Ignorance and evolution

[steveandersen]

Panspermia, like abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution doesn’t depend on where or how life came about. It is just a valid and factual whether life originated with the hand of God, a sneeze from a UFO alien, or the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[anthony022071]

Hello itenerant. See also post 155,in case you missed it.

intinerant1 replies, Other than the fact that God creates each human soul individually at conception, are there other ongoing instances of creatio ex nihil that you have in mind? I am not sure what you are referring to.

I don’t know if its right to say that God creates out of nothing.
I read in the Book of Enoch that God created the visible out of the invisible. And the pope has suggested in his writings that God created from thought. God is Being,he is thought itself.

Primary cause
I have listened to philosophy professors of all stripes who had no idea their understanding of primary cause was seriously amiss. This is what happens when one neglects reading Aristotle.

God is not the first cause to be conceived as first in a horizontal series, so to speak, of lesser causes stretching back in time to the instant of creation.

Instead, we say that God is the primary cause in a series of contingent or lesser causes in which he continally maintains in existence (at every instant) all of these contingent causes. It helps if one thinks of this series of causes as a vertical series, rather than horizontal.

These two definitions are not mutually exclusive,they are both true. As I said in an earlier post,God is always creating.
But if the theory of evolution (not to be confused with the scientific evidence for the theory) is swallowed whole by theistic evolutionists,then the only place for God is at the beginning of time,because the theory itself makes the processes of nature into the origins of life forms. Theistic evolutionists may say “and this is how God does it”,but the theory itself and the scientific community say otherwise. God is not even in the picture,and the theory is “credible” enough without God,who is in-credible to science. So as usual,belief in a Creator is relegated to the subjective,the unnecessary. And God must be considered necessary to Nature in order to be a real God.

Hence, when primary cause is properly understood, it is seen that Nature is not being said to operate independently of the highest cause. Divine Providence is not being ruled out as you have suggested.

But God as primary cause,in the full sense,is not properly understood,either by theistic scientists or by Catholics who believe in the theory of evolution. If they did,the theories of evolution would have to be converted into theories of creation. If a Creator who is always creating is let into equation,then the naturalistic interpretation of origins (which leads to scientific pantheism) must give way.

My position says that to properly understand and critique evolution from a philosophical aspect, both the theorist and the student can only do so from a correct understanding of causality, which is Aristotelian causality (this includes formal, material, efficient and final causes). Anything else just adds to the already existing confusion.

Aristotle did not believe in a deity that interferes with the world. He did not believe that eternity could communicate with history. Aristotle rejected as vulgar the anthopomorphic gods of the pagans,and made God out to be like an abstraction – pure,eternal thought which thinks only of itself and has no potential. But the God of Jews and Christians is anthropomorphic
in the sense that God is a person who loves,and he is described in scripture in terms of human emotions. And God does communicate and interfere with the world. God is not only Being (as Plato would have it,and as the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures has it),but love. When St. Paul went to Athens and preached,he did not win many converts among the philosophically educated Greeks. They thought that the idea of God coming down from heaven in the form of a man to save humanity was an absurdity.

 

[itinerant1]

Panspermia, like abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution doesn’t depend on where or how life came about. It is just a valid and factual whether life originated with the hand of God, a sneeze from a UFO alien, or the flying spaghetti monster.

You are bloody well right!

Distinctions need to be made. It’s a distinction of evolvere, generally, to roll out, wherein one might say in this general sense that life rolled out of the primordial soup. Or, evolvere, according to the stipulated biological meaning of life forms devoloping by means of rolling out to a different adaptive state. And we need to keep it clear that theories life’s origin are independent of theories involving this second meaning.

So, I will say that the question of how life could have originated on Earth, i.e. through the natural physical processes of earth’s evolution, becomes a mute question under panspermia. The question has been dodged altogether. It’s not a dodge if one can demonstrate that life could not have originated from earth’s primordial soup, or that one has some evidence for an alien visitor seeding the planets, a sort of intergalactic Johnny Apple Seed.

But just be aware the very mention of Alien Mucous and the dreaded FSM, makes you responsible for planting such ideas for new theories of life’s origin. Someone out there in cyber space will take these things seriously.

Cheerio!

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Barbarian Avoids the material matters in my previous post which concerned the mechanics of strata formation. This is the object of the stratigraphy experiments. If he wants to denigrate the work, the best way is to provide experimental data to do so.

Pointing to possible exceptions is not the way and geologists know this. He proposes varves as an exception, but provides no experimental evidence to support his objection that experiments strata do not form successively. On the other hand there is experimental evidence published by the French Academy of Sciences of simultaneous deposit of particles of different size sediment. This is similar to the deposit of algae’s and clay in Lake Suigetsu. The Bijou Creek Flood, for example, produced 4 metres of laminae in a few days. The seasonal melt of snow in the mountains feeding the Lake Suigetsu would provide sediment for continuous formation of laminae over several weeks. There is no reason to postulate a varve takes a year to form.

I apologise for two oversights in the preparation of my previous post (it was getting late)

The first was that Barbarian did indeed ask me to cite prominent Catholic biologists. I had understaood he was doubting the existence of Catholic biologists contesting evolution, of which there are many.

Nonetheless in my view the two I mentioned (Dr Sternberg and Prof. Kenyon) fit well into the category of prominent scientists; after all they have the specialised knowledge in biology and the courage to contest evolution.

My other accidental error was to write a positive which I meant to be a negative. Here is the passage:

Complying with his request for empirical proof against evolution I wrote:

Here I revert to my previous posts. The posts referred to peer-reviewed experimental reports published by French and Russian Academies of Sciences showing that strata in the presence of a water current do not form successively according to the principle of superposition but laterally and vertically at the same time.

His reply was:

Did you know that folding and overthrust also are exceptions to the law of superpostition? Did you think geologists were unaware of these things, and fail to account for them? Did you honestly?

My answer is yes. The object of the stratification experiments was to determine the mechanism of strata formation. The apparent exceptions would not challenge the mechanism. In any case for folding and overthrusting to occur the strata must have already deposited.

My answer to the second question was meant to be “no”. Sorry.

He continues regarding the doctrine of Creation:

He said initial creation was instantaneous, but then things unfolded from that.

I have to assume Barbarian knows that there are two periods; 1. creation ‘ex nihilo’ of the prototypes of all living things in their entire substance, 2. pro-creation (the period of Providence in which we now live) from the prototypes which include every thing that has lived since the period of creation closed. If he means that procreation is “unfolding”, ok, but it is an ambiguous term.

Even in his closing remark he cannot resist a coarse remark.

However, let’s put it into context.

**Barbarian **asked:
Is it at all possible that the Pope, from the Chair of Peter, is more capable of telling us what is true about our faith than you are?

My reply was:

Most certainly provided he is speaking about the faith.

He then accuses me of:

Talking out of both sides of your (my) mouth.

He says:

So Lateran IV was speaking of the faith when it “excluded” evolution?

Not at all. Lateran IV was not speaking directly about evolution theory. When the Holy Father reported to 400 Italian priests in the Fall of last year that there were several proofs of evolution he was reporting what had been related to him by scientists. He was not speaking about doctrinal teaching, nevertheless because he is custodian of the Church’s deposit of the faith there is an implication. Lateran IV is doctrinal teaching which rejects everything opposed to its definition of creation. It doesn’t refer directly to evolution theory, but by its wording the theory is excluded. So when he speaks about the faith, all Catholics must listen, but not so when he is talking about scientific theories.

Here is the Lateran IV definition:

God…creator of all visible and invisible things of the spiritual and of the corporal who by his own omnipotent power at once (simul) from the beginning of time created each (utramque) creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal namely angelic and mundane and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body (DZ 428)

Peter

 

[itinerant1]

itinerant1;3246808:

Hello itenerant. See also post 155,in case you missed it.

intinerant1 replies, Other than the fact that God creates each human soul individually at conception, are there other ongoing instances of creatio ex nihil that you have in mind? I am not sure what you are referring to.

I don’t know if its right to say that God creates out of nothing.
I read in the Book of Enoch that God created the visible out of the invisible. And the pope has suggested in his writings that God created from thought. God is Being,he is thought itself.

I will have to respond to your post piecemeal, that is, in several posts. First, I’m not sure why you mentioned post 155.

Creation *ex nihilo *does not mean “out of nothing”. The wording is important. The concept of *ex nihilo *is that God brings beings into existence that did not previously exist. This creative act does not involve creating from previously existing stuff, material or immaterial. “Out of” can convey the wrong meaning, as if there was some thing called “nothing”.

I don’t have my Book of Enoch to compare translations. This is an interesting book, which had great influence in the primitive and early Chruch. St. Jude apparently quotes from it in the NT. To say that God created the visible out of the invisible is just another example of the limitations of human language and thought when trying to express God’s creative act. Strictly speaking, we cannot say that God created “out of the invisible”. “Out of” tends to suggest a something from which God created, be it an invisible something in this case.

Now, God did create ‘from’ His own thought. God is intellect or thought itself. God’s “thought” needs to be understood, not literally, but analogically, since God’s thought is one with his essence.

The idea of God creating from thought is a concept that goes back to ancient Greek philosophy. Of course the Greek philosophical notion of creation is not that of creation ex nihilo.

The Christian understanding of God creating ex nihilo from thought is more deeply grasped in view of the Revelation that God is a Trinity. All things were created through the Wisdom of God. The Wisdom of God is the second Person of the Trinity.

When wisdom is spoken, it is an expression of the mind. In this case the Divine mind. In the Greek language the word “logos” refers to “an expression of the mind”. We can say that words and wisdom are an expression of the mind.

Now, Christ is the Wisdom or Logos of God. In John 1:1 “logos” is translated as “Word”. The English translation, “Word”, loses much of the meaning of “Logos”. Christ is the Wisdom or Word of God, and God speaks his creation: “God said, ‘let there be light’, and there was light.” (Gen:1:3).

So, all things were created through Christ, the Logos or Wisdom of God. And God’s Wisdom or Thought is one with His essence. There are many aspects from which we view divine reality. The human mind makes many divisions and distinctions, but these distinctions do not exist separately in God, they exist simply, and as one, one with God’s essence…

 

[buffalo]

Pope: Science cannot fully understand the mystery of man

Vatican City, Jan 28, 2008 / 11:15 am (CNA).- A joyful Pope Benedict spoke this morning with academics gathered at the Vatican to study the human person. While applauding their efforts, he also told them that science is not capable of fully understanding the mystery of human beings.
The inter-academic conference entitled “The changeable identity of the individual”, is the collaborative effort of the “Academie des Sciences de Paris” and by the Pontifical Academy of Science.
In our time, the Pope told the scholars, “the exact sciences, both natural and human, have made prodigious advances in their understanding of man and his universe”. However at the same time "there is a strong temptation to circumscribe human identity and enclose it with the limits of what is known.”

…Contrary to the Darwinian concept of man, Pope Benedict said that “man is not the result of mere chance, of converging circumstances, of determinism, of chemical inter-reactions.”

more…

 

[freesoulhope]

I think i have more thinking to do on the subject.

 

[itinerant1]

Pope: Science cannot fully understand the mystery of man

Vatican City, Jan 28, 2008 / 11:15 am (CNA).- A joyful Pope Benedict spoke this morning with academics gathered at the Vatican to study the human person. While applauding their efforts, he also told them that science is not capable of fully understanding the mystery of human beings.
The inter-academic conference entitled “The changeable identity of the individual”, is the collaborative effort of the “Academie des Sciences de Paris” and by the Pontifical Academy of Science.
In our time, the Pope told the scholars, “the exact sciences, both natural and human, have made prodigious advances in their understanding of man and his universe”. However at the same time "there is a strong temptation to circumscribe human identity and enclose it with the limits of what is known.”

…Contrary to the Darwinian concept of man, Pope Benedict said that “man is not the result of mere chance, of converging circumstances, of determinism, of chemical inter-reactions.”

more…

Just an FYI: Father Stanley L. Jaki, member of the Pontifical Academy of Science, has written a number of insightful books about religion, science, and Darwinism. Fr. Jaki is an excellent source to have on your bookshelf. He addresses specifically what Pope Benedict is talking about regarding the problems with Darwinism. Unfortunately, many of Jaki’s books are currently out of print. I was lucky to have bought a number of his books while they were still in print. Online new and used book stores may have his out of print titles. ISI Books carries about a half dozen of his in-print titles. Just search by “Author”.

 

[The_Barbarian]

As noted in another thread, “Contrary to the Dawinian concept of man” was invented by a particular site, and tacked onto the Pope’s actual statement.

For an undoctored report of the Pope’s statement, here:
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56245

Discouraging to see that kind of creationist ethic adopted by those professing to be Catholics.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian Avoids the material matters in my previous post which concerned the mechanics of strata formation.

Rather, the Barbarian pointed out to you several examples of strata that do form over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. I note you have avoided them.

This is the object of the stratigraphy experiments. If he wants to denigrate the work, the best way is to provide experimental data to do so.

Nice try. The fact that some strata form rapidly (there are polystrate fossils in the making near my home, as a dammed river is burying trees in one layer of sediment after another) does not remove the fact that others form very slowly. If your guy was right, there wouldn’t be any such strata.

Pointing to possible exceptions is not the way

Not “possible.” Demonstrated examples. Contrary to your argument, geologists are not stunned that some strata form quickly. Nor are they surprised that others form over long ages. I

and geologists know this.

C’mon, Peter. You’re telling us that geologists agree with your guy? Name me one geologist who thinks the Earth is young, who doesn’t do so for a religious reason.

Here’s the opinion of an honest YE creationist on the subject, from the transcript of McLean vs. Arkansas:

Harold Coffin, of Loma Linda University testified “No, creation science is not testable scientifically.” From the transcript:

**Q: The Burgess shale (a geological formation in the Canadian Rockies with exceptionally well preserved marine fossils) is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don’t
you?

A: Yes.

Q: You say that because of information from the scriptures, don’t you?

A: Correct.

Q: If you didn’t have the Bible, you could believe the age of the Earth to be many millions of years, couldn’t you?

A: Yes, without the Bible.**

Coffin is an honest and informed creationist. And a truthful one.

He proposes varves as an exception,

No, as typical. You’re clinging to an apparent exception, and are very unhappy that I’m bringing up more typical strata.

but provides no experimental evidence to support his objection that experiments strata do not form successively.

All strata form successively. Otherwise they wouldn’t be strata.

On the other hand there is experimental evidence published by the French Academy of Sciences of simultaneous deposit of particles of different size sediment.

Happens in drumlins, too. But it still doesn’t erase the facts.

This is similar to the deposit of algae’s and clay in Lake Suigetsu.

Except, of course, that there are seasonal pollens that indicate they are laid down twice a year, and direct observation of this mechanism. In order to refute geology on this one, you’d have to first explain how the pollen gets sorted in each layer, and then explain how that mechanism gave way to the present one, just as we arrived to see it.

There is no reason to postulate a varve takes a year to form.

Other than the fact that is the mechanism we see operating every year, and the pollen sorting that confirms it is two layers a year.

The first was that Barbarian did indeed ask me to cite prominent Catholic biologists. I had understaood he was doubting the existence of Catholic biologists contesting evolution, of which there are many.

Not many. Few. And none prominent of course.

Nonetheless in my view the two I mentioned (Dr Sternberg and Prof. Kenyon) fit well into the category of prominent scientists; after all they have the specialised knowledge in biology

Not good enough. So does a second-year biology student. What are their contributions to biology that make them exceptional.

and the courage to contest evolution.

Fidel Castro has the courage to contest capitalism. That doens’t make him a prominent stockbroker.

Barbarian asks:
Is it at all possible that the Pope, from the Chair of Peter, is more capable of telling us what is true about our faith than you are?

Quote:
Most certainly provided he is speaking about the faith.

Barbarian observes:
Talking out of both sides of your mouth, Peter.

So Lateran IV was speaking of the faith when it “excluded” evolution?

Not at all. Lateran IV was not speaking directly about evolution theory.

It appears that you’re trying to have it both ways, Peter. If the Church says something you don’t like about evolution, it’s not about faith, but if you think it supports you, it’s about faith.

Speaking out of both sides of your mouth, indeed.

 

[itinerant1]

itinerant1;3246808:

Primary cause
I have listened to philosophy professors of all stripes who had no idea their understanding of primary cause was seriously amiss. This is what happens when one neglects reading Aristotle.

God is not the first cause to be conceived as first in a horizontal series, so to speak, of lesser causes stretching back in time to the instant of creation.

Instead, we say that God is the primary cause in a series of contingent or lesser causes in which he continally maintains in existence (at every instant) all of these contingent causes. It helps if one thinks of this series of causes as a vertical series, rather than horizontal.

These two definitions are not mutually exclusive,they are both true. As I said in an earlier post,God is always

creating.
But if the theory of evolution (not to be confused with the scientific evidence for the theory) is swallowed whole by theistic evolutionists,then the only place for God is at the beginning of time,because the theory itself makes the processes of nature into the origins of life forms. Theistic evolutionists may say “and this is how God does it”,but the theory itself and the scientific community say otherwise. God is not even in the picture,and the theory is “credible” enough without God,who is in-credible to science. So as usual,belief in a Creator is relegated to the subjective,the unnecessary. And God must be considered necessary to Nature in order to be a real God.

Two things can be said to be either diverse of different from one another. Red is different from green, while horses are diverse from rocks.

I did not imply that creation *ex nihilo *excludes creation as forming. God does both, but only God can create *ex nihilo. *Man and Nature both create, in a manner proper to each, by forming and fashioning. Neither man or Nature can create without God. Everything that man comes from God, and his very existence is maintained each instant by God. Nature is directed by Divine Providence, and is likewise maintained in existence by God.

Divine Providence is not a subject to be addressed by science. So, it helps when speaking of evolution, to specify which theory of evolution you have in mind. Granted that no matter what there will always be much confusion on such a complicated topic.

Hence, when primary cause is properly understood, it is seen that Nature is not being said to operate independently of the highest cause. Divine Providence is not being ruled out as you have suggested.

But God as primary cause,in the full sense,is not properly understood,either by theistic scientists or by Catholics who believe in the theory of evolution. If they did,the theories of evolution would have to be converted into theories of creation. If a Creator who is always creating is let into equation,then the naturalistic interpretation of origins (which leads to scientific pantheism) must give way.

This is not necessarily so. I know of theistic scientists and Catholics who accept a particular theory of evolution who correctly understand primary cause. I.D. theorists are specifically the ones who do not correctly understand primary and secondary causes.

Furthermore, proofs for the existence of a First Cause, Unmoved Mover, and so on, do not, and cannot, involve the idea of a God who creates. Such a notion is extraneous to the proofs. Furthermore, the idea of creation *ex nihilo *cannot be arrived at by any argument from reason. Creatio ex nihil is strictly a matter of Revelation and faith. Hence, your statement shows the need for a better understanding of primary cause. Primary cause from the understanding of human reason does not involve the idea of God creating ex nihilo.

Aristotle’s God is certainly not the personal God of Christianity, as you noted. Aristotle is showing what can be proven from the natural light of reason. What we know about God from faith, has been Revealed by God, and is above what man can naturally know by philosophical investigation such as was admirably achieved by Aristotle. We cannot expect from true non-Christian philosophy that which is achieved by Christian philosophy. The latter is externally guided by the higher truths of Revelation.

This should suffice as an answer to your comment below.

Aristotle did not believe in a deity that interferes with the world. He did not believe that eternity could communicate with history. Aristotle rejected as vulgar the anthopomorphic gods of the pagans,and made God out to be like an abstraction – pure,eternal thought which thinks only of itself and has no potential. But the God of Jews and Christians is anthropomorphic
in the sense that God is a person who loves,and he is described in scripture in terms of human emotions. And God does communicate and interfere with the world. God is not only Being (as Plato would have it,and as the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures has it),but love. When St. Paul went to Athens and preached,he did not win many converts among the philosophically educated Greeks. They thought that the idea of God coming down from heaven in the form of a man to save humanity was an absurdity.

 

[hecd2]

The term “completely demolished” not what I’d call a measured and reasonable conclusion on that follow-up.

Then, you’d be wrong. You obviously fail to understand the matters under discussion. Professional geologists understand and have voted with their feet - they all, every one, ignore Berthault’s nonsense.

Half of that reply merely says that “we knew that already”. That’s a classic defense. “Ok, so what. We already knew that what we said before as a “fact” was wrong. Now we’re saying something else, big deal.”.

Correct, it’s a classic defence which in this case utterly devastates Berthault’s arguments because Berthault is, basically, arguing against geology as Steno understood it in 1669 - it is an argument against a strawman - Berthault is more interested in rhetoric than truth and he knows it. You obviously don’t think that geology should be allowed to advance in the intervening 340 years. You think that someone writing in the infancy of biology should determine absolute truth like some scientific equivalent of a church father. Well, science doesn’t work that way, which is what gives it is explicatory power. Steno was incredibly insightful for his time, and much of what he discovered formed the basis for later geologists and illuminates geology today, but it is absurd to expect that what he wrote was infallible. He wrote long before Christian geologists figured out that the world was very old.

Your post tells us a lot about your ignorance not just of science, but of the scientific method. Your approach to discovering truth seems to be to latch on to some ancient myth or fairy tale and declare it inviolate and unchanging. You want science to adhere to this flawed method. Instead, science, as it is actually practised, shows up the paucity of this mode of getting to the truth by welcoming the fact that understanding will be refined and revised over time in the light of new evidence. That’s why science is by far the most powerful method we know for figuring out how the world goes.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

Contrary to the Darwinian concept of man, Pope Benedict said that “man is not the result of mere chance, of converging circumstances, of determinism, of chemical inter-reactions.”

Thankfully, Pope Benedict is warning against the errors and dangers of the Darwinian concept of man.

God has given us a good shepherd who can see the false teachings that mislead people and lead them to ruin.

 

[reggieM]

You obviously don’t think that geology should be allowed to advance in the intervening 340 years.

I enjoy watching science “advance” by refuting was was claimed as “fact” by previous generations (not even generations, but a mere decade ago).

Somehow we’re supposed to believe that today’s arrogant science community is not going to face the same fate in the future. All of these “certainties” which are passed along in these kinds of discussions are most likely false notions which will be forgotten and ridiculed in the near future.

Then there is Newton’s theory of universal gravity:

Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses

300 years later that law still works.

With evolution, every year brings a radical revision of the theory and in some cases, the direct opposite of was previously claimed as “true” is given as a “new fact”.

 

[itinerant1]

As noted in another thread, “Contrary to the Dawinian concept of man” was invented by a particular site, and tacked onto the Pope’s actual statement.

For an undoctored report of the Pope’s statement, here:
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56245

Discouraging to see that kind of creationist ethic adopted by those professing to be Catholics.

Good post! ZENIT offers a more detailed presentation the pope’s talk:

Pontiff: Knowledge of the Person Beyond Science

 

[reggieM]

Man, that’s what I call good science.

Indeed! Aliens brought little bundles of protien to earth so that it could evolve here into human life.

Hey, a scientist said it so it must be true.

 

[reggieM]

Yes, the Zenit story was even better:

**“Science cannot determine **who man is, **where he comes from **or where he goes, Benedict XVI says.”

**“Man is not the result of **mere chance, of converging circumstances, of determinism, of chemical inter-reactions.”

“In our own time, when the progress of the sciences attracts and **seduces **for the possibilities it offers, it is more necessary than ever to educate the consciences of our contemporaries to ensure that science does not become the criterion of good, that **man is **still respected as the centre of creation, and that he does not become the object of ideological manipulation, arbitrary decisions, or abuses.”

---

I couldn’t see a thing in that essay that looked like the kind of support for Darwinian theory that so many people around here claim he has.

 

[hecd2]

Continued from previous post

I will close by a mention of your colleague’s hecd2’s post which epitomises all the points mentioned in my post 249; of sarcasm, “ad hominems”, arguments from authority, allegations against persons and organisation and most of all an absence of scientific content; what he considers to be a scientific fact is his personal assertions and questions.

Boo-hoo. Scientists do not have much patience with the kind of arrant nonsense that Berthault produces. My arguments are from good geology, logic and evidence based - neither he nor you can begin to answer the points here that show just how absurd Berthault’s claims are:
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

He has no experimental evidence to offer just criticisms of those who have.

No experimental evidence other than the depth of sedimetary layers, the Grand Canyon Supergroup, the mineralogical discontinuity between Zorosater and Tonto, water ripples, trilobite trails and brachiopod fossils in the Tapeats Sandstone, coarse grained inclusions in Bright Angel, Temple Butte, Redwall, Supai Group, and the Hermit, Coconino, Toroweap and Kaibab formations, Surprise Canyon, varves, stromatolites, volcanic tuffs, pumice, lapilli and other tephra, igneous rock and breccias formed by volcanic ash and lavas, aeolian beds, evaporites, the absurdity of hydraulic sorting, and radiometric dating. Quite a lot of empirical evidence, as we see. Happy to debate any one of these points, but I know you’d rather die, Peter, than debate detailed science. We all see through your rhetoric.

He now writes:

Berthault’s Russian papers are of abysmal quality. They are quite incapable of being published in Western high-impact journals because of their complete lack of scientific rigour.

His views probably haven’t taken into account the papers are translations from French to Russian then back to English; scientists know in such conditions they cannot be judged by usual literary standards.

Berthault’s Russian papers are abysmal, not because of any alleged incompetent translations but because of their inherent very poor content.They are abysmal in any language you choose.

He mentions the Berthault/Henke exchange but only refers to Henke’s initial charges. He ignored Berthault’s rebuttal and answers to all of Henke’s subsequent letters.

Wrong. I published Henke’s final demolition of Berthault here:

His libellous allegations, however, reflect upon the Russian Academy of Sciences who published the papers. I can’t think of a single academic who would not be shocked by his words (although they are applauded by the gallery to the thread!).

Do you actually know any respected academics? I doubt it. I don’t give a damn whether the Russian Academy of Sciences is insulted by what I said. If any publisher publishes garbage, as they have done here, they deserve to be ridiculed. The Russian Academy of Sciences is not some religious institution that considers itself above criticism. I have pointed that Berthault’s Russian papers present no new data, rely on a YEC geology that is totally rejected by the entire geological community, are of extremely low quality and are unpublishable in Western journals. That is a problem for the editor and referees of the Russian journal that published them - and your silly notion that criticising the journal in that way is libel shows that you know next to nothing about how science is done. You want to accord organisations that publish Berthault uncritical respect - you won’t get that from me or from other scientists. If the editors of these journals make fools of themselves, as they have here, then no scientist would hesitate to point it out - neither the journal, nor its editor nor the sponsoring institution are above criticism and they get just as much respect as they earn - in this case none at all.

The critique of Berthault he had posted on his website is of the same shameful tenor.

The same effective tenor, you mean. My critique points out why Berthault is completely ignored by professional geologists, because his fantasies are very poor science.

I have tried debating with him, but his sarcasms and intent to belittle his adversary, added to his belief that his opinions and affirmations serve as scientific fact, made it impossible.

You found it impossible because you haven’t got a leg to stand on. You haven’t advanced a single scientific argument against the vast evidence that stands against Berthault’s fantasies. What specific point would you like to debate, Peter?

I am still waiting for answers to these simple questions:

Pierre Julien has supervised 31 PhD students working in sedimentation and erosion, written two text books on sedimentology, contributed to seven other books, published 61 papers and 45 articles in peer reviewed journals, delivered 30 invited conference papers, published 87 papers in conference proceedings, is superbly well placed to assess the implications of the work - and rejects Berthault’s grandiose claims for the work. Why?

How many other papers cite Berthault’s so-called revolutionary papers?

How many papers amongst the hundreds on sedimentation and stratigraphy published annually in geology journals since Berthault published his ‘revolutionary’ papers in the 1990s suggest that the entire post-Cambrian column was deposited rapidly in a single event? Exactly how many, Peter? You won’t find it difficult to count them, I assure you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

 

[wildleafblower]

Peter’s fundamentally flawed logic can be explained partly by his deep ignorance of science, and partly by his misuse of science as a propaganda and rhetorical tool to support his creationist programme rather than as a means of discovering truth.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

Peter Wilder isn’t the only person. There are other individuals that say they don’t any longer support the Intelligent Design movement though they continue to ‘misuse science as a propaganda and rhetorical tool to support a creationist programme’. I think it is difficult for them to let go of what they once thought was the truth. Anyway, that is what I’m discovering to be true. Perhaps, it’s the aftermath of actually coming to the realization that they were deceived? Or, they have a new agenda on their(s) book. (Watch out for the fine print) A watchful eye on each topic would be of helpful.

Oh, it is wonderful to see on the front page of your website that The Evolution Education Site Ring doesn’t have K. Kroose’s website. And isn’t great that you are allowed to debate here on Catholic.com whereas other locations prohibit it. Keep kicking that ball into the bleachers!

 

[hecd2]

I enjoy watching science “advance” by refuting was was claimed as “fact” by previous generations (not even generations, but a mere decade ago).

Like what, for example?

What was claimed as a significant *fact *that has been “refuted” a decade ago? (You will have to find a respectable reference - not a journalistic one, but a reference in a respectable scientific paper, to something that was claimed as a *significant fact *in 1998, that is now refuted - ie utterly denied). If you cannot do that and you have any integrity you will retract.

Then there is Newton’s theory of universal gravity:

Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses

300 years later that law still works.

Not in vast tracts of the universe where Newtonian mechanics is shown to be inaccurate and GR prevails.

With evolution, every year brings a radical revision of the theory and in some cases, the direct opposite of was previously claimed as “true” is given as a “new fact”.

Specific examples, if you please.

Your contempt for science is noted. This does not however, change the fact that the scientific method is, by a huge margin, the best way to figure out how the universe works. The fact is that science, unlike magical thinking, does advance by building on the discoveries of previous generations, just as Einstein built on Newton, and the Modern Synthesists built on Darwin and Mendel, and modern geologists built on Sedgwick and Lyell.

Alec
evolutionpages.com