Creation

I think I've mentioned before that creationism "vs." evolution is virtually the only topic that can provoke anything close to a flame war on my ordinarily sedate museum professionals listserv. There was a big debate about it over the weekend, and I thought one man had an excellent analogy, that they weren't really competing ethos because one is science and one is religion. He said it was like, you could argue whether baseball or football was a better sport, but you can't determine the argument by having them face each other playing their own sport.

Some of the people in the video were a little scary. Like that first guy, who linked evolution to abortion and gay marriage. How exactly does that work? It's been documented that both abortion and tolerance of homosexuality have been around since ancient times, long before Darwin's birth OR the writing of the Bible. And (I know this is a small point but) why is there a wolf in that segment on bad stuff that happened because society turned away from Christianity? Follow Jesus and he'll keep the wolves away, is that the message? Didn't seem to work too well throughout most of the 19th Century.

Anyway, before I forget, reading your posts and PZ's, and the arguments on Museum-L, made me realize that I need to learn more about this topic. Can you recommend a good basic book, one that a history major like myself has a shot of comprehending and finishing, about evolution?

I was disappointed that no-one in that video on the evolution side brought up the issue of facts -- or the idea that creationism starts with a conclusion and ruthlessly discards any fact which does not fit, whereas science is constrained to start with observation and come to a conclusion that fits the facts. That just can't be stressed enough.

Library Diva -- what aspect of evolution? How evolution works? The history of the idea? How it is supported? All of the above? Frankly, try reading Darwin's Origin of Species; it may be a bit to labor through in places, but it is a fantastic basis to start from. Aside from that, maybe try Carl Zimmer's "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea".

I noted the first guy interviewed. He believes in creationism because he sees design in everything; opponents believe in evolution because they are socially and morally corrupted. I think it's called fallacy of attribution.

Did anyone else notice the recycled contradictory logic from the creationists?

--Evolution is a based on a belief system (i.e. science don't count).
--There's tons of "SCIENTIFIC" evidence for creation ( so, wait...it does?)

I'm bored to tears of these cats invoking the authority of "scientific evidence" while vainly attempting to discredit science in general...

There was one guy in there that did raise a very good point that I've been using for a while now. We are raising a generation of fundamentalists who will reject reason. Of course, that way lies madness. Now, this may be a bit on the extreme side (or overly pessimistic at least), but I'm scared shitless to think of our future leaders. I'm afraid we're going to be left befind the rest of the world, and regress into superstitious fundamentalism. Turn on a REPUTABLE news station if you're unsure of the fruits of a fundamentalist society. I just keep having this reacurring scene in my head of a Japanese news station 60 years from now...

"Christo-Fascist Extremists set off car bombs today in Canada..."

...or the idea that creationism starts with a conclusion and ruthlessly discards any fact which does not fit, whereas science is constrained to start with observation and come to a conclusion that fits the facts. That just can't be stressed enough.

Two thoughts on this.

First, you are starting with the conclusion that ontological (origins) naturalism is true, even though the origin of matter, energy and life is not an ongoing, observable process. That is where you are relying on faith, not science.

Keep in mind that ontological naturalism is different than methodological (operation) naturalism. One is how things originated, the other is how things work. Most of the founders of science, like Newton, viewed science as the study of the natural world, which was created by God. They believed they were studying a supernaturally created universe that worked by naturalistic mechanisms. The people at AIG are very clear about the difference between origins and operational science.

Second, it isn't the facts that are in question, it is the interpretation. We both have the same facts to study.

There was one guy in there that did raise a very good point that I've been using for a while now. We are raising a generation of fundamentalists who will reject reason. Of course, that way lies madness.

That guy in the film (I suppose you're talking about the guy in the white shirt) is confused about the difference between origin and operational science.

Creationism does not reject reason, unless you define "reason" as not allowing the supernatural to exist.

...Creationism does not reject reason, unless you define "reason" as not allowing the supernatural to exist.
Posted by: dave_b

Creationism may not deny reason, it does make a fair fist at denying the honesty of the postulated God.

It isn't science for some obvious reasons.
1) It has a pre-determined result.
2) It twists the facts to match the pre-determined result.
3) It has made no predictions that are falsifiable.

I would point out that AIG believers had better believe in the existance of the natural world and that the universe is lawful, just as non-AIG believers do. One of their claims is that God created the Universe and everything in it.

Actually, dave_b, I'm assuming that the business of science is to find the proximate material causes of any phenomenon, including the origin of life, and I simply do NOT assume that one must immediately assume a non-material, supernatural cause. I also leave the question of ultimate cause to philosophy, on the grounds that on some occasions science simply doesn't have the right tools to address it. I assume neither the necessary existance nor the necessary non-existance of the supernatural. I'm just claiming science works very well for illuminating the natural, and so far natural explanations are proving quite adequate. That is just a wee bit different from what you're claiming.

And I also do not rely on faith in any way in my assumption that the development of life is an ongoing and observable thing -- I rely on observation. And good proxy evidence, of which we have plenty. When we see process "a" result in a certain configuration of matter A, then when we encounter configuration A in areas where we did not have the opportunity to see the process(es) which brought it about, we can still reasonably infer that process "a" was probably responsible.

And no, creationists do not have the same facts. The creationists deny/ignore/deliberately mangle all the "facts" which flatly contradict their assertions -- facts like, radiometric dating works consistently and observably; and mutations frequently occur in ways that don't just "add information", but also add functionality; and that speciation, actual development of new, reproductively isolated species, has been observed on multiple occasions in microbial populations, insects, and many plants. It isn't "just a matter of interpretation", it is a matter of basic honesty. It should tell you something that 99.9999% of biologists are not creationists, and 99.999% of creationists know diddly-squat about biology.

Creationism begins with an "explanation" which comes from no evidence other than a very old book, then tries to force everything to fit that mold, and goes into delusionality when things don't actually fit. So, yes, it is also an abandonment of reason. And the AIG people are deliberate about it; I've waded through a few of their web pages, and they distort and lie about things which exist in physical reality in ways that can't simply be accident. Of course, it's really obvious if you work in biology and not obvioius at all if you don't work in biology, so it could just be deliberate propaganda to deceive their lay public and they don't really believe it themselves. I've never been good at finding the line between delusion and dishonesty in people I've never had a chance to talk to face-to-face.

It's not even good theology, though. If you truly believe that God is responsible for the world and the universe and everything in it, and that one should not try to limit Him, then shouldn't you actually be trying to approach the universe humbly and with skepticism about your own beliefs, in order to see if you can figure out what the universe itself says happened?

Creationism may not deny reason, it does make a fair fist at denying the honesty of the postulated God.
It isn't science for some obvious reasons.

I didn't claim that creationism is scientific. I'm making the point that origin science is not the same thing as operational science. And that origin science is based on the assumption that ontological materialism is true.

I would point out that AIG believers had better believe in the existance of the natural world and that the universe is lawful, just as non-AIG believers do. One of their claims is that God created the Universe and everything in it.

Why would you need to point that out? I said just that very thing in my other post.

Most of the founders of science, like Newton, viewed science as the study of the natural world, which was created by God. They believed they were studying a supernaturally created universe that worked by naturalistic mechanisms. The people at AIG are very clear about the difference between origins and operational science.

Actually, dave_b, I'm assuming that the business of science is to find the proximate material causes of any phenomenon, including the origin of life,

The origin of life is not an observable phenomenon. It happened in the past and is not happening today. The same is true for the origination of matter and energy.

and I simply do NOT assume that one must immediately assume a non-material, supernatural cause.

That is not at all what I said. I said you are assuming a material, naturalistic cause. You and I are both interpreting the evidence based on our respective belief systems.

I'm just claiming science works very well for illuminating the natural, and so far natural explanations are proving quite adequate. That is just a wee bit different from what you're claiming.

You're mixing origin and operational science.

And I also do not rely on faith in any way in my assumption that the development of life is an ongoing and observable thing -- I rely on observation.

Not sure how you get that from what I said. The faith comes from how you believe life came to be.

And no, creationists do not have the same facts. The creationists deny/ignore/deliberately mangle all the "facts" which flatly contradict their assertions -- facts like, radiometric dating works consistently and observably;

The facts of radiometric dating are this:

We can measure the rate of decay. We can measure the amount of parent and daughter element. The rest requires using several unobservable assumptions. They are not facts.

and mutations frequently occur in ways that don't just "add information", but also add functionality; and that speciation, actual development of new, reproductively isolated species, has been observed on multiple occasions in microbial populations, insects, and many plants. It isn't "just a matter of interpretation", it is a matter of basic honesty.

You describe some facts (mutations, genetic change, speciation). It's the interpretation of those facts that is in question, as well as the direction of the observed change. You believe that the mutations result in increased information. Enough to account for eyes, wings, heart, brain etc. However, I believe that what we observe is either neutral, or decreased amounts of information. Even if the change is beneficial to the organism. Also, you should know that AIG doesn't dispute mutations, genetic change, speciation or natural selection in the least. Instead, they (and I) believe that observed changes are limited to variation within the Biblical "kind".

Creationism begins with an "explanation" which comes from no evidence other than a very old book, ...

There's plenty of evidence for creation, but not if you cling to your philosophical basis of ontological naturalism. Remember, a fact can be evidence for more than one scenario.

Science cannot explain where matter and energy came from, how the universe is so finely tuned for life or how life originated. I understand (as a software engineer) that DNA is carrying information. Information doesn't just write itself. I believe that God is the original software engineer. You can believe in random chance if you like.

It's not even good theology, though. If you truly believe that God is responsible for the world and the universe and everything in it, and that one should not try to limit Him, then shouldn't you actually be trying to approach the universe humbly and with skepticism about your own beliefs, in order to see if you can figure out what the universe itself says happened?

I've been skeptical about my own beliefs and have examined both sides of the argument. Hope you have done the same. I am where I am due to reason.

I am not limiting God in any way, rather I prefer to take Him at His word.

dave_b, atoms are unobservable. The closest we get are tracks in cloud chambers, and a bunch of physical systems which behave in the way we would expect if atoms exist the way we think they do. The births of stars and planets are unobservable. The actual development of black holes has so far been unobservable. Nevertheless, there are any number of data which are observable which allows science to make predictions about how we think it works, and design experiments to test them. The origin of life is no different, and there is so far absolutely no reason to resort to "miracle".

Incidentally, you have no idea whether or not it is happening today. It could very well be. The difference between now and 4 billion years ago, however, is that now we have an already-developed and immense microbial population ready to munch on any available organic chemicals, so any that happen to form today probably don't get a chance to last more than a few minutes.

It is impossible to test for "goddidit-it's-a-miracle." There is no test which could tell us anything about that. However, interesting ideas about how biochemicals act under different conditions can be tested and experimented with. Guess which one science works with?

Maybe it was a miracle and God poofed the first cells into existance. However, certain artifacts of RNA, as well as the behavior of lipids, says "not necessarily", so that is what science looks towards testing. And leaves God, untestable, unobvious thing that God is, out of the question. Saying "it can't be materialistic" is an unjustified and unjustifiable assumption. Our question is "how might it have worked?"

And, with your standard canards about radiometric dating, mutations only decreasing info/functionality, etc. -- thank you for making my case for me about "not the same facts". You obviously believe this, but it frankly doesn't matter that you believe it -- you're simply wrong. We know how it works, we've seen how it works, and you are assuming (whether you realise it or not -- I suspect that you don't) that God must be stepping in to stop things from working the way we have observed them doing, in order for creationist assumptions to be true. Can you please explain to me what magic it is that stops species from diverging into different higher taxa? How does this magic work? How does this magic explain the multiple nested heirarchies of genes and molecular systems and body morphologies which are most simply and parsimoniously understood as descent with modification from common ancestors?

Also, give me not the anthropic principle. It is a weak argument at best, and has been thoroughly torn apart by multiple people. Not to mention the fact that, other than providing necessary context, it has nothing to do with biological evolution.

I understand, as both a software engineer and as a molecular biologist, that DNA carries "information", but also that it is only superficially like the "information" of a written code -- and frankly, someone who coded like that ought to be fired.

In the context of biological and chemical systems, your statement of "information can't just write itself" is the wettest and stinkiest bullpuckey. DNA/RNA/proteins are chemicals; in chemical systems, "information" cannot be separated from how the chemicals themselves behave in their environment. How the system "codes" for "information" is the result of how the chemicals react in context, being locked into the historical pathways which worked best, first -- and you should be aware that "best" is way, way, way sloppier and more error-prone than anything you will ever understand from creationist or ID literature.

You also have a flawed understanding of how it works, I sense. The old "random chance" argument is usually indicative of this. ARE you capable of understanding that only one part of the system is random -- which mutations happen where, when? Selection by the physical context in which the organism finds itself is not random. It is not prescient, it is entirely reactive, but it winnows, selects, and directs, and it is immensely powerful. Or are you, as a "software engineer", entirely unaware of genetic algorithms and evolutionary programming? We develop those systems to echo the way natural evolution works as closely as we can, both to illuminate how natural evolution works, and precisely because it is so useful.

The simple fact is, if you do NOT approach biology from the assumption of a God Who "designed it", then there is nothing there which would lead you to think that. Period. And if you were actually capable of examining real information (by which I mean, not the tripe which has been deliberately distorted by AIG, but the actual work done in science) free of your assumptions, you would see that too. I'm assuming, anyway; although I'm aware that for some people, the need for illusion runs deep.

And don't make assumptions about my background; I was raised Methodist and confirmed in my Methodist church, before I started digging deeper into physical reality. And I say, as someone quite thoroughly acquainted with God and the Bible, there genuinely is no independent physical evidence for a Biblical creation, period. The universe is ancient, and it sure seems to tick along nicely on its own, without requiring incessant meddling from outside to make it work.

But as long as you rely on places like the AIG for your information, you will never know the science well enough to understand how they are lying/wrong and what is really out there. As long as you fail to understand science, you will never grasp why they are unreliable, and as long as you are getting your education about science from them, you will never understand science. An ugly sort of Catch-22, really, which ensures your loyalty to them.

The Bible was written by men. If you believe in God, then the universe itself is God's word, and you should be looking at it, instead. You aren't nearly skeptical or reasoning enough.

dave_b: Actually, it occurred to come back to specific things which you have said here.

You say:

There's plenty of evidence for creation, but not if you cling to your philosophical basis of ontological naturalism. Remember, a fact can be evidence for more than one scenario.

Ok, here is where your "fact" is wrong. There is no evidence for creation. Not a jot, not a tittle. Nothing which is evidence for, at all; the best that creationism can come up with is evidence which does not flatly contradict creationism. I believe that you know the difference between something which does not contradict your premise and something which actively supports your premise. This is all about Bayesian probability, which perhaps you are familiar with. But let me supply example.

One example -- not brought up here, but sometimes brought up by YECs -- is that bone can mineralise to fossil very rapidly, under certain conditions of chemical and heat extreme. Yes, it's true. Bone can mineralise to fossil very rapidly under those certain conditions. This does not contradict the idea of a young earth. However, does bone always mineralise rapidly to fossil? Does that evidence exist? And there, the answer is "no"; in fact, there is evidence that under most physical and chemical conditions, the process of mineralisation to fossil is an extremely slow process, one which cannot work rapidly, and therefore the existance of fossils in those physical and chemical conditions flatly contradicts the premise of a young earth. Young Earthers grasp the first statement, that under certain conditions mineralisation can be fast, as "support" -- but it isn't, it just isn't the flat contradiction that the rest of the fact, the part they ignore, is.

Now, a relevant example. You say:

You describe some facts (mutations, genetic change, speciation). It's the interpretation of those facts that is in question, as well as the direction of the observed change. You believe that the mutations result in increased information. ... However, I believe that what we observe is either neutral, or decreased amounts of information.

You accept that mutation exists. Good. However, your understood fact of mutation appears to be incomplete; it does not take into account large insertion-type mutations such as gene duplication or polyploidy.

Can mutation result in a "loss" of overall information, by deletion or inactivation of a gene? Certainly. It both can and does. This can does not flatly contradict your premise. However, it also doesn't support it, in a Bayesian sense, because it also is perfectly probable in an evolutionary scenario. Support for your case would be something which was only plausible by your premise, for example that the only mutations ever observed resulted in the loss of genetic activity.

And that is not the fact, it is not the case. Mutations to promoters and transcription start sites can result in increased genetic activity, a gain of "information"/functionality. And gene duplication and polyploidy -- how is it rationally possible to "interpret" those as neutral to the amount of information, or a loss of information? (You can't, there is no way to rationally regard the addition of functional material to a genome to be anything but the addition of information.)

Creationists hold to the incomplete "fact" that mutation can decrease information as "support", but in fact, it merely does not flatly contradict that premise -- unlike the rather more complete fact, which is that sometimes mutation increases information.

"Supporting facts" of creationism consists of holding to those observable physical realities which do not flatly contradict their premise. There is no observable, physical evidence which only makes sense as part of a special, instantaneous, or unevolved creation. Not a jot. Not a tittle.

The more biology I've learned, the more I have come to realise this.

Creationism can most generously be interpreted as an extended metaphor for a process which was beyond our ancestors' ability to comprehend; it is, however, about on par with believing that mental illness really is caused by independently existing demons. It is an emotionally and intuitively appealing explanation, but not terribly useful, and it's silly to hold onto it when we have better and more useful explanations available to us after much investigation and collective experimentation.

dave_b, when I made the distinction between "fundamentalism" and "reason" I was making a general observation between science and religion. I define "reason" as intellectual honesty in light of observable phenomenon. Fundamentalists tend to twist facts to fit their preconcieved notions based only on their ideas, regardless of the effect it has on physical reality. It's the difference between someone who honestly wants to learn about the physical world around them through objective observations, and a know-it-all. It's objectivity vs. subjectivity.
As for reason not allowing the supernatural to exist, i feel I have a REASONABLE answer : As an inhabitant of this materialistic, completely physical realm of existence, I would feel like a complete jackass to make suggestions on the particulars or existance of the supernatural world having never seen it. For all I know, it could exist, but what does the supernatural have to do with studying the physical world? My problem is not with "the supernatural" but with people who are so convinced that they are right in all matters that they are potentially dangerous to people in this physical world.
It looks to me like there is a sharp decline in critical thinking nowadays. Teaching kids to reject science in place of religion closes their minds to objectivity. Without objectivity, there is no thinking outside ourselves. This leaves no room for empathy as it places everyone in an "us vs. them" mentality. I'm conviced that this is why we have missionaries condemming Africans to death by demonizing condom use, why we have "preachers" damning soldiers to hell at their funerals, and why we have people willing to kill themselves in order to take out as many people as possible for the glory of Allah. I can't imagine feeling so convinced of an IDEA that I would forego my humanity and cause that much suffering to others. It just doesn't seem "reasonable"

While I certainly respect the protesters, who probably spent a futile day in the Kentucky summer heat to make a good point, I was disappointed by the woman who said that creationism should be taught in philosophy class. That makes as much sense as teaching it in science classes. Or is philosophy supposed to be the home of bad reasoning?

...Or is philosophy supposed to be the home of bad reasoning?
Posted by: Abey

Yes, bad reasoning has a long and honourable tradition in philosophy :o)

Theology is part of philosophy so creationism (an idea with theologoical underpinnings) as a theology can go in philosophy classes. Though I haven't come across philosophy classes in either primary or secondary schools, normally it is a college/university subject.