THE LATEST
« »

Search Archives:

Custom Search

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

'Creation Science' Doesn't Work in the Real World

More War on Science fun with a field trip to Crazytown, where the current Mayor is creationist paleontologist Kurt Wise, currently working as a consultant for the Creation Museum in Florence, KY.

Baptist Press:

In Kurt Wise's office at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary you can find fossils that secular scientists claim are billions of years old and are part of the long process of man's evolution.

But this Harvard-trained paleontology expert is out to show a better explanation for fossils -- and why neither science nor the Bible allow for evolution. That's why Wise, director of the Center for Theology and Science and professor of theology and science at Southern, also has agreed to serve as a consultant for the Creation Museum in Florence, Ky., near Cincinnati.

The museum, scheduled to open in April 2007, will feature 50,000 square feet and more than 250 exhibits countering the errors of evolutionary science and demonstrating the reliability of the first 11 chapters in Genesis.


I've always wondered why young earth creationists mention fossils at all. If the Earth is only 6,000 years old (which is what young earthers claim), where did they come from? They use the fossil record to criticize evolution, but they have no fossils of modern creatures -- where's the pig fossil, the chicken fossil, the dog fossil? If all these organisms have been here since the gitgo, where are their fossils? And there are no fossils showing carved bone -- primitive fish hooks and sewing needles we find in an unfossilized state. If it only takes 6,000 years for things to fossilized, where are they? Why is it that very few animals that aren't extinct have been fossilized?

These questions are better off ignored, which is what Wise basically advises:

Believers don't have to understand all the details of science in order to understand the creation account; they just have to rely on God.

"The most important thing is that you ought to be able to trust your God and the claims the Bible makes. I know most people don't understand what in the world the scientists are saying. That's OK. Just pay attention to what God says. If you trust what God has given us, it becomes an appropriate foundation for every aspect of our lives."

As believers examine science, the most important thing they can remember is to always pay attention to Scripture above any scientist, Wise said.

"The most important thing is, regardless of what all the scientists are saying, the Bible is true and you can accept it by faith," he said. "God is only pleased with faith, as a matter of fact. To trust the scientists is not faith. It is, in fact, trusting in man's reason rather than God."


So, ignore all that 'science' crap and listen to biblical 'experts'. Science will only confuse you -- which pretty much describes Wise's condition.

Richard Dawkins:

[Kurt Wise] volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wise—and presumably others like him who are less candid—has suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon.


I always say that belief in something for which there is no evidence is faith; belief in something for which there is contrary evidence is delusion. Luckily for Wise, he can stay away from the area that would most challenge his faith in creationism -- the real world -- and protect his delusion. Creationists have a real hard time applying their theories in the field.

We can see this in an exchange between a young earth advocate from the John Morris of the Institute for Creation research and former creationist geologist Glenn Morton, now working in the field for the oil industry.

Glenn Morton (emphasis added):

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!

John Morris came to the stage to challenge me. He claimed to have been in the oil industry. I asked him what oil company he had worked for. I am going to let an account of this published in the Skeptical Inquirer in late 86 or early 87. It was written by Robert Schadewald. He writes,

"John Morris went to the microphone and identified himself as a petroleum geologist. He questioned Morton's claim that pollen grains are found in salt formations, and accused Morton of sounding like an anticreationist, raising more problems than his critics could respond to in the time available. Morris said that the ICR staff is working on these problems all the time. He told Morton to quit raising problems and start solving them. "Morton chopped him off at the ankles. Two questions, said Morton: 'What oil company did you work for?' Well, uh, actually Morris never worked for an oil company, but he once taught petroleum engineering at the University of Oklahoma. Second, How old is the Earth?' 'If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.' Morton then said that he had hired several graduates of Christian Heritage College, and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. The were utterly unprepared to face the geologic facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis. Morton neglected to add that ICR is much better known for ignoring or denying problems than dealing with them."


Which is why people like Wise can sit safely in their Creation Museums, hold young earth conferences, and throw mud at Darwin -- they don't have to actually apply their 'science.' The fact of the matter is that none of their stuff works in the field -- it's the science they dispute that works. People who dispute evolution and accepted geology aren't out finding oil or working for mining companies, creating vaccines or working to advance agriculture. They sit on their minds and complain about accepted science that actually works.

--Wisco


Technorati tags: ; ; ; ; ; calls for a "" -- even is can't actually get it to work

(photo courtesy of PBS)

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course it does not work, but what I really wish if we can somehow keep these creationists from having a comfortable life and privileges on our evolved science.

elroy said...

LOL! I'd be behind that. My creationist brother has loves his hi-tech gadgets and prescription drugs, but "doesn't believe in science".

connotation said...

Ok, lets throw aside the creationists view. Lets pretend it never existed. Tell me, how on earth--(like that) did we get here. Because science clearly does not prove the theory of evolution. In fact, the theory has tried to stand on many legs, and as yet all of them have fallen. What does science say? Instead of getting uptight about another view point, be more scientific in your approach and seek to prove what you believe in.

Wisco said...

The above is an excellent example of the average creationist -- doesn't know crap about science, but more that happy to tell everyone what is and isn't "scientific."

Evolution doesn't explain life on Earth because that's not what evolution is. Evolution is the gradual change over time that resulted in the various species. It's got jack to do with the origins of life.

Of course, our friend here -- who's extremely happy to lecture us on evolutionary science -- doesn't know this. Whoever it is, they're more than happy to remain ignorant and gets bent out of shape when everyone else isn't ignorant as well.

connotation said...

really? the two previous comments before mine aren't ignorant and don't come across as "bent outta shape" but my comment does? How so? Okay, evolution is the supposed "mechanism" for how we went from simple to more complex...and, as you say, has "jack" to do with the origin of life. So how did this supposed mechanism start (origin)? You can't just ignore what happened before that. What is the driving force behind wanting to go from simple to complex..what's behind that? And evolution does not prove how we have different species(darwinian evolution). Evolution only shows, through natural selection, variation within the same species...not a change to a different one. Those finches are still finches. Show me one transitional form, show me a mutation that produces a positive change. These are supposed theories. Natural selection is obvious and occurs before us. But there is no "molecules to man" change, from a form of life to a higher one. Slap a million years on it and all it does is give you more time to think about other ways to make this theory work. By the way I never said I was a creationist..i meerly was trying to get people away from badgering one side without scientific knowledge. I do, however, fail to see evolution as a catalyst that brought life from primitive stages to what we see now. Give me a proof, really.

Wisco said...

really? the two previous comments before mine aren't ignorant and don't come across as "bent outta shape" but my comment does? How so?

Because they're not upset that no one thinks the world is flat.

Okay, evolution is the supposed "mechanism" for how we went from simple to more complex...and, as you say, has "jack" to do with the origin of life. So how did this supposed mechanism start (origin)? You can't just ignore what happened before that.

Why not? Evolution explains speciation -- it's not about the origin of life. This is like complaining that trigonometry doesn't explain percentages. Wrong tool, wrong job.

What is the driving force behind wanting to go from simple to complex..what's behind that? And evolution does not prove how we have different species(darwinian evolution). Evolution only shows, through natural selection, variation within the same species...not a change to a different one.

More ignorance. Here's a few examples of observed speciation -- i.e., the variation within a species resulting in a new species. I don't know where you got your argument, but you might want to ask yourself why your source is lying to you.

Those finches are still finches. Show me one transitional form, show me a mutation that produces a positive change.

I just did.

These are supposed theories. Natural selection is obvious and occurs before us. But there is no "molecules to man" change, from a form of life to a higher one.

There's no such thing as a "higher one," only a different one. There is no yardstick to measure how "evolved" something is. Once again, you betray your ignorance.

Slap a million years on it and all it does is give you more time to think about other ways to make this theory work. By the way I never said I was a creationist..i meerly was trying to get people away from badgering one side without scientific knowledge.

I'm not sure whether hypocrisy is dangerous, but you might want to get yourself checked -- you just took one helluva dose.

I do, however, fail to see evolution as a catalyst that brought life from primitive stages to what we see now. Give me a proof, really.

A tremendous waste of time. You're a moonie about this -- nothing will ever change your mind.

Here's a fun game; hold creationism to the same standard that you hold evolution. Creationism has no evidence and there's no venue for discovery.

If there's no reason to believe in evolution, then there damned sure isn't any reason to buy creationism. If you hold it up to the same scrutiny that creationsists hold evolution, there's absolutely, positively, no honest way you can say it does anything other than fail.

connotation said...

I will ignore the first part of your ignorant response--you didn't even answer it (sarcasm is funny but it doens't prove anything). You are funny though, you just want to ignore parts of science because you can't explain it. But, okay, for your sake we will ignore that and deal only with evolution as it "explains speciation" as you say. What we observe is subspeciation (variation within type), never transpeciation (change from one type to another). What you have is a theory (which is fine) and you test it (science) but what do the results prove? In this case it only shows hybrids and variations within the same species. How does that prove macro evolution? Did you even read the link you posted? Note figure 3.0...a substancial lack of proof...only theories and possibilities...unknowns. But there again they throw in "we can't see it happen because it takes too long for our lifetime." All you have is "maybes and possibliites" which isn't wrong in itself but you cannot conclude from that a proven fact. And you didn't answer my question correctly (when i asked for proof of positive mutations and transitional forms..you just said "i showed you"...where? Yes things change, variation occurs, but you have the concepts wrong with the big idea. Take the wolf/dog group long ago...for simplicity take a male (abc genes) with a female (def genes)..their offspring would be a mixture..as time and breeding goes on you eventually end up with a loss in gene data and end up with pure breeds aaa group and bbb group..etc. (which by the way are more susceptible to disease than mixes). Not new info to create a new species. In order for a new species to arise you need these supposed theories to work (mixed with tons of time that we can't live out humanly). Well we can't see that, we see variation within the same dog/wolf...not starting to form into a lizard or something. So we look to the past (bones)..what do we see?..variation within type. Not transitional forms of species. And how many mutations do you know of that do good instead of harm. Its just not possible. They are good theories and thats what science is about (testing them), but the proof is not there. I suggest you actually do some research before debating, instead of throwing links out there that you haven't taken the time to read. Speciation does not prove macroevolution...and your link only shows the study of speciation and how hybirds of the same species show variation within thier own type when artificially intervened. you have different flowers and cooler flys, not flylizards and flowertrees. You're trying to make everything fit into an idea..a theory without actually looking at the facts of it all.

Wisco said...

Boy, did you ever waste your time.

Get back to me when you're willing to hold creationism to the same standard you hold evolution to -- i.e., prove one creationist claim true.

Until then, you're nothing but a world class hypocrite. Stop wasting my time, cultist. I've got better things to do than entertain some flat earther who thinks he's a fucking genius.

connotation said...

:)...really? that's all you have to say? Ok, I'll leave you alone to do some studying then. Interesting, no rebuttal...only angry frustration. Why did you post this blog? Did you read somewhere a few pages out of a text book and decide to ignorantly write a blog on such topics without ever wanting to discuss or refute it with people? Or is this a "our view doesn't make sense so lets bash another without scientific fact." Well, keep up the good work then. And again I never said i was a creationist...but you obviously like to take things out of context and keep circling around the same words without any sceintific knowledge or substance. :) till next time.

Anonymous said...

To the person who first said: "Of course it does not work, but what I really wish if we can somehow keep these creationists from having a comfortable life and privileges on our evolved science." --that's wrong man. Doesn't matter what you believe that's pretty ignorant to say.

Anonymous said...

Wisco: even though creation science is a theory at best itself, I have to admit, you didn't really argue very well with connotation. connotation actually described science. Though i'd never agree with all of that, it proves some interesting points, and seems to have only made you upset. Might wanna re-think your tactics there wisco.

a;sldkfjsdk said...

I can see why they say Evolutionary theory can become like a religion. This page proves it. Doesn't show much regard to another view and poses only to a desire to make their belief true and keep out all others. Kinda cultish in a way towards you wisco.

Wisco said...

I seem to have really pissed off the knuckle-dragging flatearthers.

"Creation science" isn't a science. In fact, it's not even a theory. It's a hypothesis -- and a pretty lousy one.

In an earlier comment, I challenge another commenter to prove one creationist claim true.

Crickets.

Get back to me when you've got something, culties.

Anonymous said...

I don't know what everyone else thinks but you can't prove either one! You can't prove God exists and you can't prove that we evolved, plain and simple. All there is is science and facts. Call me agnostic, but I don't really see any other way. You're all a little f*$%ed-up and ignorant. Peace.

Anonymous said...

Hi, I just read all of this, and I'd like to leave a few decent thoughts behind, regardless of whether anyone responds to them or not...


One, I am your average intelligent student who understands Evolution and believes it to be a good theory.

Two, I also have a good understanding of logic and arguments and while I would never have thought this to be the case: It seems that connotation, arguing Devil's advocate to what I can clearly see is a stuck-up bloggist, has thoroughly trashed you wisco in spite of the fact that science is on your side.

This, ladies and gentleman, only proves that we cannot just take any one theory for granted. Rather, if we wish for others to accept our theories as fact, we must have plenty of evidence, facts, and logic in order to properly argue our points.

connotation, if you read this, know that I am very impressed with your logic and I also believe you when you say you are not a creationist. I hope to enjoy some hearty arguments with you soon. :3

Faretheewell fellow bloggists!

~Your friendly neighborhood anonymous forum lurker.