In February of next year, the odious Ken Ham will be hosting a so-called science fair at his awful little "museum". That's fine, Christians can do science, but of course it has a little caveat that means it will not be science.
It's open to homeschoolers, Christian school students, and public school students—as long as you agree with AiG's Statement of Faith and will conduct a quality experiment, you can apply.
That's not how science works: you don't get to specify ahead of time what answers you will find acceptable. If you read that statement of faith, you will discover that many of its article insist on the truth of claims that have long been refuted — such as that there was a global flood, the earth was created in 6 literal 24-hour days, the earth was created recently, etc. — and others are just plain silly. You have to agree that homosexuals are perverts in order to present at this "science" fair!
I guess they won't be calling me up and asking me to judge.
- Log in to post comments
Does the cognitive dissonance ever set in with these people?
Maybe you won't be judging, PZ, but what about being an undercover entrant?
POLL:Do you believe miracles can be performed by praying to saints?
"Yes" is still winning, 418 to 244.
Sorry PZ, your argument sounds like a bit of a non sequitur.
There are plenty of scientists who believe in the most ridiculous things but who still do good science - just not directly related to these silly beliefs. Just look at the DI list of dissenters from Darwinism to find plenty of examples of scientists who do good research in physics, chemistry and computer science. That said, I would suspect there will be a few howlers at this 'science' fair if they stick to creationist interpretations of biology.
#2 -- Nope. Depilatories would be necessary (*shudder*)
I wonder what would happen if someone enters this and does an experiment, only to find that it doesn't quite fit with Ham's views.
No no no no no no no no!
Stay the hell away from that. Piglet Rapist Ken Ham will be there.
As SC suggested..
Swine flu
Piglet rapist.
coincidence?
I think not.
Sounds like more of an anti-science fair.
Section 1: Priorities
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
Section 2: Basics
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
Why does it infer in the feckin' bible that the Earth is flat, if that idiotic book is innerrant?
And why does their 'Section 3' get followed by 'Section 3'? Can't these idiots even count past 3?
What a bunch of dumb-assed nut jobs.
um
Did you read the statement of faith?
More like a science unfair.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself...
Damn, so I can't enter my cock "affects of prolonged sucking on glucose levels" experiment?
They should rename their Statement of Faith to "How to be an idiot". Full of assertions and logical fallacies, but these two are my favourites:
3. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
Circular reasoning FTW!
6. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
Speaks for itself.
So where's the non sequitur? That's what I said!
So what's the evolutionist equivalent to a "statement of faith?" Oh, that's right. There is none.
How about a step-by-step attempt to calculate the area of a circle by claiming that what we refer to as π actually = 3.0? When it doesn't work we could then challenge to explain how that's possible if scripture is accurate.
I madez a baby dino for teh scieeence faree. Baby dino luvs jebus.
PZ the non sequitur is introduced by your line;
"it has a little caveat that means it will not be science."
- and then suggest that their statement of beliefs prevent the possibility of the projects being 'science'.
My point here is that there are many possible experiments that can be presented (such as to do with electricity, magnetism, light, fluid dynamics, the action of particular enzymes etc) that, at this level, could easily be judged as good science or bad science with complete agreement of both creationists and real scientists.
Look at any 'creation science' fair and you will see at least some examples of reasonable non controversial scientific projects - alongside the hilarious creationist stuff - that tends to end up getting publicized more.
I quite agree, however, that anything to do with biogeography, evolution or genetics from a creationist perspective is bound to be nonsense.
"Science" and "Reality" are subjective in their minds. You can choose it to be real or not. President Palin will appoint these scientists to head up the FDA.
#9:
Umm... but we don't have the original autographs! All we have are copies of copies which disagree with one another, and which have been frequently tinkered with to reflect the morals, politics or theology of the copyist's time.
I wonder what kind of experiments can a creation scientist perform? Are they going to re-enact some sort of a lab-sized Flood to prove it was feasible or what? Beats me. ;-)
Also, isn't doing experiments in order to prove the "inherently inerrant" word of the Scripture actually against faith itself? Maybe they should think twice before doing this, or their god will smite them in a mighty display of rage when he finds out. You know how easily he takes offense.
Sounds like you're here for the 5 minute argument, Sigmund. Take a seat on the couch and read this bit of AIG's articles of faith:
I have a question. What is AIG referring to when they say,
"4. The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture."
down near the bottom?
Exactly, but this is not a bug, but a feature. If the Bible says something they agree with, it is the Word of God, and if it says something problematic, it must be an issue with the imperfect copying and/or translation.
Look, morons.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0429/1224245599892.h…
"4. The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture."
Unless I'm off the mark and this refers to something else entirely, I'm guessing "the gap theory" refers to xians who hide their god in the ever-shrinking gaps in our scientific knowledge.
Apparently, AIG proudly and stupidly proclaims "there ain't no gaps, science is just WRONG all the time!!"
But then, I'm not a creotard, so who knows what it means?
I assume they mean the God of the Gaps argument. Essentially it says that evolution has parts that are true but that god explains the parts that it does not.
They reject that in that the Bible and god explains everything.
I'm with Sigmund in this crucial non sequitur debate.
There's nothing in that statement of faith or fair description to stop a kid from submitting a project about, say, radio waves that would get an "A" at a real science fair.
"I wonder what kind of experiments can a creation scientist perform?"
I knew two world famous scientists, when I was working the the UK, who were and are young earth creationists. One was a renowned expert on adult leukemias and the other was an expert on DNA repair mechanisms. Both were heads of their departments in their respective institutes.
How on earth they reconciled their beliefs with their scientific output I find great difficulty in understanding but they certainly managed it as they were very well known in their respective fields of research.
I would tend to put this sort of thing down to cognitive dissonance rather than the point I was making about PZs argument which failed to take into consideration science fair projects based on material science (physics, chemistry etc) that doesn't impinge on secular or religious interpretations of the world (at least not so much at the 'science fair' level).
"That said, I would suspect there will be a few howlers at this 'science' fair if they stick to creationist interpretations of biology."
I think you have too much good faith. Unfortunately, I don't think there will be any 'innocuous' science at this fair: it is all infected with the ulterior motive of proving the greater glory of gawd.
I call a Poe on the whole shenanigan.
I bet the museum, Ken Ham and all the other stuff doesn't actually exist, it's probably all made up by an ELIZA running wild on an Amiga500 in PZ's basement.
From a banner link on their front page, the Creationist Crap:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/2009/04/16/celebrate-mothers-d…
I don't know, I can see you as Simon Cowel (sic?) at that event.
You won't be asked to judge??? Despite all the traffic that you're sending to Eric Hovind's site? That sounds grossly unfair.
Naughtius Maximus @ # 25,
It's too bad we can't call upon Father Ted at a time of need.
There are plenty of scientists who believe in the most ridiculous things but who still do good science - just not directly related to these silly beliefs.
Blasphemer! How dare you suggest we seek anything less than Total Ideological Purity[tm]! You are declared Unmututal. We have consensus. Dissent breeds death. Questions are a burden to others and answers are a prison for oneself!
OT: Very brief survey on science from the University of Cambridge:
http://survey.euro.confirmit.com/wix/p221702084.aspx?source=1
BTW, Have you noticed that the Creation Museum is open on Sundays?
Following-the-word-of-god-literally FAIL.
God, I wish I was in high school and local to that science fair. I'd so enter it. I already know what my experiment would be; "Is it possible to scientifically measure the effect of committing a sin on a person?" I'd use some sort of bullshit like an E-meter (which basically just measures the resistivity of your skin).
And then the fun starts, with my control vs. experimentals!
Controls, of course, commit no sin as I'm checking them.
The experimental group is measured as they commit sins, starting with the sin of committing murder in the mind as a baseline.
Then we'll have to figure out if all sins truly are equal by this method!
What's the difference between coveting thy neighbors wife and committing adultery with her?
The difference between committing murder in the mind and literally committing murder?
Eating shellfish, eating pork, bestiality: which gives a greater signal?
Does bestiality give more or less of a response than homosexuality?
And then in my conclusions offer a list of suggested legal prosecutions for my experimental group.
If they don't bodily remove me from the building, the experiment will be a failure.
It's spreading the gospel!
"4. The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture."
I think it refers to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_Creationism
How much stupid does it take before it burns? Could do experiments on a plant.
For some reason that I haven't figured out yet, talking about Ken Ham makes me hungry. Oh well, I'm off to have some bacon.
Richard harris
Down with this sort of thing indeed.
So gay perverts can go to the science fair.
Do they get a special badge?
OT, I was trying to find a printable article on the 'evolution of man' on Google, and the first two entries were from 'allaboutscience', a front for 'allaboutgod'.
The text contains lies.
How come Google gives prominence to these liars for Jebus? One doesn't need to be an expert in agnotology to know that this shouldn't be so. Could we bring the might of Pharyngula down on Google?
The experiment must have quality.
The thinking is forbidden to be of any quality.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Just do a general Google search on "evolution." The last time I did that, I seem to recall the first dozen or so pages just littered with creationist/IDiot bullshit.
@40:
Ah, cunning loophole.
O/T, slightly:
If you don't already know of "BoingBoing," then you've a treat in store. If you do, then the story at this 'link' will not shock but merely confirm you in your opinions about Junk Science and the charlatans, scammers, and beasts who produce, promulgate, and profit by it...
This says so much about Answers in Genesis:
"...no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
There you have it. No amount of evidence will change their mind.
If one has to agree to this principle before entering the Creation Museum "science" fair, well then clearly nobody there is practicing science (as PZ has well noted).
It astonishes me that they don't even realize that they are establishing their own delusion as real by refusing to question it.
Total. Reality. Fail.
So...if the only projects accepted will be ones that confirm what they already believe...what, exactly is the point? Oh, right.
How does one design a quality experiment in creationism?
If you go into an experiment with the explicit intention of rejecting any evidence that contradicts your current beliefs, you're not doing science. The fact that you happened not to run into any such evidence doesn't change that.
How does one design a quality experiment in creationism?
You should ask the Discovery Institute, apparently they're doing tons of quality experiments.
oh wait, sorry, no they're not, they're pulliing shit disguised as proclamations out of their ass and calling that science.
I'm having fun just thinking about all the "quality" experiments and exhibits they'll have!
(1) The earth is 6000 years old. (A table with a Bible open to the appropriate chapter.)
(2) There was a global flood. (A table with a Bible open to the appropriate chapter.)
(3) Resurrection is an actual phenomenon. (A table with a Bible open to the appropriate chapter.)
(4) Etc. etc. etc...
It'll be a grand olde tyme!!!
Sure it does. If your your results are reproduced by other scientists and your conclusions are consistent with the data and withstand the scrutiny of qualified peers, then you've done science, regardless of whether you have passed a philosophical litmus test.
From the AiG statement of faith:
Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
I'm not stupid enough to believe in Jeebus so I'm going to be tortured, and that torture will never end. A trillion years of torture isn't enough for not being an insane Christian.
Ken Ham should be put in prison for child abuse.
Yeah I have to agree. If you don't run into anything that causes you to have to apply your "creation test" to it and you produce results then, sure it's science.
In some aspect it's lucky, but it still science.
"The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time."
I don't remember covering that geologic event in any of my geo or paleo classes.....perhaps i skipped that day?
on a side note this has become my new favorite phrase: "the noachian flood" (i can't stop giggling over it....) :)
"Note: Because of limited space, each student will have to submit his or her hypothesis and methodology for acceptance into the Science Fair."
code for: censorship. If we don't like it or believe in it, you don't get in....i'm sure it has nothing to do with "limited space."
"If you go into an experiment with the explicit intention of rejecting any evidence that contradicts your current beliefs, you're not doing science. The fact that you happened not to run into any such evidence doesn't change that."
Really?
My interpretation of 'doing science' is carrying out an experiment to test a hypothesis. Unless every single aspect of science is contradicted by the theories of creationism then it is surely possible that at least some areas are amenable for experimental hypothesis testing in a way that doesn't conflict with current scientific thinking.
For instance determining the rate of action of an enzyme - a simple enough biochemistry project. Is it really impossible to imagine a creationist high school student being able to conduct this properly?
Yes, and there are a number of scientists who do perfectly good science while checking their judgment at the Bible's door when it comes to geology and biology.
Where I'd agree with the others, though, is that in an educational environment where children are supposed to be learning science, explicitly demanding that they cannot come to conclusions that "contradict scripture" is sending a horribly dishonest message.
Can they still do science in such a situation? Yes. Are they learning an honest approach to science when they must kowtow to the "authority of scriptures," even when they're doing an experiment involving radio waves? No, they are not.
The mere fact that they learn a dishonest approach to science does not necessarily preclude their doing science in all areas, but it does prevent them learning an honest approach to science from that event (unless they react and rebel against these strictures). And these fairs are supposed to be assisting a general science education, not one which allows science when it doesn't tread on Bible myths.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
That is because satan has beguiled our schools to conceal the truth of scripture from young students...making them sinners, and therefore causing them to spend an eternity in hell where there will be great suffering and gnashing of teeth.
@ Darren Garrison, #32:
"Celebrate Mother's Day" ? Are they late or early?
Mother's Day 2009 was a good five weeks ago, and Mother's Day 2010 will fall on 14 March (assuming Easter Sunday 2010 falls on the 4 April; blame BSD ncal if it doesn't).
US Mother's Day is May 10th.
Resurrection is an actual phenomenon.
Now, now. There might be some honest Dr. Frankenstein work to be done there.
"Jesus and Frankenstein's Monster: A Scientific Comparison"
Make some hilarious comparisons, connect some frog legs to a car battery, and then run away as fast as you can because there will be Christians chasing you with torches and pitchforks. Hay, that's another comparison to Frankenstein! Woot! Extra credit!
That's because at the end of it, God carefully erased all evidence of said event. He then systematically went about building up a rock record that screams, with each grain of sand and every last soil pedon, that THERE WAS NO FLOOD.
It works if you put 5% error bars on the Bible.
Frankly 5% for the Bible is being pretty conservative. Most people would ascribe 100% error bars to the Bible.
Mother's Day is May 10th in the US.
@Sigmund
That is not a non-sequitur. Their statement of beliefs does, necessarily, mean that it will not be science.
Section 4, article 6 of their statement of faith absolutely precludes any actual science being done.
But...homosexuals ARE perverts!
Well, *I* am, at least - and damned proud of it.
It's still not science if the fair requires that potential results fall within specific criteria that are known from the outset to be unscientific.
That there exists a set of experiments that can be done that are scientific and do not violate the criteria does not change the fact that the fair is rejecting scientific principles.
Real creationist experiment. I designed it myself just now:
Observe these parakeets in a cage.
They sure don't look like they're evolving.
'Nuff said. :)
Evolving Squid, you are quite simply wrong.
Their statement of beliefs certainly rule out a lot of possible scientific areas but still leave the door open for others. I've given an example of one such experiment and charley has suggested another. The simple measurement of the rate of an enzyme's catalytic action is not contradictory to either creationism or proper science and the accurate determination of such a rate is an example of producing scientific results. We can use these results to make predictions that can be further tested (such as what happens at different pH or temperature).
PZ posts a lot of good stuff on his blog but he's not infallible. I'm sure, however, he doesn't mind a bit of honest peer review every now and then.
Heh. I know.. How about they run an experiment in which they test the capacity of AIG members to tell the truth about other people, including other Christians, then conclude that AIG, and Ken Ham can't **possibly** be real Christians, because they don't follow the Biblical commandments? Now, that would be a Bable based "science" experiment I could get behind. lol
Sigmund says: "My point here is that there are many possible experiments that can be presented (such as to do with electricity, magnetism, light, fluid dynamics, the action of particular enzymes etc) that, at this level, could easily be judged as good science or bad science with complete agreement of both creationists and real scientists."
You know, I'll bet you'd have a real bitch of a time rationalizing the Biblical account of Creation with Maxwells Equations, Quantum Electrodynamics...
More fundamentally, the very raison d'etre of these folks is anti-science. They are saying scripture trumps empirical evidence. This is not what I'd call "reality-based".
Someone should enter with an attempt to reproduce Elijah's experiment with the priests of Baal.
"You know, I'll bet you'd have a real bitch of a time rationalizing the Biblical account of Creation with Maxwells Equations, Quantum Electrodynamics..."
We are talking about kids from grades 7-12 here. I doubt they'll be presenting evidence of the Higgs Boson.
What sort of science projects do kids of that age actually do?
More fluffy sciencey goodness can be found in the current Christianity Today, in which Dinesh D'Souza explains why God's miraculous creation requires earthquakes.
Anon, against my better judgment, I followed that link and read the article. I feel like I just used a bone cutting saw on my skull, pulled out my brain and spinal cord and swung my skull against the wall and put everything back in.
OUCH!
The article is about how, if god did not use plate tectonic, the Earth would not be able to support human life. And mumble jumble about natural evil. Yep! It is yet an other variation of the fine tuned argument.
It's a shame he isn't omnipotent...oh...wait...
I never said otherwise. The fair is a pathetic joke. That doesn't rule out all quality entries. This feels like splitting hairs, except I think valid science should be accepted regardless of where it comes from, even it's a creationist science fair or Christian college. Mendel did some pretty good work in a monastary.
"God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage. Any form of homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, incest, fornication, adultery, pornography, etc., are sinful perversions of God’s gift of sex." Whew! So masturbation is still ok? (as long as there are no actual photographs or sculptures involved. or watching people do that other stuff).
Hell, I'd love to be a judge and give them my unmitigated and unbiased opinion, and be fair and liberal as is my nature. And honesty.
"Flu viruses in general do “evolve” but not in the molecules-to-man sense. Rather they mutate and these changes allow them to infect multiple hosts (pigs and humans) and/or change their mode of transmission (pig to human changes to human to human). These mutations do not add information (as required for molecules-to-man evolution) but rather alter the current information for host specificity and mode of transmission."
From AIG's reaction to 'Swine' flu outbreak ! Science or double-think ?
I assume it's the hypothesis Ken Ham doesn't have a functioning brain. All he's got is an empty gap between his ears.
As such, they might be correct that that hypothesis has no basis in the holey rabble. It does, however, have empirical support. And it is testable. But neither evidence nor testability is allowed. That is, the hypothesis all Ken has is a gap clearly isn't part of All Ignorance Good's “science”.
I am no virologist but I'm pretty sure that's a line of utter bullshit.
This variation of H1N1 is reported to be triple or even quadruple reassortant in that it has bits of genetic code form avian, swine and human flu viruses. When one of these viruses infects a host that is also infected with a different virus it can and does "borrow" bits of genetic code from the other virus to essentially form a new virus. Our bodies have no built up antibody "memory" to combat it these new virus and that is one good way to start a pandemic. If I understand it correctly, it specifically adds new "information" in the form of genetic code from the other virus in a process called antigenic shift (where the seasonal flu viruses are a product of antigenic drift)
Not that it surprises me that AIG wouldn't have a fucking clue and some dumb IT manager/photographer seems to know more than them, but damn. How fucking idiotic and dishonest can they continu... nevermind.
Of course I could be totally fucking wrong here as I have only been reading up on this for a few hours, something you would have thought that AIG could have done.
Yikes let's try that again
When one of these viruses infects a host that is also infected with a different virus, it can and does "borrow" bits of genetic code from the other virus to essentially form a "new" one. Our bodies have no built up antibody "memory" to combat this new virus and that is one good way to start a pandemic.
sort of better
Tectonic plates can slip without causing earthquakes, or at least, without damaging earthquakes (depends on how low you go on the Richter Scale to define "earthquake"). All it appears to take is serpentinite, out of which comes talc, which lubricates the faults. OK, that's a bit simplistic, but it should do for now.
D'Souza is simply telling us that plate tectonics gives us the earth that terrestrial animals like ourselves need, and then crediting god for it.
I understand, of course, how mindless processes forging the earth do not care that major earthquakes kill people and animals, and destroy valuable property. Hence plates that stick, then rupture catastrophically, are to be expected under that scenario.
Even assuming that god can't magically give us what plate tectonics does without using plate tectonics, I simply don't see why he can't lubricate faults and do whatever else it takes to keep the plates moving gently and without causing massive casualties via tsunamis.
Of course D'Souza isn't doing science, merely apologetics. Over 100,000 dead from the Sumatran tsunami, and even more from the earthquake itself? Not his problem, because he can spin a tale of how it's "necessary," while ignoring god's reputed omnipotence, and the simple fact that plate movements can occur in a benign manner, it's just that no god ever bothered to ensure that this will happen throughout the earth.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
I'm also not a virologist or biologist, but that's my current understanding as well. I've also read claims that this is the first influenza virus known which has genetic code from all three sources. Can anyone confirm/refute that? I'm just curious…
I followed that link to the Christianity Today article in which Dinesh D'Souza explains why God's miraculous creation requires earthquakes. I'd have screamed if I hadn't been eating home-made fudge with Heath-Bar pieces and a Hershey bar on top. Still, it was a struggle.
The article twists a scientific argument that plate tectonics are "needful" over millions of years, into evidence that God included added them in for the 6000 years that the Christian farce needs to play out. Ow!
The article mentions tsunamis as a necessary consequence of God's forethought. I've seen, worked and lived in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, and I cannot in any way accept both that event and the existence of God.
But Christians twist that tsunami into evidence FOR the existence of God. Snopes has a page on the legend that some Christians were spared by the tsunami because they were on a hill after being chased out of town. My work in that area was such that I confirmed, in several ways, that the legend was false--among other things, there simply isn't a hill there. Christians checked the myth by simply asking another Christian if it was true.
It's probably not important here, but there's no 1-1 relationship between tectonic plate motion and earthquakes. The stress being imparted on a plate does cause rocks to break and fault blocks to form which slide against each other (the vibrations of which are earthquakes), but earthquakes aren't always a result of the plates sliding against each other. Rather, it's movement on faults on the plates, that result in many earthquakes (and I think, most of the damaging ones). Even the San Andreas system isn't a simple situation where the North American Plate slides against the Pacific Plate, and the earthquakes are caused by the plate itself, as an entity, slipping against the other plate every time the stress gets too much. It's way more complex a relationship than that.
It's instead better to think of the plate as sliding against the other plate, and the edges crumpling against it as it does so. Maybe envision it using, I dunno, pie crust. Take a pumpkin pie and cut it in half. Now, on the counter, take the two halves of the pie and slide them against each other, slowly. The way that the crust will crumple and fragment on the edges as the two pieces are sliding past each other? That's more analogous to what causes many earthquakes. The pie halves are the plates. They are sliding against each other, sure. But it isn't the mass of pie crust and filling, slipping past the other mass pie crust and filling, that's really analogous to earthquake generation. Instead, each little fraturing/folding/breaking piece of pie crust edge causes little vibrations across the pie "plate" that is an earthquake event. This is probably a terrible explanation and for that I'm sorry. Hopefully it will take a little mud out of the water.
I suppose I should go read that thing? I really don't want to...
My Proposed Experiment:
1. Gather three mice.
2. Get a large hammer.
3. Smash first mouse with hammer (record results).
4. Pray to Alah for second mouse to receive many virgins in heaven.
5. Smash second mouse with hammer (record results).
6. Pray to God to spare third mouse's life.
7. Attempt to smash third mouse (record results).
8. If third mouse is successfully smashed, pray to God for mouse spirit to spend eternity with Jesus (record results).
The Discovery Institute is doing the same thing at this "Summer seminar for college students." You have ONE DAY left to apply :-)
http://www.discovery.org/csc/events/2008.07.11/
"Admission Requirements: You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or first-year graduate student. Required application materials include a resume/cv, a copy of your academic transcript, a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with Dr. Bruce Gordon, CSC Research Director."
It is handwaving nonsense.
They don't have a definition of genetic or phenotypic information.
They have no way to quantify genetic or phenotypic information.
Therefore, there is no way to make that statement and know it is correct. AIG is never bothered by just making stuff up and lying. The whole thing is a monument to lies.
In point of fact, mutations can and do add information all the time and we have innumerable examples of this. If this virus becomes resistant to Tamiflu as it will inevitably do if it becomes widespread, then it has learned a new trick.
We are watching host pathogen coevolution in action right now with swine flu. This will cause a few problems for the godbots who might get sick or even die from a newly evolved flu. But not much, they are brain hardened. Note that Ham merely refers to adaptive mutations which of course has nothing to do with selection or mutation which is, of course, evolution.
Probably not. Flu has 8 independent RNA segments/genome and mixing and matching in coinfections is common. It isn't much more complicated that taking 8 RNAs each from pigs, avian, and human flu, tossing them in a bowl and then randomly picking 8 genomic RNAs out again.
Triple hybids aren't common but this is probably because no one spends much time looking for them. It is nontrivial to type where each gene of an isolate came from. Mostly they just sequence the whole thing these days. We only notice these strains when they cause animal or human diseases.
Similar to My Experiment.
1. Take a mouse.
2. Kill it.
3. Put it in a little coffin with flowers and candles.
4. Put up a big sign asking passerbys to pray to god to heal the mouse and resurrect it. (Record results).
5. If the mouse does heal and come back to life, consider forming a new religion. LOL
A bit OT, but definitely related. Turns out it takes a trained (well, biased) eye to see design, after all. From UD:
Uh, yeah, it's the messiness of the cell that causes biologists not to see design.
Cretin, it's the order in the cell that makes us see evolution with its constraints. It's not always easy to see, but anyone who knows biology is more than a little aware that the cell is not "a mess." True, much of it is ordered via probabilities, and stochastic processes.
Every bit as obvious is the fact that cells differ substantially from designed products. That's partly due to the fact that cells are more robust systems, likely in part because of evolution (anything that became too inflexible was likely to go extinct).
The problem for the IDiots is that there is plenty of order to be seen in the cell, and it is often includes quite arbitrary aspects from a design standpoint. Of course it's the same above the cell level, wherein Archaeopteryx is rather obviously ordered, but only partly in the "avian" manner, and still too much like a dinosaur to be as competent in its flying role as modern birds are.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
oh man, if i had a kid, he or she would so be participating in this. i think it could be fun. specifically, it could be fun doing some standard creation science experiment in a valid and scientific way, and reporting its utter failure. ie: our simulated great flood neither stratified our soil nor sorted our little plastic animals in a way that mimics the fossil record.
it also might be fun to put a poe or two in. in fact, maybe we should anyways. they'd never know it. we'd just have to find a really smart kid to be our front...
A few weeks ago, I saw some ID bot saying that a cell is more complex than New York City, so there's no way a cell could "just grow". Heh. The comparison is unfortunate. New York City "just grew", and the city planners of NYC have had a hell of a time keeping up--one of my urban planning textbooks kept using the place as an example.
A cell has evidence of four billion years of growth, and no evidence of Intelligent Design.
My experiment is even easier.
1. Send a message to The Death Of Mice. SQUEAK!
2. Kill mouse.
3. Death Of Mice collects the soul of the dead mouse.
SQUEAK!
I don't preview and see what happens.
sigh
They're following a method which is like the scientific method, but is different and includes steps which are antithetical to science. It does sound like quibbling when the results produced are the same as with the scientific method, and I understand that the work a creationist does in an unrelated field can be very useful to science. But how can they be doing science when there's a 50% chance they'll come up with a nonsense answer taken from the Bible?
Oh well fuck. Now it all makes sense.
"But how can they be doing science when there's a 50% chance they'll come up with a nonsense answer taken from the Bible?"
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the point that many experimental projects at the high school level will produce results that do not conflict with the bible.
How can you be so confident?
As a quick example heres some projects from the Twin Cities Creation Science Fair
http://www.tccsa.tc/fair/2008/
Some are classic examples of non scientific hilarity and some are rather mundane high school experiments (showing how a catapult works or how to whiten your teeth).
You seem to think that creationists are against every single scientific result rather than just the ones that conflict with their biblical beliefs.
Yawn, Sigmund seems to think he has a point. Not. Creationism and science are incompatible.
No but I do think these types of events are set up specifically to encourage impressionable kids to reinforce the dogma that has been drilled into them by their community and family concerning creationism. The fact the one fair you link to may not have glaring examples doesn't take away from the many if not most or all we've seen before that do. I also do think that if someone thought up a way that some scientific field previously unconcerned with subjects that creationism touches upon did in fact come into conflict the the "undeniable truth of the Bible" that it would be under fire and subject to shitty science projects at the high-school and AIG level. The thought process that comes into play when looking at it from a creationist view point has them having to filter everything through the filter of Biblical Truth first, then science next (maybe). The fact that someone hasn't made yet come up with a reason to be upset at electrical circuits and how they go against god's word doesn't mean that the creationist "scientist", be he a high-schooler or Ken Ham didn't first say "Does this jive with the good book"?
That of course does not mean that can't have projects seemingly untouched by their creationist blinders, but the fact it is called a creation science fair shows their intent. If not why not just call it a creationist science fair?
extraneous "made" in there.
I don't disagree with your sentiments Rev.BigDumbChimp. I'm sure that the principles of 'creation science' are indeed anathema to the modern scientific method. I certainly wouldnt like to see a child of mine being forced to conform to those 'standards'. I do think, however, that when you look at where creationism clashes with science over specifics it is in particular areas - such as biological evolution (almost all of it), rather than others such as chemistry and mathematics. That should be evident from where the fact that some creationists manage to maintain careers in some of these scientific disciplines whereas in others such as genomics there are virtually zero creationists. I have not argued in favor of their method in this thread, merely pointed out a mistake in PZs reasoning at the beginning of the post. I'm a scientist, nit-picking over logical mistakes is what we do!
Sigmund, I too am a scientist. And no real science can be done under the banner of religion or religious thought, since god cannot be used to explain any observation. By being under the banner of "creationist" science, the implication is there that god can be used as an explanation, which is wrong. That is our point.
That is exactly the problem, how do these children learn to tell the difference between the good information as opposed to the deadening dogma?
Sigmund - comment 109 - this Scisnce Fair is an extension of the creationist trick of citing lots of conventional science and then mixing in some of their nonsense - the former giving the latter credibility by association. Georgia Purdom does this all the time in her articles.
I remember reading about a prize-winning entry in one of their science "fairs" in which some kid grew some stalagtite shaped crystals by allowing a saturated solution of epsom salts to drip down. This was cited as proof that stalagtites could form in a few years. No doubt lots of kids aroound were doing some legitimate experiments. That is what is so insidious about this type of nonsense.
@Menyambal: (#102)
yeah, just because something was made by artificial processes does not mean that it was intelligently designed. or really, even designed at all.
@Sigmund: (#107)
so the above discussion aside, i once had the pleasure of viewing a creationist science fair project getting judged, at a real science fair.
i was a junior in high school at the time, at this was at county. i think the creationist project was from a homeschooled student. it was a hydrologic sorting project, the kind i was joking about above. the judges ripped her a new one. not so much because she was a creationist, but because of all of the logical gymnastics that go along with being a creationist. most of the critique was about the application of her conclusion -- that what she showed had no similarity to the fossil record whatsoever. it was amusing to watch.
I think we are talking cross purposes here (if you'll excuse the pun.) I would draw a distinction between creation science (the deliberate distortion of proper science to fit in with a religious agenda of young earth creationism) and non controversial scientific experiments are done by individuals who are creationists.
If the original topic was about a 'creation science fair' where all the experiments were likely to be bad or incorrect science designed to show the truth of the bible then I fully admit I am wrong in my criticism of PZs logic. On the other hand, having read the linked documents I see no strong reason to believe that all the projects MUST be this sort of creation science.
They might be, but looking at other examples of these types of fairs I suspect there will be a mix of some creationist projects and some non-creationist.
I don't think there is really any disagreement between us on the fact that 'creation science' is a travesty of the scientific process.
Sigmund, I don't give a shit about the quality of the experiments, which isn't the point. That is just irrelevant side issue. Science does not operate with the possibility of god being an explanation for anything. Therefore, any PR attempt for the general public, which this is, to muddy that concept is bad. Which is why scientists like myself and PZ get irritated over it. You need to look at the bigger picture.
Nerd of Redhead, I think you are making the basic mistake of confusing the use of methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism in science.
What has the God explanation got to do with high school science projects?
Surely they will just do some experiments and measure the results.
Sometimes they will interpret them in a silly way (as in the stalactite experiments already mentioned) but sometimes they will do it correctly since its not in a specific topic that disagrees with the book of genesis or whatever.
The fact that they might think God is ultimately behind the forces that provide the results is neither here nor there for the operation of science, so long as the way the experiment is carried out doesn't involve specific measures that make this belief obvious.
I'm pretty sure that Gregor Mendel believed God was behind the explanation of his experiments.
Does that rule them out as science?
Do we discount the work of Francis Collins and Ken Miller?
Science progresses by experiment and interpretation of these results and so long as you are doing this in a repeatable way and without specifically invoking a supernatural being then you are doing science.
Here's a list of about 100 publications by members of the physics department of just one small Christian college, where every professor signs a statement of agreement with religious doctrines which state that God created the universe. Most authors are probably theistic evolutionists.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/phys/research/publications.html
Some of the pubs are musings on science & faith, but most are peer-reviewed papers in secular journals. I can't explain the psychology behind religious scientists, but if they are not "doing science", then how did all this science get done?
I don't like defending theists, and I despise religious accommodation in science, but we have to be fair as well as protect our credibility. Saying creationists can't do science when there is so much evidence to the contrary is just silly.
Talk about an act of perversion..a creationist science fair.
First Time Caller #95, I think your Mouse-Prayer experiment will only work if the mice know that they are being prayed for, so pray in a loud voice. If you need any help with this experiment,let me know, I have a hammer.