The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[itinerant1]

As am I, buffalo!

I hope you are not also a YUC, Young Universe Creationist.

I am in the middle of “Death From the Skies.” I like the way Plait writes. I was held in suspense for pages over the mystery of the source for GRBs. Awesome!

 

[itinerant1]

Fiddlesticks. That is exactly where time needs to be spent.

Why?

 

[ricmat]

You are forgetting the political side of the ID movement. They want to get ID into science classrooms in schools. In order to do that the have to try and make ID look sciency enough to pass muster. Looking philosophical is not going to get ID into science classes.

rossum

Your point is inarguably true.

There are bigoted zealots on both sides of the issue.

Anti-ID folks almost always point to the Discovery Institute as being the standard bearers for the ID movement. When it suits their needs.

But if one looks at the FAQs on the Discovery web site with regard to this very issue of “getting ID into science classrooms”, or that the purpose of ID is to “overthrow Darwin”, then those anti-ID folks say that the Discovery Institute must be ignored. Or that they have a secret agenda. Or that they don’t really represent the ID side correctly. And when presented with a suggestion to read what even it’s critics describe as the best available scientific book from the ID side on the origin of life, they don’t have time, or they’ve heard it all before. Or they read a review of the book by someone who actually never read the book (Ayala’s). And he must be a good source right? He just won the Templeton Prize. What a joke.

Have an open mind. Although one’s Pride may be deflated somewhat in the process.

 

[ricmat]

ID theorists assert that the origin of life has to be the work of “intelligent design.” However, there is no compelling evidence that biological life would involve anything more than mere matter. All scientific theories of the pre-biological origin of evolution involve a very specified matter, that is, matter with most specific properties.

As far as we know, such matter contains everything needed for life to originate by natural processes, so there is no need to invoke special actions of an intelligent designer into such processes as nucleosynthesis, or even into the pre-biological formation of sub-nuclear particles.

This is why you need to read SITC. This is EXACTLY what it addresses. Please find the time.

 

[Philipp]

I have never said it was not. In a malarial area HbC is a beneficial mutation. You give the mild symptoms of HbC, you do not give the much more serious symptoms of malaria. How many millions are killed by malaria each year? Someone who dies of malaria as a child will not have any children. Someone who survives childhood malaria because they have the HbC mutation will have children. HbC is a beneficial mutation.

Your personal incredulity is not a valid scientific argument. The smallest number of mutations to get from one species to another that I am aware of is three mutations. Three. One mutation changed colouring and the other two altered the mating season. Now the two species, Chrysopa carnea and Chrysopa downesi, live in different habitats, (to match their colourings), and breed at different times of the year. Three mutations can make a new species.

Ed is convinced that he has found a fossil skull. He has not. He has found a piece of rock shaped like a skull fragment and convinced himself that it is part of a fossil skull. See Carboniferous human bones – an evaluation for a lot more detail from an expert. Ed has found a funny shaped piece of rock; is that what you want to base your case for a 6,000 year old earth on?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

You are forgetting the political side of the ID movement. They want to get ID into science classrooms in schools. In order to do that the have to try and make ID look sciency enough to pass muster. Looking philosophical is not going to get ID into science classes.

rossum

A Briefing Packet FO R E D U C AT O R S

Can Darwinism Be Questioned in Public Schools?

Yes. Science teachers have the right to teach science, and there
are legitimate scientific critiques of neo-Darwinian theory. As long
as teachers fulfill all other required aspects of the curriculum
and stick to teaching science, they have the right to teach about
the many scientific critiques of neo-Darwinism and chemical
evolutionary theories.

Should Public Schools Mandate Intelligent Design?

No. The priority of the ID movement has long been focused on
developing the theory of intelligent design through scientific
research, scientific publication, and other forms of scientific
discussion and does not seek to push ID into schools. In today’s
politically charged climate, attempts to mandate teaching about
intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and
open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and
within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at
the present time do not know enough about ID to teach about it
accurately and objectively.

Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

No. Science teachers have the right to teach science. Since ID is a
legitimate scientific theory, it should be constitutional to discuss in
science classrooms and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have
the academic freedom to do so.

 

[Philipp]

I have never said it was not. In a malarial area HbC is a beneficial mutation. You give the mild symptoms of HbC, you do not give the much more serious symptoms of malaria. How many millions are killed by malaria each year? Someone who dies of malaria as a child will not have any children. Someone who survives childhood malaria because they have the HbC mutation will have children. HbC is a beneficial mutation.

Your personal incredulity is not a valid scientific argument. The smallest number of mutations to get from one species to another that I am aware of is three mutations. Three. One mutation changed colouring and the other two altered the mating season. Now the two species, Chrysopa carnea and Chrysopa downesi, live in different habitats, (to match their colourings), and breed at different times of the year. Three mutations can make a new species.

Ed is convinced that he has found a fossil skull. He has not. He has found a piece of rock shaped like a skull fragment and convinced himself that it is part of a fossil skull. See Carboniferous human bones – an evaluation for a lot more detail from an expert. Ed has found a funny shaped piece of rock; is that what you want to base your case for a 6,000 year old earth on?

rossum

Dr Giertych has warmed up to this thread and sent this reply to a previous post.

I have reached the paper on the AI-milano variant. I shall quote the conclusion: “The AIM variant originated in a community with a low prevalence of cardiovascular disease, which is certainly not attributable to the modest number of AIM carriers.” The authors also say that “there does not appear to be any clear association between the apoprotein abnormality and any pathological conditions, particularly cardiovascular” and that they “have not acquired knowledge of the phenotype corresponding to the homozygote”. This sounds like a neutral mutation to me. Obviously those who use the result to support evolution are overstating the actual results of the study.
Apparently people with the variant have lower levels of high density lipoproteins (HDL) which seems associated with lower incidence of artheriosclerosis. All 33 carriers of the variant (out of a population of 815 living in one village) are descendants of one XIXth c. couple. Whether the variant developed in the village (as a mutation) or was brought from somewhere else is not known. There were no marriages between known carriers and therefore no individuals homozygous for the variant. To claim that the variant is a “positive’ mutation it would have be to be shown that being homozygous for the variant is not disadvantageous. Otherwise it would be like with the malaria - sickle cell anaemia example where only carrying the good gene plus the one responsible for anaemia gives some protection against malaria. Heterozygosis as such is by itself advantageous because it furnishes the individual with more inner variability. Thus the extrapolation to “positive mutation” is premature.
Sincerely, Maciej

For those who sense that Intelligent Design is well worth the effort to study and promote in the class room as a viable alternative to the “Sacred Cow” of origins as well as those, like myself who look at the fossil record and see only catastrophe and no evolution www.noevolution.org only thousands of years ago I suggest you purchase “Genetic Entropy” by Dr. J. C. Sanford of Cornell University. [At Amazon].

One such recommendation comes from Professor Phillip Johnson, Emeritus Law Professor, UC-Berkeley; Law Clerk of Chief Justice Earl Warren of the US Supreme Court, author of “Darwin on Trial” and “Reason in the Balance.” Who wrote in his review of the book, Genetic Entropy:

***“I strongly recommend John Sanford’s Genetic Entropy, which provides a lucid and bold account of how the human genome is deteriorating due to the accumulation of mutations. This situation has disturbing implications for mankind’s future, as well as surprising implications concerning mankind’s past.” ***

Besides an excellent glossary and five appendices for those who are biology teachers and professors and who are interested in genetic population studies Dr. Sanford has created a web stie where one can download “Mendel’s Accountant” at mendelsaccountant.info

 

[StAnastasia]

I hope you are not also a YUC, Young Universe Creationist. I am in the middle of “Death From the Skies.” I like the way Plait writes. I was held in suspense for pages over the mystery of the source for GRBs. Awesome!

That depends on how you define “young universe.” How young is “young” for you? I see no theological objection to the Big Bang having been preceded by the Big Crunch of a previous universe, or by some other physical state. It’s all part of God’s creation.

Death from the Skies is sobering, but should not be troublesome to a Christian, as we believe this universe is only a miniscule dimension of divine creativity. The rogue black hole chapter was fascinating.

StAnastasia

 

[rossum]

Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

No. Science teachers have the right to teach science. Since ID is a
legitimate scientific theory, it should be constitutional to discuss in
science classrooms and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have
the academic freedom to do so.

One of the questions that both sides asked Judge Jones to decide at the Dover trial was whether or not ID counted as legitimate science. Judge Jones decided that ID was not science:
4. Whether ID is Science

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

Source: Decision of the Court.
Currently ID is not science and has no legitimate place in science classrooms. It is possible that ID may become science in future but at the moment it still has a lot of work to do first.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Why?

Please refer to posts 446 and 458 for my gut feelings. Sorting out the real issues of design may lead to the common point for Thomists and ID proponents. Plus this could also lead to the real issue for Catholics regarding the source of human nature.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

 

[buffalo]

One of the questions that both sides asked Judge Jones to decide at the Dover trial was whether or not ID counted as legitimate science. Judge Jones decided that ID was not science:
4. Whether ID is Science

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

Source: Decision of the Court.Currently ID is not science and has no legitimate place in science classrooms. It is possible that ID may become science in future but at the moment it still has a lot of work to do first.

rossum

The Truth About Kitzmiller vs Dover

What legal scholars are saying
»» “The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is
unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the
judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous both to science
and to freedom of religion,”—Jay D. Wexler, Professor of
Law, Boston University Law School, “Kitzmiller and the ‘Is it
Science?’ Question,” 5 First Amendment Law Review 90, 93
(2006), emphasis added. Note: Prof. Wexler is a strong critic
of teaching ID.
»» “*nvalidating the teaching of intelligent design in public
schools is flatly inconsistent with free speech principles…
If the Supreme Court ever gets a case, unlike Kitzmiller,
where the School Board of Legislature’s apparent motive
for integrating intelligent design into the curriculum is to
maximize student exposure to different ideas about the origin
of the species, and not to indoctrinate religion, the Court
should uphold the provision.”—Arnold Loewy, self-described
First Amendment “liberal” and George R. Killam Jr. Chair of
Criminal Law, Texas Tech Law School, 5 First Amend. Law
Review, 89, emph. added.

“Despite Judge Jones’s apparent desire to have the final word
on ID for the judiciary, future jurists encountering efforts to
address the topic of ID will have not only the right, but the
obligation to think for themselves and determine whether the
reasoning used by Judge Jones is accurate, necessary, or
even relevant. …ID will survive Kitzmiller not only because the
ruling itself is unpersuasive and is owed no deference, but
because the scientific evidence pointing to design in nature
is just as powerful today as it was before Judge Jones ruled.”
—David K. DeWolf, John West, Casey Luskin, “Intelligent
Design will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” 68 Montana Law
Review 7, 17, 57 (Winter, 2007).*

 

[StAnastasia]

Fiddlesticks. That is exactly where time needs to be spent.

ID has not contributed anything to either science or theology, which is why there are not many sessions on it at scientific or theological conferences.

 

[StAnastasia]

I do see that. How can I politely say that those interested in defending the true nature of Adam and Eve need to split?

Split as a group?

 

[Philipp]

The Truth About Kitzmiller vs Dover

What legal scholars are saying
»» “The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is
unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the
judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous both to science
and to freedom of religion,”—Jay D. Wexler, Professor of
Law, Boston University Law School, “Kitzmiller and the ‘Is it
Science?’ Question,” 5 First Amendment Law Review 90, 93
(2006), emphasis added. Note: Prof. Wexler is a strong critic
of teaching ID.
»» “*nvalidating the teaching of intelligent design in public
schools is flatly inconsistent with free speech principles…
If the Supreme Court ever gets a case, unlike Kitzmiller,
where the School Board of Legislature’s apparent motive
for integrating intelligent design into the curriculum is to
maximize student exposure to different ideas about the origin
of the species, and not to indoctrinate religion, the Court
should uphold the provision.”—Arnold Loewy, self-described
First Amendment “liberal” and George R. Killam Jr. Chair of
Criminal Law, Texas Tech Law School, 5 First Amend. Law
Review, 89, emph. added.

“Despite Judge Jones’s apparent desire to have the final word
on ID for the judiciary, future jurists encountering efforts to
address the topic of ID will have not only the right, but the
obligation to think for themselves and determine whether the
reasoning used by Judge Jones is accurate, necessary, or
even relevant. …ID will survive Kitzmiller not only because the
ruling itself is unpersuasive and is owed no deference, but
because the scientific evidence pointing to design in nature
is just as powerful today as it was before Judge Jones ruled.”
—David K. DeWolf, John West, Casey Luskin, “Intelligent
Design will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” 68 Montana Law
Review 7, 17, 57 (Winter, 2007).*

Thanks for the above, I was unaware of the that review.

It would be good for the advancement of science and the search for truth in science for a school district to try and drag the hypothesis of evolution into an appeals court of three unbaised judges. The school district could ask the judges to rule on the requirement to teach evolution as a fact when its key paleontologists have not found any real “scientific evidence” that are factual. Then let the opponents from ID and those with data from sedimentology to chronology studies have their day in court. along side that of scientists from the evolution camp. That would be good for America and the world to see:thumbsup:

 

[rossum]

The Truth About Kitzmiller vs Dover

Well, the Discovery Institure would say that wouldn’t they.

What legal scholars are saying
»» “The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is
unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the
judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous both to science
and to freedom of religion,”—Jay D. Wexler, Professor of
Law, Boston University Law School, “Kitzmiller and the ‘Is it
Science?’ Question,” 5 First Amendment Law Review 90, 93
(2006), emphasis added. Note: Prof. Wexler is a strong critic
of teaching ID.

That may be the case, but in Kitzmiller both sides asked Judge Jones to decide it ID was science. Given that both sides asked, then it was indeed necessary for Judge Jones to rule on the question. Whether the ID side was wise to ask the judge to make a ruling in the first place is another question.

»» “nvalidating the teaching of intelligent design in public
schools is flatly inconsistent with free speech principles…
Here I strongly disagree. This is a recipe for chaos in schools. Do we have to teach alchemy alongside chemistry? Astrology alongside astronomy? Scientology alongside psychology? Schools are places of learning and what goes into lessons is a restricted part of what is out there in general.

If the Supreme Court ever gets a case, unlike Kitzmiller,
where the School Board of Legislature’s apparent motive
for integrating intelligent design into the curriculum is to
maximize student exposure to different ideas about the origin
of the species, and not to indoctrinate religion, the Court
should uphold the provision.”—Arnold Loewy, self-described
First Amendment “liberal” and George R. Killam Jr. Chair of
Criminal Law, Texas Tech Law School, 5 First Amend. Law
Review, 89, emph. added.

I note that the DI and other ID proponents have not brought forward such a case since 2005 when Dover was decided. A case of “put up or shut up” I think.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Read the complete link and you will see why.

 

[rossum]

Dr Giertych has warmed up to this thread and sent this reply to a previous post.

I have reached the paper on the AI-milano variant. I shall quote the conclusion: “The AIM variant originated in a community with a low prevalence of cardiovascular disease, which is certainly not attributable to the modest number of AIM carriers.” The authors also say that “there does not appear to be any clear association between the apoprotein abnormality and any pathological conditions, particularly cardiovascular” and that they “have not acquired knowledge of the phenotype corresponding to the homozygote”. This sounds like a neutral mutation to me. Obviously those who use the result to support evolution are overstating the actual results of the study.
Apparently people with the variant have lower levels of high density lipoproteins (HDL) which seems associated with lower incidence of artheriosclerosis. All 33 carriers of the variant (out of a population of 815 living in one village) are descendants of one XIXth c. couple. Whether the variant developed in the village (as a mutation) or was brought from somewhere else is not known. There were no marriages between known carriers and therefore no individuals homozygous for the variant. To claim that the variant is a “positive’ mutation it would have be to be shown that being homozygous for the variant is not disadvantageous. Otherwise it would be like with the malaria - sickle cell anaemia example where only carrying the good gene plus the one responsible for anaemia gives some protection against malaria. Heterozygosis as such is by itself advantageous because it furnishes the individual with more inner variability. Thus the extrapolation to “positive mutation” is premature.
Sincerely, Maciej

My thinks to Dr Giertych and to Philipp for an interesting reply. On a minor point. I believe that the original couple moved to Limone-sul-Garda from Milan, hence the “Milano” in the name of the mutation.

Quite how Dr Giertych finds that a mutation “associated with lower incidence of artheriosclerosis” can be described as “neutral” escapes me. I take his point about the lack of homozygotes, but in the current situation the mutation must be described as beneficial. As always, it is necessary to consider the environment when considering “beneficial” or “deleterious”. White fur is beneficial in the Arctic but deleterious in many other environments. As presently found, Apo A-I Milano is a beneficial mutation.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

One of the questions that both sides asked Judge Jones to decide at the Dover trial was whether or not ID counted as legitimate science. Judge Jones decided that ID was not science:
4. Whether ID is Science

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

Source: Decision of the Court.
Currently ID is not science and has no legitimate place in science classrooms. It is possible that ID may become science in future but at the moment it still has a lot of work to do first.

rossum

As usual, the argument has gone ful circle to the real issue: No word beginning with the letter G must be taught in the science classroom. Or to put it another way:

I can be Catholic and believe there are aliens living on other planets. No evidence for that but at least I wouldn’t find the topic appearing endlessly here. Nope – the final answer to the question about Origins, Genesis, Adam and Eve and the Age of the Earth is:

Keep Your Religion Out Of My Public School.

Please remember that the next time this is brought up again, and it will be brought up again, by at least 10 to the 364th.

God bless,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

Edwest2 previously made a post about the official Jewish calendar as supposed evidence for a young earth. However, does Ed’s contention agree with what Jews think? Or, is Ed’s post just creationist skewing of the picture?

Here are some rich statements to consider. Ed, or anyone else, is welcome to challenge any of these statements if they so choose.

In his commentary on the Torah, Rabbi Bahya ben Asher (11th century, Spain) concludes that there were many time systems occurring in the universe long before the spans of history that man is familiar with. Based on the Kabbalah he calculates that the Earth is billions of years old.

Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Moses Maimonides and Gersonides held that not every statement in Genesis is meant literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great Rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point that did not contradict any fundamentals of faith, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly.

A literal interpretation of the biblical Creation story among classic rabbinic commentators is uncommon. Thus Bible commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra (11th Century) wrote,

“If there appears something in the Torah which contradicts reason…then here one should seek for the solution in a figurative interpretation…the narrative of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for instance, can only be understood in a figurative sense.”

Today, most Jewish denominations accept the science of evolutionary theory and do not see it as incompatible with traditional Judaism, thus endorsing the stance of theistic evolution. It is often taught that “the Torah not be viewed as a textbook”

 

[itinerant1]

Please refer to posts 446 and 458 for my gut feelings. Sorting out the real issues of design may lead to the common point for Thomists and ID proponents. Plus this could also lead to the real issue for Catholics regarding the source of human nature.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

ID has nothing to offer from a scientific, philosophical or theological perspective.

Thomistic principles provide the correction to ID’s skewed philosophical ideas about design. However, it is not realistic to assume ID theorists will accept correction since they are wedded to an ideology. Imagine how an ID theorist might respond to a Thomist showing him his marriage to Ms. ID-ology is invalid and should be annulled.

ID theory involves a critically flawed strategy. Instead of those of us who would like to spend time just addressing Darwinian ideology, we have to also address the errors of YEC and ID theory. In this sense, YEC and ID theory serve only to retard the advancement of Catholic ideas and classical philosophical principles, not to mention the natural sciences.