Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Canard after canard is put forth. it's a world view fight where there can never be anything wrong or descrepant, and that's troublesome."

And of course, you will enlighten us as to what each canard is? :)

[goldstategop]

We've great advances since the Dark Ages and the findings of science upset some people. Actually, we owe Darwin a huge debt. When scientists casted aside errors and misconceptions, the state of human knowledge advanced. And one can confidently say there are no limits to what can be discovered in the future.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[Gumlegs]

With the wax on the floors still wet, no doubt.

[bvw]

I'm happy you'd allow that scientists can pursue whatever they wish. That would be happy for all, unless you are taking that full license back by saying that does NOT include presuming action by a Designer, G-d.

I'm going to break out your (2) into three and respond to each.

1. "Biology can only deal with the observable and testable."

   Yes, that is Darinistic claim, and it comes out of biology, or rather the mindset of biologists -- especially those invloved in classification. I've covered that bit about mindset already, so I'll leave it alone here.

   For biology this claim seems to have more validity than for other sciences, where the not-so-observable and not at all testable has consideration. See point next. Yet even in biology -- especially when it deals with fossils and even with complex issues of complex systems, observability and testability are reduced to ballparkian induction and what-if games.

2. "Every science, can only deal with the observable and testable."

   Not at all. Super strings, multi-verses in physics, complex interrealtions in complex systems in all sciences, mathematics, psychology, psychiatry -- all are sciences where valid lines of intellectual pursuit are not necessarily observable or testable. As Karl Popper said about natural selection itself they are valid as "metaphysical research projects."

3. "God doesn't fit either of those criteria."

   That, is your opinion. It may be shared by many but also to many, including myself, it is an opinion we do not share. For instant case I will say that G-d is obvious to me in the sheer unlikelyness by all known explanations by physics, chemistry ad biology of all we are being just as we are.

[PatrickHenry]

Perhaps PatrickHenry will institute Polka night at the cafeteria - Friday nights along with the fish fry.

I gave a memo to the Grand Master, informing him that you suggested a Polka night. All he did was raise his eyebrows slightly, then he tossed your memo into the fireplace.

Sorry, no Polka night. Darwin Central is above that sort of thing. But it is permitted to go bowling on your days off.

[cookcounty]

" Virtually all biologists consider the existence of evolution to be a fact."

What a phony straw-man. The ultimate scarecrow non-argument.

Everyone including IDers and even 6-day YECers, believes that evolution explains some, most, or all biological diversity. The difference is that "Big E" evolutionists are convinced that evolution alone can explain all biological diversity, and are consequently the dogmatists. They are the ones who regard dissent as heresy, and are fearful that people may have doubts.

[furball4paws]

Aren't you in charge of the floors?

[bvw]

Yes, now go take any you have down, and also take down the roof over you head as well. In fact go naked into the fields with your family. Be like the lillies on the field. Dig little holes and plant your naked feet therein. Right? Do I summarize your intent accurately?

[ex-snook]

"Big E" evolutionists are convinced that evolution alone can explain all biological diversity, and are consequently the dogmatists. " -

Invincible Ignorance

[furball4paws]

Do we get new, "Darwin Central" bowling shirts? We can polka right after the bowling alley closes.

[Gumlegs]

Yes. It's how I can speak so authoritatively about the wax. Fortunately, your Polka Night idea is now warming the Grand Master, which is about the best possible outcome.

[Eagles6]

Darwin himself said that he was observing and commenting on God's creation. Would you allow that to be taught in a public school class on his works? After all we cannot teach evolution without alluding to Darwin.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm happy you'd allow that scientists can pursue whatever they wish. That would be happy for all, unless you are taking that full license back by saying that does NOT include presuming action by a Designer, G-d."

They can pursue whatever they wish, but God is outside of the scope of science. And *presuming* action by a designer is likewise untestable and therefore outside the scope of science. People can do whatever they wish however, whether it's scientific or not.

"Yes, that is Darinistic claim, and it comes out of biology, or rather the mindset of biologists -- especially those invloved in classification. I've covered that bit about mindset already, so I'll leave it alone here."

No, it's the mindset of all scientists, who only deal with the observable and the testable.

"For biology this claim seems to have more validity than for other sciences, where the not-so-observable and not at all testable has consideration. See point next."

No, it's true of all science.

"Yet even in biology -- especially when it deals with fossils and even with complex issues of complex systems, observability and testability are reduced to ballparkian induction and what-if games."

No, it's not at all.

"Super strings, multi-verses in physics, complex interrealtions in complex systems in all sciences, mathematics, psychology, psychiatry -- all are sciences where valid lines of intellectual pursuit are not necessarily observable or testable."

That's false. In fact, nobody has directly observed an atom.

" As Karl Popper said about natural selection itself they are valid as "metaphysical research projects."

Which, despite your lies, does not mean *supernatural* or *religious*. In fact, Popper changed his mind and did NOT consider natural selection a metaphysical research programme after he properly understood it.

" That, is your opinion."

No, it's a fact. God is neither observable or testable.

"For instant case I will say that G-d is obvious to me in the sheer unlikelyness by all known explanations by physics, chemistry ad biology of all we are being just as we are."

And in that God claim is neither observable or testable.

[furball4paws]

Would you prefer the Ox Trot?

[DoctorMichael]

Good article! I agree (almost) completely!

".....nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals......"

For the most part, "Yes", however, they would LOVE to slip their dribble into a reputable journal.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Darwin himself said that he was observing and commenting on God's creation."

He was an agnostic who didn't believe that God was knowable.

[Gumlegs]

Preference has nothing to do with it. It's the only dance I'm capable of.

[PatrickHenry]

Do we get new, "Darwin Central" bowling shirts? We can polka right after the bowling alley closes.

How can we continue to rule the world if our agents are running around in bowling shirts and dashing off to do the polka? Even the janitorial pool has more class than that. Have you been hanging around with creationists?

[aNYCguy]

I checked three of your supposed sources for your claim that "Molecular anthropologists are coming to believe that homo sapiens sapiens originated in one location between 40 and 60,000 years ago," and noticed that two did not regard the origin and/or diaspora of modern humans. The third mentioned human origins and contradicted your claim.

The first source I checked is (Nila Patil et al., "Blocks of Limited Halotypoe[sic] Diversity Revealed by High Resolution Scanning of Human Chromosome 21", Science 294 (2001) 1719 - 1723)

This is a statistical experiment in common SNPs, potentially useful in the future for things like identifying genetic disease associations. What's the relevance? Nowhere in this article is anything regarding the origin of our species mentioned, nor timelines guessed at. Here's the last two sentences:

"Our results indicate that a very dense set of SNPs is required to capture all the common haplotype information. Once in hand, however, this information can be used to identify much smaller subsets of SNPs useful for comprehensive whole-genome association studies."

How, exactly, does this support your assertion that "Molecular anthropologists are coming to believe that homo sapiens sapiens originated in one location between 40 and 60,000 years ago?" Did you read this article before you offered it as evidence?

Second: Mary Clair King and Arno G Motulsky, "Mapping Human History", Science 298 (2002) 2342 - 2343)

This is an overview of previous studies on population genetics, and also does not make any mention of timelines for human origin or migration. It is essentially a summation of some previous studies with a short discussion on whether ethnicity is a medically useful descriptor. Where, exactly, does it provide support for your assertion? Are you picking these sources at random from Google?

Third: (Carl Zimmer, "After You Eve", Natural History, March 2001, 32-35)

This is a blog entry which includes a primer on mitochondrial DNA, a chat about his wife's pregnancy, and a mention of a couple studies, one of which put mitochondrial Eve at 200,000 years ago, and the most recent of which put her at 170,000 years ago. I suppose this is the closest your sources have gotten to supporting your statement on origins, since this one actually mentions origins. Unfortunately, the mentioned studies dispute your claim.

I'm not going to bother checking the rest of your list, so why don't you just quote me your source which says that "Molecular anthropologists are coming to believe that homo sapiens sapiens originated in one location between 40 and 60,000 years ago?" While you're replying, could you please explain why you included sources totally unrelated to, or contradicting, your claim? Did you hope no one would read them and take your word for it?

[furball4paws]

Too bad, polka, beer, brats and bowling all seem to fit so nice.

Now, what can we do with the OxTrot? Have the cafeteria serve up one of their more moving entrees? Cafe Ex Lax? We'll have to make sure b_sharp's got the stalls ready.