What Are Creationists Afraid Of?

Third, complexity does not imply “design.” One of Adam Smith’s most powerful insights, developed further by Friedrich Hayek, is that incredible complexity can emerge in society without a designer or planner, through “spontaneous order.” Hayek showed how in a free market the complex processes of producing and distributing goods and services to millions of individuals do not require socialist planners. Rather, individuals pursuing their own self-interest in a system governed by a few basic rules—property rights, voluntary exchange by contract—have produced all the vast riches of the Western world.

Many creationists who are on the political Right understand the logic of this insight with respect to economic complexity. Why, then, is it such a stretch for them to appreciate that the complexity we find in the physical world—the optic nerve, for example—can emerge over millions of years under the rule of natural laws that govern genetic mutations and the adaptability of life forms to changing environments? It is certainly curious that many conservative creationists do not appreciate that the same insights that show the futility of a state-designed economy also show the irrelevance of an “intelligently designed” universe.

Many early proponents of science and evolution were on the political Left. For example, the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 affirmed support for evolution and the scientific approach. But its article fourteen stated: “The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible.”

Subsequent humanist manifestos in 1973 and 2000 went lighter on the explicit socialism but still endorsed, along with a critical approach to knowledge, the kind of welfare-state democracy and internationalism rejected by conservatives. The unfortunate historical association of science and socialism is based in part on the erroneous conviction that if humans can use scientific knowledge to design machines and technology, why not an entire economy?

Further, many supporters of evolution were or appeared to be value-relativists or subjectivists. For example, Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes in the “monkey trial” eight decades ago, also defended Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. These two young amoralists pictured themselves as supermen above conventional morality; they decided to commit the perfect crime and killed a fourteen-year-old boy. Darrow offered the jury the standard liberal excuses for the atrocity. He argued that the killers were under the influence of Nietzschean philosophy, and that to give them the death penalty would hurt their surviving families. “I am pleading for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all,” he said. “I am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love.” This is the sort of abrogation of personal responsibility, denial of moral culpability, and rejection of the principle of justice that offends religious conservatives—in fact, every moral individual, religious or atheist.

In addition, nearly all agnostics and atheists accept the validity of evolution. Creationists, as religious fundamentalists, therefore see evolution and atheism tied together to destroy the basis of morality. For one thing, evolution seems to erase the distinction between humans and animals. Animals are driven by instincts; they are not responsible for their actions. So we don’t blame cats for killing mice, lions for killing antelope, or orca whales for killing seals. It’s what they do. They follow instincts to satisfy urges to eat and procreate. But if human beings evolved from lower animals, then we might be merely animals—and so there would be no basis for morality. In which case, anything goes.

To religious fundamentalists, then, agnostics and atheists must be value-relativists and subjectivists. Whether they accept evolution because they reject a belief in God, or reject a belief in God because they accept evolution, is immaterial: the two beliefs are associated, just as are creationism and theism. By this view, the only firm basis for morality is the divine edicts of a god.

This reflects the creationists’ fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of morality.

We humans are what we are today regardless of whether we evolved, were created, or were intelligently designed. We have certain characteristics that define our nature.

We are Homo sapiens. Unlike lower animals, we have a rational capacity, an ability to fully, conceptually understand the world around us. We are self-conscious. We are the animal that knows—and knows that he knows. We do not survive automatically, by instinct, but must exercise the virtue of rationality. We must think. We must discover how to acquire food—through hunting or planting—how to make shelters, how to invent medicines. And to acquire such knowledge, we must adopt a rational methodology: science.

Furthermore, our thinking does not occur automatically. We have free will and must choose to think, to focus our minds, to be honest rather than to evade facts that make us uncomfortable—evolution, for example—because reality is what it is, whether we like it or acknowledge it or not.

But we humans do not exercise our minds and our wills for mere physical survival. We have a capacity for a joy and flourishing far beyond the mere sensual pleasures experienced by lower animals. Such happiness comes from planning our long-term goals, challenging ourselves, calling on the best within us, and achieving those goals—whether we seek to nurture a business to profitability or a child to adulthood, whether we seek to create a poem or a business plan, whether we seek to design a building or to lay the bricks for its foundation.

But our most important creation is our moral character, the habits and attitudes that govern our actions. A good character helps us to be happy, a bad one guarantees us misery. And what guides us in creating such a character? What tells us how we should deal with our fellow humans?

A code of values, derived from our nature and requirements as rational, responsible creatures possessing free will.

We need not fear that with evolution, or without a god, there is no basis for ethics. There is an objective basis for ethics, but it does not reside in the heavens. It arises from our own human nature and its objective requirements.

Creationists and advocates of intelligent design come to their beliefs in part through honest errors and in part from evasions of facts and close-minded dogmatism. But we should appreciate that one of their motivations might be a proper rejection of value-relativism, and a mistaken belief that acceptance of divine revelation is the only moral alternative.

If we can demonstrate to them that the basis for ethics lies in our nature as rational, volitional creatures, then perhaps we can also reassure them that men can indeed have morality—yet never fear to use that wondrous capacity which allows us to understand our own origins, the world around us, and the moral nature within us.

In your post #884 you had a long screed which contained a number of errors in one of the fields in which I work.

In particular, you included the following paragraph:

In radio carbon dating it works on the basis of carbon 12 and carbon 14 atoms. The accumulation of one in life and their release upon death. And the other is slowly gained after death -- yet after a certain year in the 1700's the dating is noticeably off with items that historically were named and dated and then dated by carbon 14 and this shift becomes father and father off the farther back items are dated. we can talk potassium agron dating or whatever they are all inherently flawed and and produce less and less reliable results the father the dating is extended. Dr Libby who pioneered radio Carbon dating in the 1940's in his own writings noted these flaws. And in the 1970's and 1980's a living mollusk was placed in carbon dating and declared dead for a million + years in the 1990's trees along California highways were cut down and samples were carbon dated and these read as being over a million years old. All of these methods are based upon a constant. A constant is a baseline that remains the same for all time. However in the past 50 years there has been a large rise of carbon 12 in the atmosphere. No body in the 1600's or on 1 ad or 6000 bc was able to take carbon 14 levels to assume they were always the same is very poor science. Volcanos spew hundreds of tons of this and ozone depleteing clorofloro carbons in a single belch. Mount Pinotubo in the Philippines in that one blast emmitted more florochloro carbons that the us had made from the 1940's until the year 2000 -- (that was repeatedly posted here on FR) the carbon 12 emitted was more than the production of carbon 12 in california from 1900-2000 and the earth has had thousands of said eruptions -- how have those altered the ecology of the earth -- how have those altered the level of carbon 12 and carbon 14 by casuing it to rise and rise?

In post #891 I responded:

Son, this is the biggest pile of garbage on Carbon 14 dating I have ever seen in one place.
I do a lot of radiocarbon dating in my work. If you want to actually discuss any of these items I will be happy to help you, but first you have to have some idea of what you are talking about. Read these links and you can try again (hint--take a look at the tree-ring section). [Links omitted in this repost.]

You then came back in #905 with (in part):

We sorry son but all of that was from text books and quotes from Dr libby and leading scientists that pioreered this stuff that was written in the late 1970's and 1980's and if memoy seves you can find most of this cited in a single book called "Crash go the Chariots" by I can't recall the man's first name it might have been clifford but his last name was "Wilson" the mentioning of the book is only for puroposes that in simplitic terms these things are explained along with conctrete references. ...
Calling the words you cited as "garbage" calls now into question your expertise in the field and the position you supposedly hold. ...
Now I see the depth of your intellectual dishonesty in your last statements I see you not only are not an originalist and have not read Darwin and can not make your arguements from his words and writings but you don't cite Dr Libby his writings or words and his colleagues writings to refute my words becasue you have not read their words and if you did, you could still not refute my words. ...

First, you are probably replying to several people at once, as my post dealt only with Carbon 14 dating.

Secondly, you called my expertise and intellectual honesty into question. In order to defend these, I will examine the errors I found in your paragraph, which I did not do in my original post (#891). Note, this is the only paragraph I responded to; you will have to take up other issues with those who raised them.

In radio carbon dating it works on the basis of carbon 12 and carbon 14 atoms. The accumulation of one in life and their release upon death. And the other is slowly gained after death

The ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 14 is relatively stable in the atmosphere. All living things absorb carbon, and so the ratio in living things closely approximates that in the atmosphere. When an organism dies, the Carbon 14, being radioactive, decays over time--it is not released, as you state. With a half life of 5730 years, half of the original amount decays into Carbon 12 with each 5730 years. No additional Carbon 14 is gained after death.

yet after a certain year in the 1700's the dating is noticeably off with items that historically were named and dated and then dated by carbon 14 and this shift becomes father and father off the farther back items are dated.

The dating is not noticeable off because radiocarbon dates are calibrated against the calibration curve, which accounts for atmospheric variation. This curve has been established using individual tree-rings from bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of California and from another site in Europe. It extends 11,600 years into the past. Beyond that, the curve is established on glacial varves, and goes in excess of 20,000 years.

we can talk potassium agron dating or whatever they are all inherently flawed and and produce less and less reliable results the father the dating is extended.

I deal only in radiocarbon dating.

Dr Libby who pioneered radio Carbon dating in the 1940's in his own writings noted these flaws.

Dr. Libby's work is read primarily for historical interest now. The field has advanced greatly since his pioneering efforts. The primary journal now is Radiocarbon, and there are some good recent books as well.

And in the 1970's and 1980's a living mollusk was placed in carbon dating and declared dead for a million + years in the 1990's trees along California highways were cut down and samples were carbon dated and these read as being over a million years old.

Because Carbon 14 is such a small part of the total carbon pool, and because of its short half life of 5730 years, the radiocarbon dating method cannot be used past about 50,000 years (although some labs are trying to extend the AMS method back to about 80,000 years). Because of this, you simply cannot get a date anywhere close to a million years. Dates which extend beyond the range are often cited as ">40,000" or some such.

All of these methods are based upon a constant. A constant is a baseline that remains the same for all time. However in the past 50 years there has been a large rise of carbon 12 in the atmosphere.

Radiocarbon dating is calibrated (that is, conventional radiocarbon age is converted to calendar dates) by reference to a calibration curve. The need for this has been known since 1958. This corrects for the variations in atmospheric Carbon 14. Therefore, with calibration, the dates are quite accurate. But, the atomic testing beginning in the 1940s makes modern samples quite unreliable. The calibration curve goes off the chart at about A.D. 1950. No scientist is going to use post-WWII samples without knowing about the need for a different calibration curve.

No body in the 1600's or on 1 ad or 6000 bc was able to take carbon 14 levels to assume they were always the same is very poor science.

Dr. Libby, who you quote several times, assumed the levels were the same--as a pioneering effort he had to start somewhere. Since de Vries (1958) we have known there are variations. That is the reason so much effort has been put into the calibration curves. They are calculated in 1 year increments for the last 350 years, and larger increments for the next 11,000+ years.

In addition to the calibration curve, there are other ways of improving the accuracy of dating. Isotopic fractionation is taken into account, and samples which employ marine carbon (sea shells, for example) must take a marine reservoir of old carbon into account.

Volcanos spew hundreds of tons of this and ozone depleteing clorofloro carbons in a single belch. Mount Pinotubo in the Philippines in that one blast emmitted more florochloro carbons that the us had made from the 1940's until the year 2000 -- (that was repeatedly posted here on FR) the carbon 12 emitted was more than the production of carbon 12 in california from 1900-2000 and the earth has had thousands of said eruptions -- how have those altered the ecology of the earth -- how have those altered the level of carbon 12 and carbon 14 by casuing it to rise and rise?

Again, this shows the need for a calibration curve. But why would we worry about Carbon 12 being emitted from Mount Pinatubo? We worry about Carbon 14, which is created in the outer atmosphere.

I hope this helps to clarify any questions of expertise and intellectual honesty. (Note: I have used no cut-and-paste. This is all from my own studies and learning.)

Read German thinking about the "Blond Beast" and national struggle and it's hard not to think that the atmosphere of early Darwinism had an effect on the events leading up to the First World War. It was similar in other countries.

There was a kind of "biological nationalism" rife at the time. Heinrich von Treitschke and Friedrich von Bernhardi were examples. Maybe you can call it social darwinism or vulgar darwinism or "small d darwinism" as opposed to Official Darwinism, but it left a bad taste in a lot of people's memories.

I don't say that darwinism caused the war or that nominally Christian rulers didn't have a lot to do with it. But darwinism was part of the mix. And it was even more important in provoking the Second World War.

It's fashionable to say that Darwin's theories didn't have much to do with social darwinism or vulgar darwinism, but it doesn't stand up. There were undoubted connections (Interesting article by someone who has no love for Christianity or Intelligent Design). People would be on surer ground to say that the dangerous detours darwinism took don't correspond to today's image of Darwinism, but that's something very different and much less reassuring.

Darwin was young and unknown when Britain abolished slavery, and only coming into prominence when the US did. Evangelicals had a lot to do with the abolition of slavery. The idea of evolution or progress that inspired them was far from what Darwin propounded. It was evolution as moral improvement, something as far from Darwinism as from Marxism.

I can't claim to be an expert on evolution but I do remember some of what I learned in school, and that provides enough reason for distrust of the effects of Darwin on society. I'm not saying that Darwinism is evil or permanently tarnished by the darker side of its history, just that there is reason to be concerned about its past.

The same is true of religion as well, but it's not the religious who will have control of genetic engineering.

I'll try to respond as well as I can below:

I just read you last post and I have a few questions. How does Carbon dating take into account leeching of contaminate elements into the test subject? Water, runoff, earth elements, etc.?

The only things (other than outright radioactives) that would seriously bother Carbon 14 dating are contaminants with various forms of carbon. For example, charcoal specimens are pre-treated in the laboratory to remove soil humus and rootlets. Shell samples are pre-treated by cooking off a sizable percentage of the surface with acids (removing rootlets, fingerprints, carbon in the soil, etc.).

One additional way of ascertaining the validity of a sample is the isotopic fractionation, in which you measure the C13/C12 ratio. Marine shell will often be about 1 o/oo (measured against an oxalic acid standard); charcoal will be about -25 on the same scale. If you submit what you think is charcoal and get a -13 reading, you know something is seriously wrong with the sample.

Another trick is never submit just one sample. As Carbon 14 is generally used on archaeological sites, it is usually possible to submit multiple samples and evaluate each against the other. If you get a nice progression of dates, increasing in age with depth, you tend to trust things more.

I have seen tons of info on carbon dating and I am not a expert, but it sounds like you are. If an object to be dated is found in situ, what is done to verify that no carbon is lost or gained into said object over the time it spent in its resting place?

For most materials this is not a problem. A greater problem is not being sure of what you are dating. A small piece of carbon loose in midden soil is not your best material. A feature containing shell, bone, and charcoal all together (such as a fire pit) would be ideal. You date all three materials and if they agree closely you can have some confidence in the results.

I also read about the circular dating of objects via carbon dating by using the layer if was found in and othe simmilar object to "triangulate" dating.

This is a good technique. If you understand the soil layering you have a better chance of understanding your site. Also, artifacts change in style and type through time; these also are useful time stratigraphic markers. However, gophers can undo the nicest stratigraphy. That is why dating samples should be single pieces, not a handful of shell or bulk soil. An exception would be a feature, such as a hearth, in which materials will be restricted to a limited time period.

When multiple dates are given on the same object, some are rejected and some are published. This interests me very much and would like to know more about the process itself.

Most of the time multiple dates on the same object group closely. If not, there may be some clue in the C13/C12 ratio. We have found that the largest cause of error in dating is poor sample selection--the labs do an outstanding job, but if you send them junk your resulting date will be worse than useless.

One of the real keys to doing dating is to build up a large database and critique it constantly. Make sure each sample is reliable. Do a lot of dates. That way errors can be identified and eliminated. If you have a site dating 5,000 years (based on a dozen or so dates) and you get one date of 8,000 years, you should doubt that date until you can get some additional verification. Finding another sample which dates at 6,500 years would be a big help. Other methods of dating can be from stratigraphy (if the 8,000 year old date is from a deeper level it may be considered more likely to be correct). If some other method of dating (artifacts, obsidian, and several pretty esoteric ones such as thermoluminescence) suggests the older age is accurate that helps too.

It is very dangerous to do one date and think you know much about a site.

How much does geology, hydrology stratigraphy and other scientific fields lend itself to choosing the right date if multiple dates are found on a object from the various carbon dating methods? Some of these questions might be vague, lame or not relevent, but I am again, admitting I am not a scientist, so please bear with me. Thanks for any info.

These subjects, except for hydrology, are pretty important. The younger and simpler your site is, the less you might need all of these. A claimed old site had better have lots of these kinds of studies. The older the claim, the better your documentation should be.

You mention "various carbon dating methods" but there are only two primary methods: standard dating, which has been used for years, and AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy), which is newer. The latter can make use of very small samples, down to the milligram level, so that permits multiple dates from even a small specimen.

The real place that you get variables is in sample selection. Good, clean samples are conducive to good dates. Multiple samples from each layer of a site is important. If the dating is done well, with no bulk soil samples or multiple-piece samples, and careful sample selection, the results are usually pretty good--but sometimes you need a lot of samples to figure out a complex stratigraphy. Not doing enough dates is one of the common problems, as the darn things are expensive! The main lab in the US charges $305 for a standard specimen and $595 for an AMS specimen.

Where most of the odd results come from is isolated specimens and specimens at the upper extreme of the dating technique, currently about 50,000 years. With isolated specimens you have only the one sample, and no good context to work with. And you generally don't know where its been!

At the extremes of the dating range, the amount of Carbon 14 remaining is so small that contamination will almost always be a serious problem. At that age, ground water and just about anything else can cause enough contamination for a totally inert material (fossil dinosaur bone, coal, etc.) to just barely register on the C14 scale. This is why you can get ">45,000 years" or some such silly reading on a dinosaur bone or petrified wood.

This kind of problem is far less serious at 5,000 or 10,000 years, where most of the dating is done. (In the US, I would estimate that probably 50% of all cultural dates are less than 1,500 or so years old.)

Anyway, I hope this helps. Since this is long anyway, let me repost the links I gave a couple hundred posts upthread:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists
The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Too bad you didn't understand it.

Yes, of course, when all else fails resort to ad hominem.

How very clever.

I used to be clever like you, so I know how superior you feel.

Nobody ever did address the more philosophical challenges of my post.

But God has a few words for such clever folks.

"How can you believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that comes from God only?" (the words of Jesus in The Gospel According to John 5:44)
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. (from Paul's first letter to the Church at Corinth, 1:20, 26-29)
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (from Paul's second letter to Timothy 3:7)
For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.(from the book of Acts 17:21)

This is just a bunch of superstitious hooey to you, I'm sure, as it once was to me.

I pray that God will open your eyes and your heart.

Somebody prayed that for me, too, and God mercifully answered that prayer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.