Creationism - scientists fight back

News comes that the Creation Museum near Cincinnati is so popular it is adding 663 new parking spaces (why not 666 , we ask, number of the Beast..).   The museum uses literal interpreataions of the Bible to teach the earth's 'history' - 7 day creation, all that - and has had 265,000 visitors in its short span. 
   Meanwhile over here,  the Head of Science at the Institute of Education, Michael Reiss, estimates that one in ten pupils has been taught creationism at home, and some teachers are afraid of debating it.  He has therefore launched, with the American academic Sandy Jones, a book to help teachers respectfully teach real science to these pupils. "I am really interested in how you teach in a way that is true to science, but doesn't put many capable, sensitive young people off science for life, nor denigrate them,". Time someone tackled this one. Prof. Reiss, by the way, is also a practising Anglican priest.   

Comments

[Jonathan Castro]

Crackpot Ken Ham's creation "museum" is a monument to monumental stupidity. What does he make of 400,000 year old ice cores, the green river varve formation, radiometric dating or the white cliffs of Dover? Creationist "theories" are inadequate to explain these things. We cannot afford to consign centuries of scientific progress to the dustbin in favour of the lunacy that is creationism. There is no "controversy" over evolution. Teach real science, refute the "creation science" errors and the rest will look after itself.

[Recusant]

"Michael Reiss, estimates that one in ten pupils has been taught creationism at home".

That is such a nonsense figure, quite clearly plucked from the ether and intended to make us think that the problem is worse than it is.

Who are all these creationists? Not Catholics, Methodists, Baptists(in this country) or 99% of the CofE. The only people who ascribe to it are some of the Pentecostals and a vanishing small portion of the Evangelicals.

Don't give space to these bogey stories.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

This is tragic for both science and religion. Judaism teaches that you cannot understand religion without understanding the latest findings of science.

It's in ibn Ezra, Maimonides and many many others.

And they didn't take the creation of the world literally either. As ibn Ezra asks: 'How could the world be created in a number of days, if 'time' itself had not yet been invented.

Good question.

[Kevin Kennie]

Intelligent design or Creationism in a fake lab coat is by definition, disingenuous. it is an attempt to undermine the principles of science; experimentation, peer review, testing and retesting, hundreds and thousands of checked and rechecked proofs and pieces of evidence, by introducing through the back door a literal reading of the mythology of the bible. even when questioned directly, there are those who advocate the intelligent designer have refused to admit that their designer was the christian God figure, in a deliberate attempt to cloud their intentions with bluff and bluster.
they have claimed that their intention is only to introduce another 'valid' theory of evolution into the curriculum because they had discovered evidence that there was another way. but this approach has been routinely blocked by science and law; people who have seen through the mist of their 'science'.
Creation scientists have time and again taken tiny protions of evolution science and twisted it in some absolutely terrible interpretations that wouldn't stand up in primary school and claimed amazing discoveries.
one claimed that bears could not have eveolved into whales because if a bear went into the sea it would drown. one claimed that dinosaurs and man lived together because there's a kind of drawing of a dinosaur on one bishops grave, one claimed that man could not have evolved from apes because apes did not have table manners.
they have said that the earth cannot be four and a half billion years old because Radio carbon dating is innacurate, never mind the fact that radio carbon isn't used to date the age of the earth.
utterly ignoring the real sciences of geology, palaeontology, archaeology, chemistry, physices etc... their claim is based upon one thing, it says it in the bible so...
Creationism is not a science, it is a lie to call it a science, it does not use scientific principles, it does not have any evidence to back up its so called science, it is no more than an attempt to evangelise, to corrupt the minds of the youth of this and other countriesinto a belief that the bible is true and that rational thinking, examination and demand for proof is the work of the devil. the churches are frightened of the secularisation of europe and the fihgt for rational atheism in America and are using their devious tactics to introduce fundamentalit bible teachings into schools to the exclusion of anything else.
they must not be allowed to do this and those of us who refuse to submit to their mythology will continue to call them to question. find your evidence, test and experiment, go through review and reexamination a dozen times and then repeat the process a million times, that's what science has to do. until then, stay in RE classes.
one must also ask them why evolution, why not any of the other scinetific theories, why not Boyles law, why not le chatelliers principle, why not the Uranium decay series.
evolution theory hurts them, and i use the word theory here in its scientific meaning; a testable proof, yet still open to further development. evolution theory blows away the single most important part of their belief system; god created the world, it destroys this mythology utterly and their policy now is to try to bring down evolution to reintroduce the power of the church and the views of christians.
not on my watch.

[Giles Chesher]

Just wanted to say, Kevin - great email. Exactly what I was thinking but more eloquently put!

[scrubone]

The park bench sitting under a tree is clearly less complex than the tree under which it sits.

Until science can explain how a simple park bench can happen by chance, there will always be people who believe that the tree is created by some intelligent force.

[Stella Moore]

Good rant, Kevin Kennie, but to me the important observation that you don't make is that the bible is only a book, written over a period of centuries by an unknown group of Middle Eastern people whose knowledge about the world wouldn't compare well with that of the average enquiring person of the Western World today. After being written, each part was translated into various different languages and back again, and slightly reworked (as with our own King James version) each time, for quality of prose. As with any ancient text we should be interested in and proud of its literary qualities, but surely it's asking a bit much to ask anyone to live by it? We don't believe in Scylla, the Sirens, Calypso or the Cyclops, though we interpret them as having a certain metaphorical truth. For me the Bible is another such tale: insofar as it deals with the Creation, it is no more or less convincing than the Songlines of the Aborigines or the Just So Stories of Kipling - a lovely fable.

[Daryle]

I grew up and was educated as an evolutionist. I am a school teacher with two college degrees (secular schools) and I have been to 13 countries around the world. I am a creationist and proud of it. It is not my reading of the Bible that has led to me becoming a creationist but simple mathematics, college textbooks and common sense. There are lots of evidences outside of the Bible that points toward a young earth model. (i.e. decay of earth s magnetic field, efflux of oil from traps by fluid pressure, formation of river deltas, decay of short and long period comets, influx of elements into the ocean via rivers) All of these facts comes from college textbooks and can be verified easily. The evidence of ice cores also points to a young earth model. In 1990 Bob Cardin dug out a P-38 (now in Middlesboro, KY) that had landed in Greenland in 1942. The P-38 was buried under 263 feet of ice in 48 years. That is about 5.5 feet per year. When Bob Cardin was asked about if he had seen any of the annual ice rings he claimed that he had seen hundreds. You can stay trapped by your worldview or open your mind and learn. Creationism is not a science it is a belief supported by science. You are right when you say there is no controversy over evolution. It is a belief system written into most textbooks and requires more faith than the six days of creation.

[Dr Stephen Morris]

In the midst of what is largely an incoherent rant misrepresenting mainstream Creationism at every turn, Kevin Kennie states "one must also ask them why evolution, why not any of the other scinetific theories, why not Boyles law, why not le chatelliers principle, why not the Uranium decay series..."

The answer is simple: Boyle's Law, Le Chatelier's Principle (one 'l'), and for that matter General Relativity, Maxwell's Equations, Quantum Theory and whole lot of other 'proper' scientific theories can be tested experimentally. We believe them because they work, and they have the happy consequence of enabling us to do things we couldn't do without them: they are therefore economically, as well as philosophically, useful.

In the case of Darwin's hypothesis, on the other hand, there are no experiments we can do to verify it. Indeed, the experiment Darwin himself proposed, namely to look for the intermediate fossils that he predicted must exist in the fossil record, has given a resoundingly null result. Apart from that, Darwinism predicts nothing, enables nothing, and delivers no economic value (other than perhaps selling books).

The question has to be: why is so much effort expended on defending Darwinism, when it could be deployed doing useful science? I agree with Kevin that the answer is predominantly religious, but in the opposite sense to that which he suggests.

[Coel]

Daryle wrote: "It is not my reading of the Bible that has led to me becoming a creationist . . ."

If you think that then you have successfully deluded yourself.

"There are lots of evidences outside of the Bible that points toward a young earth model."

Yeah, right. Funnily enough, these so-called "evidences" are the sort that only convince Biblical literalists, fundamentalist Muslims and similar.

By the way, all your points only show that _some_ things are relatively young. It is like saying "that dress you're wearing is less than a year old, therefore you're less than a year old".

[Coel]

Stephen Morris writes: "In the case of Darwin's hypothesis, on the other hand, there are no experiments we can do to verify it."

Wrong; lots of experiments can be and have been done to verify it. You do know that natural selection has been observed in laboratories and that things like speciation (the origin on new species) have been observed multiple times in nature?

"Indeed, the experiment Darwin himself proposed, namely to look for the intermediate fossils that he predicted must exist in the fossil record, has given a resoundingly null result."

Wrong again; large numbers of intermediate fossils have been found. The problem is that creationists like you have an utterly false understanding of what a transitional fossil would be like, so you don't recognise them.

"The question has to be: why is so much effort expended on defending Darwinism"

Because it is true and explains huge amounts about who we are and where we came from.

[Chopvac]

The failure of the educational system and its authorities is that they assumed that once facts were established, the facts need not be reproven. Unfortunately, that's not the case: you DO need to reinvent the wheel with each and every kid.

Schools teach facts as rote learning rather than teaching kids *how* to think. Before any scientific fields are taught, kids should be shown how to think, how to consider evidence and how to reach logical conclusions. Without that basic understanding of how theories are formulated, the uneducated will look for an answer they are capable of grasping.

Religion is the easy answer, that's why it is so often accepted by the uneducated mind. Without the grounding of education in rational thought, it's far too easy to end up with the head in the cloud of religion.

[alan]

Aha - Doc Morris - so there are no experiments we can do to verify "Darwin's hypothesis"?
-- Well, what experiments do you recommend to verify the hypothesis of "creationism"?

[Preston Rogers]

Creationists expect evolution to hold the answer for every query they can posit. Science and evolutionary biology has never claimed to have all the answers to anything. It is religion that has domain over such certainty unless it is designated as a mystery, miracle or act of God.

Dr. Morris' assertion that presence of intermediate fossils in the record, since Darwin's time, "has given a resoundingly null result" is either uninformed or disingenuous. Any number of recently discovered Australopithecenes represents “missing links” to our human evolution. Archaeopteryx and bird-dinosaur transitional forms have been found in recent years in China. Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are both intermediates in early tetrapod limb evolution. Snails in Lake Turkana, East Africa …the list goes on and on. Refer to Richard Dawkins’ An Ancestor’s Tale for a more exhaustive compilation.

This creationist strategy is often called “the god of gaps”. Any gaps in the evolutionary record are scrutinized and evolution as a whole is then questioned. A transitional form is subsequently discovered, but, oh gee, now there are gaps on either side of this new intermediary. More gaps lead to more scrutiny, etc. Aside from this criticism being irrational, it also makes the assumption that the fossil record should be completely intact clearly delineating the entire evolution of life on earth. All that paleontologists and evolutionists have to do is simply unearth it all and show the world.

Well, here’s a newsflash for the creationist-ID camp- fossilization does not come easily. Forget about the distinct possibility that some transitional forms may be founder populations with low numbers and fewer generations over time, conditions relying on climate, pressure and subsequent geologic events (among other things) must be ideal for fossils of certain life forms to occur. Soft body forms without bone, teeth, chitin or cellulose are especially challenged to fossilize.

The real truth for evolution comes not from any single fossil or finding, but from the abundance of evidence from so many different disciplines. Microbiology, genetics, paleontology, chemistry, zoology, herpetology, embryology, entomology and so many others all correlate and converge when seen in light of evolution. For educated people ascribing to creationism to turn their backs on truths that are so blatantly obvious is beyond sad; it is foolhardy. I guess they have trouble seeing the forest for the trees (or is it park benches?).

[Dr Stephen Morris]

It is a revealing comment that "the real truth for evolution comes not from any single fossil or finding, but from the abundance of evidence from so many different disciplines". This sounds a lot like circumstantial evidence to me: a set of individual items which may sound compelling when taken together, but which unravel when any one is scrutinised in isolation. This underlines my initial contrast between Darwinism and 'proper science' where hypotheses can be verified directly and applied to economically useful ends.

[Coel]

Stephen Morris writes: "It is a revealing comment that "the real truth for evolution comes not from any single fossil or finding, but from the abundance of evidence from so many different disciplines"."

Yes, the fact that many lines of evidence for evolution from many different fields all interlock like a well-made jigsaw, all mutually buttressing each other, leads scientists to accept evolution.

"This sounds a lot like circumstantial evidence to me: a set of individual items which may sound compelling when taken together, but which unravel when any one is scrutinised in isolation."

But they don't unravel when scrutinised in isolation! They are evidence when taken seperately; but the the grand picture is revealled when they are considered as a whole.

"This underlines my initial contrast between Darwinism and 'proper science' where hypotheses can be verified directly and applied to economically useful ends."

Evolution can be verified just as well as other areas of science. And you don't really think that something has to be economically useful to be "proper" science, do you?

[Daryle]

Coel,
I listed six examples that points towards a young earth model. These examples come from secular college texts books not religious texts. How many examples do you need to before you open your mind to other models concerning the creation of the earth? I will give you one more. Scientist not preachers recently mapped the universe to be 157 billion light years wide, yet it is only 15 billion years old. Use simple math divide 157 billion by 2 to find the center of the universe (i.e. where it started) and subtract 15 billion. The universe is 63.5 billion light years too big if according to Einstein nothing moves faster than the speed of light. Is there yet one more theory (that must be taken by faith) to disprove Einstein’s theory?

Chopvac,
I have degree in education majoring in mathematics and another in aircraft systems maintenance technology. I have lived in many different cultures. Just how educated does someone have to be, before they can make an intelligent decision about religion? I would like to restate you are saying. People who do not believe in evolution are stupid. Religious people do not believe in evolution. Therefore religious people are stupid. That is called a faulty comparison or faulty analogy. In fact research shows a stronger correlation of private (faith base) school students who continue their education compared to public school students.

[Coel]

Daryle writes: "I listed six examples that points towards a young earth model."

You made six empty assertions backed up by nothing. So pick one of them and explain to us why it indicates a young earth. Pick your "decay of short and long period comets" if you wish, or any of the others.

"Use simple math divide 157 billion by 2 to find the center of the universe (i.e. where it started)"

This shows that you don't know what you are talking about: there is no "center" of the universe, there is no "where it started" except for "everywhere".

Your above values are not for the universe, but for the _observable_ universe, that is the region of the universe from which we have seen light rays. Obviously, we are in the center of that region, but it is no different from any other region.

"The universe is 63.5 billion light years too big if according to Einstein nothing moves faster than the speed of light."

Ah, so you're another, like Tony Francis, who doesn't understand the speed-of-light limit? It limits the speed at which matter, energy or information can be transfered from one region of space to another. It does not limit the rate at which the distance between regions of space can increase.

I do love it when creationists who claim to argue for creationism using science show that they don't know what they're talking about!

"Is there yet one more theory (that must be taken by faith) to disprove Einstein’s theory?"

There is no discrepancy; and it is people like you who have ignorant faith; scientists have evidence.

[gene]

Stephen, read Francis Collins' book, The Language of God, and tell us what is wrong with his assessment that evolution is so solidly supported by evidence as to be a fact of science.

[James Brown]

Look... why not boil all these arguments down to the following two assertions:

A) There is a god.
B) There is no god.

Ultimately, both are beyond proof. They also involve a lot less typing than seen in this comment string so far.

[Tony Francis]

If we can see a distant galaxy, it can't be moving away from us faster than the speed of light. If the space between us and a distant galaxy is expanding faster than the speed of light, we could never see it. Hence, the "event horizon", by definition, has to be receding at a rate slower than the speed of light.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year
The visible edge or horizon is about 47 billion light years away from us, in any direction. Big Bang predicts an age of 13.7 billion years.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

[Carl Waring]

"The visible edge or horizon is about 47 billion light years away from us, in any direction. Big Bang predicts an age of 13.7 billion years."

OK, I'm not going to go into the cosmological details as Coel is far more knowledgable than myself on the matter and I could not hope to do the subject justice as he can. What I will say is that even if you took Tony's word for it and believed that the universe is either 47 or 13.7 billion years old, or somewhere in between, that is still a lot more believable than the 6000 years Ken Ham and his creationist cohorts suggest!

[Coel]

Tony writes: "If we can see a distant galaxy, it can't be moving away from us faster than the speed of light."

It isn't quite that simple, because "seeing" a distant galaxy means seeing it as it was when the light was emitted, not as it is _now_.

"Hence, the "event horizon", by definition, has to be receding at a rate slower than the speed of light."

More precisely, the event horizon is receding at exactly the speed of light. That is, we can see things to a distance that is speed-of-light times age-of-universe.

So, given an age of universe of 13.7 billion years, we can see to a distance of about 13 billion light years. However, we would be seeing such things as they were 13 billion years ago.

Where are those things _now_? Well, not 13 billion light years away, because in that 13 billion years they have got much further away, owing to the expansion of space in that time.

"The visible edge or horizon is about 47 billion light years away from us, in any direction. Big Bang predicts an age of 13.7 billion years."

What that means is that things that WERE, 13 Gyr ago, at a distance such that light has just got here, are NOW at a distance of 47 billion light years. Of course we can't see them _there_, we can only see them in the time/place they were 13 Gyr ago.

This effect of the finite travel time of light is what you and Daryle are failing to factor in. Again, there is absolutely no inconsistency or violation of physical laws.

I've discussed evolution/big-bang oodles of times with Christians, and they commonly claim to have insightfully spotted flaws in the science that the dumb scientists have overlooked, but every time it is their lack of knowledge or understanding.

[Daryle]

Coel,

I love it when you validate my point. I agree with you when you say, “there is no center of the universe.” It is the evolutionist “big bang” theory that gives notion that there is a center to the universe. I do not know Tony Francis, but I do know that if you stretch light you get an observed redshift due to the “Doppler Effect” occurs whenever a light source moves away from the observer. That is how we discovered the movement of galaxies. Therefore the expansionist theory does not make sense. How can you expand the universe, past the age of the universe? The light that we now see from the edge of the universe is 15 billion years old. How did it travel the extra distance without a “Doppler Effect” stretching the light?
You asked me to pick one example that point towards a young earth model. I grew up on a farm and I understand soil erosion very well. When it rains soil will erode. How come all the deltas in the world is young? The following information comes from the following college textbook; Marshak, Stephan. Essentials of Geology. 1st. London: Norton, 2004. There are seven lobes or avulsions for the Mississippi river delta, the youngest being 0-500 years old and the oldest 4,400-5,300 years old (page 396). Is the earth young or was there not a river flowing 5,300 years ago? It is amazing that this scientific fact fits nicely with a creation model. If the earth is billions of years old then inland lakes like the Caspian Sea, Black Sea or Aral Sea should be full of sediment. I have supported my claim of a young earth model with information from a secular textbook. Please provide a college textbook that refutes the age of the Mississippi delta as I have described it. I am not afraid of citing sources with scientific facts.

[Carl Waring]

"I agree with you when you say, “there is no center of the universe.” It is the evolutionist “big bang” theory that gives notion that there is a center to the universe."

Errr, no: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions