doubt) of atheists. Imagine my surprise reading comments from atheists who seemed not morally bankrupt, illogical, or depressed, but rather humorous, thoughtful, and kind to each other. I've found that atheists tend to both be more sensible and make more sense than the fundies of which I was once a proud member.
I've finally come to the conclusion (only within the past year I'm ashamed to say) that science must follow the evidence where it leads. How novel is that? And that is the reason I accept evolution both as a theory and a fact until someone produces actual evidence that says otherwise. Of course, I don't think that's going to happen.
I wish I could go on the trip to the Creation Museum, even if it means being the only one in the group that believes in God. Unfortunately, I live in Iowa and am recovering from cancer. Field trips are out of the question right now. I'm guessing Ham doesn't allow video recorders in the museum, but it sure would be nice if someone could record the whole thing with a running commentary by PZ and others in the group. Here's hoping.
Lastly, my email is white_samurai51@yahoo.com Feel free to criticize (or discuss) me for still believing in God if you'd like, but I'd be far more appreciative of anyone who sends me recommendations for other science books I could read. Any branch of science would be fine, but I really like biology, genetics, paleontology, and geology.
And I'm sorry for making this so long.
Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 3:41 PM
Bernard Bumner @68,
HAHAHAHAHA! Why did I not click through to the book before? That section is hilarious. In the first paragraph about comets I estimate the Dembski number at ~1.2. And someone better get him caught up to the 20th century and the amazing new discovery of induced radioactivity.
The best, though, has to be the illustrations. Totally worth the price of admission (which I'd guess is about one bottle of Night Train worth of brain cells).
Posted by: DA360 | July 13, 2009 3:46 PM
LOL, good rebuttel as always. I still feel ashamed to live anywhere near this thing.
Know what's ironic too, living here, I realized one thing: The "museum" is located in the middle of friggin' nowhere here. Petersberg, aka Bullshitberg (BSBerg for short) is a rather small rural town, its nothing like the nearby towns like Florence, Covington, etc. which are quite populated, tons of stores, etc. Its literally off the beaten path here. Maybe their trying to hide it from us sane people XD.
Posted by: dahduh | July 13, 2009 3:49 PM
Hey Ben, are you aware that of all the sciences, atheism is highest in biologists :-) If you are looking for a little light reading, don't forget Sagan's "Demon haunted world".
As for the 'ultimate proof', the author of the piece, as well as the appropriately named Gitt who is cited so freely, remind me of monkeys in lab coats. They ape the motions of science, but are otherwise utterly clueless. And I'll bet they don't even know how to peel bananas properly.
Hmm, better add "Voodoo science" by Robert Park to your list, as well as "Bad science" by Ben Goldacre. Both very funny books.
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 13, 2009 4:09 PM
Ben, unfortunately, posting your email address like that will likely result in you getting a lot of spam. There are automated programs that search the web for email address.
Posted by: Iris | July 13, 2009 4:14 PM
Ben @81: Good for you for reading up on the science. Speaking as an athiest, compulsive reader of this blog and occasional commenter myself, I doubt PZ or any of the regulars here would criticize you for believing in a god, but would appreciate, applaud and encourage your efforts to educate yourself about evolutionary biology, geology, paleontology, and any other field of science that interests you. Remember, you are on a journey of discovery that many of us have taken ourselves.
I highly recommend for you The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, and his follow-on The Extended Phenotype. Like PZ, Dawkins communicates fascinating scientific ideas in clear, enjoyable prose that even we non-scientists can understand.
Cheers to your health - may your recovery be swift.
Posted by: Dutchdoc
|
July 13, 2009 4:20 PM
Oh my! I looked if I could find something of this Dr. Jason Lisle on youtube.
I often read comments here from people who claimed they couldn't read or watch a certain piece of movie beyond the first few sentences or minutes. I never quite believed them, but now I know!!
I COULD not make it all the way to the end. See if YOU can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRlFWTZFQLQ
The nonsense, the infantile simplifications, the dishonest and mean insinuations and the right-out LIES are piled up WAAAAYYY too high. What kind of people swallow this crap?
What a DIRT BAG!
How can a simpleton like this get a Ph.D.?
Posted by: arensb | July 13, 2009 4:32 PM
No, no, no. You're thinking of Shannon information, or Kolmogorov information. When creationists talk about "information", they mean something much more nebulous, something so hard to define that even they don't know what it means, except that it comes from minds and points to whichever conclusion they're trying to support at the moment.
Posted by: XD | July 13, 2009 4:44 PM
Snow-flakes store information about the conditions in which they are formed. The only way Lisle et al could counter that is to assert that God -- or an over-worked patron saint of snow* -- makes each and every crystal Himself.
* just Google that to read some seriously insane Catholic shit.
Posted by: arensb | July 13, 2009 4:47 PM
BTW, according to Google Maps, not too far from the "museum" lies Sugartit, KY. It might be a fun side trip for those whose intellect has been destroyed by the visit.
I tried to find a "welcome to Sugartit" sign when I was there, but failed.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 13, 2009 4:56 PM
No need to apologise, Ben. Best of luck beating the cancer. I don't think you'll be missing much by not going to the theme park.
For what it's worth you've read far more than me about evolution already.
---
PeeZed, how hard can it be to distract Ham? Just bring along a coupla piglets.
Posted by: consciousmachine | July 13, 2009 4:57 PM
Dutchdoc@#80
I think that this criticism completely misses the point of Dr. Lisles argument. He doesn’t fail to apply his conclusion to his own insights. In fact he welcomes such an application. The underlying idea here is every point of view is equally valid so long as it is supported by “good reason”. His introduction of the idea of “rescuing devices” is calculated, not to cast doubt on evolutionary theory but to legitimize the rescuing devices of creationism.
To me, the most telling statement of Dr. Lisle’s entire “proof” comes in his discussion of rescuing devices when he states that “in logical reasoning, no one is allowed to be arbitrary” (emphasis mine). This statement reveals a profound misunderstanding of what logic is and points to a deep misunderstanding that all creationists (and nearly all theists) have concerning the “laws” of nature. Dr. Lisle is treating logic as if it were a set of rules that one is obliged to follow. But logic is only a tool. One is not obliged by logic to avoid arbitrary assertions any more than one is obliged to hit nails with a hammer. One simply gets better results by using a given tool in a specified manner. Similarly the “laws” of nature are not some heavenly writs which say to nature “thou shalt act thusly” but are only descriptive statements about how we observe nature to act. While this may not sound very profound to someone who is used to dealing regularly in the scientific method I think confusing the model for “reality” is a fundamental misunderstanding that all theists share. This is what lends all sorts of design arguments so much weight since if there are rules that nature “must” follow there must be something which first established those rules.
Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 5:11 PM
having an interest in developing models of cosmology and stellar aging
If you parse this carefully, it basically says he's trying to figure out how to explain away cosmology and stellar aging.
Ben @81,
Welcome. I may be an atheist and a big fan of mockery and shit-talking, but you're not likely to get any from me -- I try to reserve it for people who deserve it. And good on ya introducing yourself (though, sadly, truthspeaker is right about the email address). A lot better than I did -- I just started posting and acting like I belong here. I hope your recovery goes smoothly and you get well soon.
Posted by: JosherK | July 13, 2009 5:22 PM
Are recording devices allowed in the museum? Is anyone bringing along a camera?
I really want to see how this goes down...
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 13, 2009 5:29 PM
Ben @ 81
First off, I do believe in the tooth fairy and saying that will probably set me up for criticism, but what the heck, you have to believe in something, and so I chose the tooth fairy instead of a god or the easter bunny, and what the heck, does it matter what you call it?
Posted by: ritebrother | July 13, 2009 5:35 PM
I think consciousmachine @92 makes a very good point regarding a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that natural "laws" are simply emergent contingencies, and not a priori assertions. Because theists are used to an inverted mechanism, in which assertions about the universe are made arbitrarily to fit an overarching dogma, they assume that all theories are such, and that atheist scientists are beholden to their "dogma" to the same extent. For some reason, it's hard to convince them that, to a scientist, all theories are contingent, even evolution by mutation and natural selection, and they'd be the FIRST to jump ship if strong evidence for an alternate theory were provided.
Posted by: StarScream | July 13, 2009 5:37 PM
I want a pair of the those evolutionized glasses!
Posted by: Dania
|
July 13, 2009 5:45 PM
Ben, #81:
Welcome. First of all I'd like to wish you good luck and a quick recovery. Second, don't expect to be heavily criticized just because you believe in God... But present your arguments and reasons to believe and you'll see what happens :)
I'm currently reading Steve Jones' Almost Like a Whale: The Origin of Species Updated. I haven't finished it yet, but I think Steve Jones did a good job "updating" Darwin's original work. The book is, obviously, mainly about evolutionary biology but you're also going to find a lot about geology and paleontology there.
Two more suggestions: The Blind Watchmaker and Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins. Those were two books I loved to read.
Posted by: consciousmachine | July 13, 2009 5:51 PM
Dutchdoc@87
I watched Dr. Lisle's "sermon" all the way to the end. He doesn't strike me so much as an opportunistic dirtbag as he does one of the kind of people who Dennett describes as having a "belief in belief". In fact, he strikes me as a full on moral relativist of the type he describes in his lecture and that prospect scares the hell out of him. While I don't think he actually believes that our morals attain from god, I think he believes that it is a good thing that other people do believe that our morals attain from god.
I think that all of us would do well to watch Dr. Lisle's lecture to the end. Notice that the central issue in his lecture is not science but morality. This is what motivates creationists. And I think that it is a mistake to dismiss them all as charlatans trying to keep their flocks ignorant while fleecing them of their worldly possessions. This may be the modus operandi of folks like Hovind and Ham, but there are I think a great number in the creationist camp who honestly believe that if people do not believe in the inerrancy of the biblical account that society is doomed to crumble into a hedonistic orgy of murder and mayhem.
@PZ
I would love to see you post more about moral relativism and why it is wrong. Maybe you could have some guest bloggers over from the evolutionary psychology or game theory camps to talk about the latest theories of how morality and altruism can arise within the evolutionary "survival of the fittest" framework? This is a subject that deserves more attention than it is given since the motivation of the "lay creationist" seems to be more about how we attain our morals than how the universe came to be. As Dr. Lisle so clearly attests, the questions of origins serve only as the foundations of the creationists beliefs about morality. It is a coherent view of morality that they are trying to sustain. If we atheists can present a coherent alternative to the false dichotomy of religion vs. moral relativism then urgency to defend "god's law" may not be as compelling and creationist believers may be less inclined to stick their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la la" when evidence is rightly presented to them.
Posted by: Mr T | July 13, 2009 6:09 PM
Holbach, please elaborate.
As demonstrated in the proof above, we all know the existence of the tooth fairy has a source in the mind of the sender, as both are "immaterial". How is it then capable of exchanging our teeth for money? Or, if instead it's some kind of transformation of the matter, how is that achieved by a non-physical being? Finally, if it is capable of doing anything of the sort, why is it such a cheap bastard?
I'm sure god gets asked these questions all the time, but I've never understood why most of the explanations people have given consist of handwaving. I can understand though. It's got to be difficult explaining one's absolute perfectness while playing air guitar.
Posted by: raven | July 13, 2009 6:18 PM
If they want to believe morality comes from god, they are too late and out of luck. It is just wrong. There is no such thing as xian morality. That is a factual assertion derived from data. Social problems like divorce, teen age pregnancy, child poverty, substance abuse and so on are always higher in fundie states.
It is also our common experience. The fundies routinely show up, act stupid, act crazy, and lie and lie and then lie some more. When you call them on their lies, they tell you, that you are going to hell. The weirder ones start making death threats. The really strange ones actually kill people.
One could make a stronger case that making believing silly mythology is real a litmus test is detrimental to developing a strong internal moral code. A case in point is Dr. Jason Lisle. He is lying and he knows he is lying. Or the propaganda movie Expelled. XIAN MORALITY IS A MYTH.
Posted by: consciousmachine | July 13, 2009 6:27 PM
ritebrother@96:
I think that it goes deeper than that. Theists see natural laws in the way that they see the laws that we impose to govern societies. It's not simply that they use a different method of justifying knowledge but that they mistake what are nothing more than predictive models for reality itself.
In society laws are imposed from above in order to direct the behavior of individuals. It is natural to assume that when we observe certain consistencies in nature we are "discovering" something which dictates that nature will act in a certain way.
Take gravity for instance. We observe that massive bodies are always attracted to one another. We further observe that the force of attraction is proportional to the mass of each object and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. So we state that the "law" of gravity predicts that F = MmG/r^2.
Now when a theist sees this he assumes that this law is proscriptive, describing something that is imposed on the nature of massive objects. The so-called law of gravity is descriptive and predictive but is not at all proscriptive. It doesn't tell matter how to behave but only describes how we have observed it to consistently behave.
This is IMHO a very profound misunderstanding that often leads theists and atheists to the position of talking past each other on the question of "design". When a theist asks "who made the laws of nature?" he is revealing that he sees those laws as being proscriptive. When the atheist says "the laws of nature just are what they are" he reveals that he (rightly) sees those laws as being merely descriptive. If one views these laws as being proscriptive then no amount of telling someone to "just accept them" is going to be satisfying nor will any amount of positing the universe as it's own first cause.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 13, 2009 6:31 PM
The ways those guys talk about science (or what they believe it to be), it looks weirdly like medieval philosophers. Long on great basic principles, and of course short on empirical data and tests. The kind of thought they believe in hasn't acutally progressed for about 800 years.
Posted by: DaveL | July 13, 2009 6:33 PM
Ben@81
I wish you the best for your recovery. I have no criticism for you at the moment, but I would like you to consider this:
You admit that you had been inculcated during your upbringing with preconceptions about atheists that turned out to be false. Now, as it turns out it wasn't terribly difficult to check those preconceptions and find out they were false. That means one of two things. The first is that they simply repeated a falsehood that they heard elsewhere. Rather than checking its veracity, which they could have easily done, they simply pretended to be knowledgeable about a subject about which they were massively ignorant. The second possibility is that they lied outright.
Either way, given that these people taught you a falsehood, either through willful ignorance or outright deception, regarding something that could be easily checked, why should you put any stock in the claims they made about metaphysical things beyond any hope of verification?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 13, 2009 6:38 PM
The tooth fairy is a character in the film Hogfather. Since they (they being them) would never lie on TV, the tooth fairy is guaranteed real. QE everlovin' D!
Posted by: cicely
|
July 13, 2009 6:56 PM
Hi, Ben. Best of luck with your medical conditions.
Other preconceptions that some fundamentalists seem to have about atheists is that we see everything in flat, emotionless terms, and are completely devoid of a sense of wonder, or appreciation of beauty. It's no more accurate than the ones about moral bankruptcy and depression are.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 13, 2009 6:56 PM
consciousmachine July 13, 2009 5:51 PM #99
My hypothesis about creationists has to do with redemption. I believe the creationists think thusly:
Jesus died on the cross to redeem mankind from sin. Sin was introduced to the world by Adam and Eve eating the Forbidden Fruit and being thrown out of Eden. If Adam and Eve didn't exist (as those scientisty evilutionists would have us believe) then there was no Original Sin. If there was no Original Sin then there was no reason for Jesus to die and be resurrected. So for redemption to have happened, Adam and Eve have to have sinned. Since Adam and Eve are an integral part of the Creation as described in Genesis, then that description must be true. Otherwise there'd be no redemption and all of mankind (and even womankind) are condemned to Hell.
Posted by: consciousmachine | July 13, 2009 7:00 PM
raven@101
You've missed my point completely. You have to separate your average lay-creationist from the "professionals" who promote it.
Your average lay-creationist simply believes what he is told. And many of them do it I think, for the reason that they simply want someone to tell them how to be a good person and that they are being a good person. They want rules to follow and they want to know how to know that they have the right rules. Unfortunately, by abdicating their authority to make moral decisions they also abdicate their opportunities to practice making real moral decisions. I think that this is why so many of them come across as lying and conniving scumbags, because that is what they've been trained to do by their "shepherds".
The "professionals" though were who my comment about Dr. Lisle - believing that it is good for other people to believe that their morals attain from god - was aimed at. And it isn't enough to simply to assert that this obviously isn't the case. Even if you quote study after study showing that Christians are no more moral than anybody else, the creationist can simply fall back to saying that "those aren't real Christians" whatever that means. And honestly, it doesn't matter. You aren't going to change the mind of the "professionals" or the sheep whose minds they mold, without demonstrating that moral relativism and nihilism are not the logical consequences of the loss of authoritative belief in the scriptural word of god. The only way to do that it seems to me is to provide (and talk more about) a plausible naturalistic account of how altruistic behavior can derive from the "selfish gene".
Posted by: Mr T | July 13, 2009 7:05 PM
'Tis Himself:
1) All self-refuting beliefs are logically equivalent (hidden premise: they're all invalid).
2) I believe that was Holbach's point anyway, although I'm not psychic or anything, unless you believe in that stuff I guess.
3) That means your proof ad veritas televisionis for the existence of the tooth fairy is equivalent to a lack of faith in God.
4) ????
Conclusion: Thus, as the good book tells us, you're going to burn in hell. (Hidden conclusion: not really)
Thanks for listening. Have a nice day.
Posted by: MartyM | July 13, 2009 7:10 PM
Ben @81. I hope you get well soon. While I NEVER believed in creationism, I USED to go to a fundie church. And while the skeptic in me kept coming out, I kept telling myself that I had "more to learn" from them. That is until they came at me with creationist arguments a few years ago. So I read a few creationist books. After which I felt intellectually assaulted. That got me into reading many of the same books you listed. Then I found this blog and other science blogs and now reject their claims outright. One good book is the Counter Creationism Handbook by Mark Isaak. Though it doesn't read like a novel. It's a collection of creation arguments with scientific and rational responses, and it is pretty comprehensive. Good luck.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 13, 2009 7:56 PM
Rick R @ # 64: ... evolution/atheism and creationism/ christianity are just different worldviews. Which makes evolution a religion. Or something.
Who could have predicted that the last stand of postmodernism would be found in fundamentalist christianism?
Is the observable universal tendency towards greater accumulations of irony a natural law, or evidence for Sarcastic Design™?
Posted by: raven | July 13, 2009 8:09 PM
You missed my point completely. If xian morality exists, someone should be able to find it. No one has. They can't claim the moral high ground while living in a swamp of lies, violence, hate, and craziness. This is just The Emperors New Clothes, the fundie update.
You are also overintellectualizing everything, a violation of common sense and Occam's razor. Fundie xianity has more to do with in group out group tribal politics, political power, and plain old crackpottery than religion or morality. They don't own the xian religion, worldwide aren't even close to a majority.
As to talking them out of it with logic and reasoning. It is almost impossible to turn a kook. If they had any interest in logic, reasoning, morality, or reality, they wouldn't be trying to cram the real world into two pages of mythology. The younger and brighter can and do realize it and creationism will go the way of the flat earth and geocentrism, hopefully it won't take 400 years.
Posted by: Mr T | July 13, 2009 8:16 PM
Pierce R. Butler @111:
I certainly remember learning all about the evils of postmodernism in Catholic school when I was a kid.... I would never have suspected it. However, after some thought I've decided it should have been predictable. After all, I think it was Voltaire who said:
"Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
I rest my case, but I'll be happy to explain if the reasons I allege aren't already obvious and sinister enough.
I do think it should be addressed more often that we're not just dealing with people who firmly believe specific crazy stuff in a specific religious text, who have a high degree of certainty about their beliefs. On the other hand, if you're dealing with someone willing to believe just about everything is true, then it's hard to even know where to begin.
Posted by: SmartLX | July 13, 2009 8:24 PM
Alverant (#46), Mixter (#58), the approach to establishing Christianity specifically as the only valid "worldview" is revealed on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Proof-Creation-Jason-Lisle/dp/0890515689/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247529156&sr=8-1
Look for the 5-star review by "MICHAEL M. BAKER", in particular where he says:
"This book will challenge you and is a great introduction into 'Logic'. Logic, by the way, that can only exist, by definition, in one world view. You need to read the book to discover what that world view is."
Only one approach is ever described thus. It's the transcendental argument, the great steaming pile at the tail end of presuppositional apologetics.
Therefore at least part of the "Ultimate Proof" has nothing to do with biology or geology. Lisle also attempts to establish God as an early lemma (interim conclusion/premise) in his larger argument using an ultra-general witnessing technique.
Therefore, even to him, the supposed evidence against evolution doesn't stand up on its own. He thinks he has to half-convert people first.
Posted by: consciousmachine | July 13, 2009 8:43 PM
Raven,
So sorry to have stepped on your piggly wiggly little toes. I naturally assumed you were quoting my post in order to respond to the point I was making and to have a discussion about it. I now realize you were simply using it to springboard into a topic of your own impassioned opinion.
Fine, I get it, fundies have no monopoly on morality. I agree.
But my post wasn't any sort of an attempt to imply that they do or that their imagined moral monopoly is justified. So your "point" was apropos of nothing.
My original post(if you wish to respond to it) was about why some fundamentalists don't actually give the slightest rat's ass about the origins of the universe or man except insofar as they support the view that morality is handed down from on high. And that they have reasons for clinging to this view. For these people, the real argument is not nor ever was about how we got here or what can be scientifically demonstrated. It is about what we are "supposed" to do and how we avoid the moral mess that nihilism, post-modernism and moral relativism beget. Now, just as Dr. Lisle points out in his lecture, the entire foundation of this view of morality rests on the truth of the bible as the inerrant word of god, so one approach to dispelling this delusion is to hack away at that foundation by convincing the fundie that his view of creation is JUST PLAIN WRONG. But if he truly believes that the alternative to "god's law" is moral nihilism then just what kind of monster might you be setting free by chopping down his morality tree?
Another approach, one that I am advocating is to remove the motivation for clinging to the view that either we get our morals from god or we can't justify any moral position at all. And you do that by showing them that the whole fucking world is NOT going to break down into a madhouse free for all of violence and debauchery if people stop referring to the authority of god to decide what to do with themselves.
Posted by: consciousmachine | July 13, 2009 8:51 PM
Peirce R. Butler@#111
"Sarcastic Design" LMAO!
Unfortunately postmodernism is beginning to creep into the thinking of moderate/mainstream Christianity as well (a much more troubling prospect). It is the last great refuge for broken ideas.
Posted by: raven | July 13, 2009 8:52 PM
Your concern is noted.
Posted by: consciousmachine | July 13, 2009 9:25 PM
I just read this guys bio on AiG:
"So as he read creation materials, he could see that when the evidence was properly interpreted, it always supported the biblical account of creation (even with the thorny question of starlight and time)."
I can't help but think that for guys like this there has to eventually come a time that they pop a sprocket from trying to maintain the tension of "properly interpreting the evidence". It's obvious that he can't actually believe both YEC and the scientific theories that he claims to understand and the fact that he's got a PhD is evidence that he understands those theories at least well enough to have faked his way through a doctoral thesis.
So my question is this, who do you suppose, does he have a harder time looking in the eye? The scientists who are his colleagues, his congregational audiences, the pastors who pay him to speak or himself in the mirror?
Posted by: windy | July 13, 2009 10:42 PM
Hi Ben, how about A Primate's Memoir, or some other book by Robert Sapolsky!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 13, 2009 11:02 PM
Ben writes:
I'd be far more appreciative of anyone who sends me recommendations for other science books I could read.
Read Darwin. Not because it's perfectly right, but because it's beautifully written and is a great lesson in its own right about how to argue from evidence, how to figure things out, and how to ground a theory in observation. As you read it, you can think about how much we've added to Darwin's framework in the last century, and you'll get a firsthand view of how science evolves, self-corrects, and builds upon previous layers of discovery and observation.
Posted by: Yair | July 14, 2009 2:28 AM
There actually is a glimmer of truth in principle 1 - information isn't created in a CLOSED physical system. The laws of physics are unitary, meaning that information is preserved. There was some big hoopla about Hawkins claiming that black holes were an exception where information got lost, but he backed down, and most (not all!) physicists think they aren't.
But biological systems (or Earth) are not closed systems! It's the same reason why the second law of thermodynamics (entropy must always increase) doesn't apply - the law only applies to CLOSED systems. And regardless, it talks about the amount of fundamental physical information, not information accessible to humans (like writing) or evolution (like genes), which is a more specific form of information that can increase even if the fundamental physical information does not.
Posted by: ermine | July 14, 2009 3:09 AM
@Ben: (I hope you're still reading!)
If you liked 'Your Inner Fish', you'll probably also enjoy 'At the Water's Edge' by Carl Zimmer. He's got several other good books, (Like 'Parasite Rex', if you're into bizarre parasites.. Ugh!) but ATWE is my favorite so far. It covers much of what was talked about in 'Your Inner Fish', but also goes into a lot of similar detail about the origin of whales, from the early, terrestrial, hooved carnivore up to modern whales.
With all the other references to Dawkins, I'm surprised no one has included 'The Ancestor's Tale'. It's a big book, but also a detailed and very readable look into our common ancestors back through time.
I would also be terribly remiss not to mention 'Wonderful Life', by Stephen J. Gould, an marvelous look at the life of the early Cambrian, as seen in the rocks of the Burgess Shale, a treasure-trove of some of the earliest multicellular life forms preserved in incredible detail. This book makes it clear why creationists are able to say 'Most of the phyla that exist today were already in existence then.', while at the same time explaining very clearly why that doesn't mean anything like what they think it means.
Carl Sagan's 'Demon-Haunted World' has been suggested, but I'll also add his 'Pale Blue Dot'. From your description, you're interested in a wide enough range of sciences to be fascinated and humbled by this one, should you find a copy to read.
Last but definitely not least, one marine biologist that no one has mentioned is Jack Rudloe. His 'The Living Dock at Panacea' is a fantastic read. 'Time of the Turtle' is also very good. He runs (ran?) the Gulf Specimen Company, a supplier of all forms of sea life to laboratories and colleges all around the world, and his book tell wonderful stories of all the various things that he's had to supply and how he got them.
It was Dr. Rudloe who went out with National Geographic some 20 or 30 years back (Damn, when did I get old?) to trawl up a 'sea monster', choosing as his target the hideous, foot-and-a-half-long isopods of the deep ocean trenches. You'll probably have to look for his books used, but if you can find anything at all of his, do give it a try.
I'm not going to even mention my beliefs for the moment. I wish you well, and hope you get a chance to read some of the suggestions you've been given here.
Posted by: maxamillion | July 14, 2009 5:29 AM
I prefer "Weltenschauung" myself, it confuses that crap out of them.
Posted by: SEF | July 14, 2009 5:36 AM
Not quite @ #113:
There doesn't even have to be someone else there (let alone a god or demon) making them do bad things. The problem already lies in the fantasy that there's any sort of telepathic controlling power at all.
People have impulses all the time. Someone who correctly recognises that those are internal, products of their own minds is relatively likely (depending on how habitual a thinker they are!) to subject them to review rather than necessarily simply acting on them. I.e. they will engage whatever inbuilt morality they possess. They may also then use that review and real-world results as feedback to further refine their morality and influence future impulses and decisions.
However, someone with the specific kind of brain defect which leads them to not recognising their own thoughts or even someone who has merely been led to believe that a god will tell them what to do is instead quite likely to give such imagined-to-be-external thoughts a free pass (especially given the emphasis on having faith and not questioning). I.e. religion actively suppresses the application and development of morality in the individual.
NB This is in addition to the problem of religion asserting (wrongly) that there's a perfect, frozen-for-all-time-and-place, external morality which just happens to be that of some uncivilised, ancient tribe and the people in charge when the religious dogma was codified.
Religion is a very evil and dangerous delusion to carry around in one's head.
Posted by: cypressgreen | July 14, 2009 8:39 AM
@Ben: I really wish you the best. I work with cancer patients and know just how tough it can be.
Anyway, I will say I am pretty new here myself (and sometimes the science here is over my head) but as I have done for years, I just keep reading and thinking.
Luckily, both of my parents were chemists. (and I sure work with a lot of scientists here!)
My sister and I got the arts/languages genes, but my parents taught me to think things thru, even though we were brought up Christian. I am now an atheist.
Two things: 1. It can be the hardest thing in the world to admit you were wrong. I'm glad you're pushing on; just don't be too afraid to admit when you're wrong. 2. I'd call you, and most here, a 'truth seeker.' I had a friend who studied, traveled widely and changed religions often, trying things out. At his funeral someone eulogized him as a truth seeker. That's what I try to be. We don't always end up where others think we should, or where we expect, but we need to keep thinking and talking if we want to grow.
You go, man!
(PS the best cancer t-shirt I ever saw said, "I love the smell of chemo in the morning." Funny thing is the patient didn't get the whole joke!!!)
Posted by: Stu
|
July 14, 2009 10:50 AM
I prefer "Weltenschauung" myself, it confuses that crap out of them.
Me too... oh, wait, did you mean "Weltanschauung"? :-)
Posted by: jay | July 15, 2009 2:53 PM
You're making the proof look GOOD .. which is GOOD.
You can NOT tell much about the source just from the resulting waves ...
what caused it?
what the conditions were like when it originated?
what were other waves generated at the same time were doing?
were the two waves you see now generated by two separate sources or did something happen to one wave along the way that split it or slowed it down or changed it's characteristics.
You pretty much can NOT tell anything about the source of a wave .. because you don't know what affected it along the way to where you see it.
Next . . . ...
spacecataz wrote:
A simple counter example is waves generated by (insert favorite method here.) This clearly is not only information generation but also propagation. By studying waves, one obtains a tremendous amount of information about the source
Posted by: jay | July 15, 2009 2:57 PM
You're making the proof look GOOD .. which is GOOD.
You can NOT tell much about the source just from the resulting waves ...
what caused it?
what the conditions were like when it originated?
what were other waves generated at the same time were doing?
were the two waves you see now generated by two separate sources or did something happen to one wave along the way that split it or slowed it down or changed it's characteristics.
You pretty much can NOT tell anything about the source of a wave .. because you don't know what affected it along the way to where you see it.
Next . . . ...
spacecataz wrote:
A simple counter example is waves generated by (insert favorite method here.) This clearly is not only information generation but also propagation. By studying waves, one obtains a tremendous amount of information about the source
Posted by: jay | July 15, 2009 3:00 PM
You're making the proof look GOOD .. which is GOOD.
You can NOT tell much about the source just from the resulting waves ...
what caused it?
what the conditions were like when it originated?
what were other waves generated at the same time were doing?
were the two waves you see now generated by two separate sources or did something happen to one wave along the way that split it or slowed it down or changed it's characteristics.
You pretty much can NOT tell anything about the source of a wave .. because you don't know what affected it along the way to where you see it.
Next . . . ...
spacecataz wrote:
A simple counter example is waves generated by (insert favorite method here.) This clearly is not only information generation but also propagation. By studying waves, one obtains a tremendous amount of information about the source
Posted by: Ben | July 15, 2009 8:04 PM
I wrote a long comment last night, but for whatever reason I couldn't get it to post. I'm not going to try to retype it all again today, but I wanted to say thanks for the warm welcome and all the book recommendations. I can see now my fear of being criticized just for saying I believe in God was totally unfounded.
Posted by: Doug the Primate | July 17, 2009 3:33 PM
consciousmachine @ #102
Very nice post, and thank you. Two editorial points though. You use the word “proscriptive”. It means that something is proscribed, that you ought not to do it. The word you want is “prescriptive”, meaning prescribed, something you are required to do. Secondly, and this for everyone who’s ever been confused about the (correct!) use of the apostrophe, I quote your concluding sentence:
“If one views these laws as being proscriptive then no amount of telling someone to "just accept them" is going to be satisfying nor will any amount of positing the universe as it's own first cause.”
Your “it’s” is a contraction of “it is”. But you don’t mean that; you mean “... the universe is its own first cause”, where “its” here denotes the possessive, as in an intrinsic characteristic of the universe. So that’s the question for anyone confused: do you mean the contraction or the possessive?
Otherwise, thank you for a concise and insightful post.
‘Tis Himself @ #107
Note the contractive use of the apostrophe in your handle “‘Tis”, short for “It Is”. Now, to the logical matter of your post, I quote your concluding sentence:
“Otherwise there'd be no redemption and all of mankind (and even womankind) are condemned to Hell.
Actually, your conclusion is even stronger, viz:
“Otherwise there’d be no original sin, so no need for redemption, and all of humanity would be freed from the threat of everlasting torment [for failing to comply with all the minutiae of priestly proscriptions and prescriptions such as sumptuary laws under the Taliban].” But we fundies can’t allow that or people would laugh at us and not fear us and disobey our power. That’s why we must kill abortion providers, condemn homosexuality, flog or stone girls who’ve been raped, and generally destroy apostates. For only fear will keep us in the gravy, and assure us that we’re actually right.
Excuse the rant after ]: it doesn’t follow from your premises.
Ben @#130
I hope your treatment and recovery go well Ben, and welcome to the company of the Pharyngulite Horde. We hoard no information here. Here’s one of my favourites: Stephen Jay Gould’s collection of his essays under the title “Ever Since Darwin”. I think you’ll appreciate his writing style, incisive argumentation, and range of topics under the general rubric of the “neo-Darwinian Synthesis. Have fun with it!
As for postings taking time to display, patience is a virtue. Go pet your cat. What I do to avoid retyping is to compose my posts in a dedicated Wordperfect file, save early, save often, save grief, then post. Then pet my cats.
Doug the Primate
Posted by: James | August 11, 2009 3:05 PM
"Chance can generate new information in genetics" which of your orifices did you pull this out of? This is a circular argument if anything.
Show me the "mechanism" used by change to generate new information. Show me the "mechanism" by which the blood and clotting were able to "evolve" unguided.
From my "Worldview", a concept very eloquently explained by Lisle, and very politely as opposed to this turkey who writes this, (have you noticed how downright rude and abusive all evolutionists are? Could it be because they cannot come up with any real stuff since it does not exist?) it appears that most evolutionists are totally and extremely deluded, blinded, etc exactly like Lisle points out (wearing "evolution tinted" glasses).
My worldview is logical, rational and I have seen how all pieces fit together. I do not have to "invent" an Oort Cloud for any of my viewpoints.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 3:10 PM
But you do have to invent a magical sky-daddy.
Posted by: hexC0DE | August 31, 2009 12:30 PM
you wrote: "Chance can generate new information in genetics, so we know the first law is bogus, and since we can trace a useful piece of genetic information back to unguided mutations, we know the second is yet more baloney."
your rebuttal is less than substantive. you cling to supposed facts that nobody has observed, and therefore cannot confirm, in an effort to refute a statement that is actually supported by observable science. who has ever observed chance generating information in genetics? nobody. how can you "know" it then? what Has been observed is Loss of information in genetics through various mechanisms.
i agree that i am also skeptic when new "laws" i never heard of pop up from the creationist community, but i want to know all the sides of the argument, so in the very least i can give a logical rebuttal. if i don't have an answer, i'll say so. or if i refuse to believe it, i'll say so.
there are several strong challenges out there that the evolution community should try to address. for instance, have you read "in the beginning was information" by dr. werner gitt? there are valid points there that are tough to account for. how about michael behe's biochemical challenge as found in "darwin's black box." i've heard rebuttals for that, but they are weak also. showing that part of a mousetrap can have some other purpose does not give a mechanism for the assembly of the mousetrap, neither does it account for the existence of the part in the first place. there are other good challenges out there for uniformitarians to tackle. on the other side, there are good challenges out there for creationists to account for, and, from my reading, it seems that the folk at answers in genesis actually are making a genuine effort to tackle those challenges.
what i want is informed logical arguments for belief, not opinions. belief does not equal proof. unfortunately, nobody can "prove" either side (at least until a time machine is invented), and belief eventually must be chosen, but at least a logical and persuasive argument should be given for the belief.
Posted by: Damian | August 31, 2009 1:04 PM
First, mutations are random: Random Mutation and Natural Selection
Second, we have observed increases in information:
I'd suggest that you read some different books — ones based on the actual science — in the future. That will help you to avoid misrepresenting it.
Posted by: Kelcin | September 7, 2009 12:42 PM
I had hoped you would have read the whole book, instead of reading a small bit and then mocking it.
Sadly that was the case.
You don't even give Creationists the benefit of doubt, that they may be right.
Is this how you treat other scientists when they disagree with you?