Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)

Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[billorites]

Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.

Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.

It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.

The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.

The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale

[edsheppa]

Where is it written in stone that philosophical questions can't be "secondary" to other questions?

Nowhere. In fact definition 4 says exactly that and, since it was the point I was making, I don't know why you ask me this. I guess I wasn't clear somehow so I will try to be as clear as possible. I think it is a mistake to say that a scientific theory is philosophical but it is correct to say that there are philosophies behind scientific theories.

Do you consider the equation F=ma a philosophical statement? How about the statement that momentum is conserved? I don't think either is philosophical in the slightest.

A time-space invariant fixed-frame universe has about the same philosophical implications as a relativistic universe?

I said they were very similar and they are in many ways. Obviously they are not identical. I'm curious though what you mean by philosophical implications. These sound like empirical questions about space-time to me.

Nothing has ever been demonstrated to be "fully deterministic", except in some formal mathematical studies whose domains of discourse are highly restricted.

These theories are formal mathematics and they are fully deterministic as I have said. If they truly reflected reality then it too would be deterministic. But as we know, it is not so the theories are "wrong" - but still enormously useful.

When it comes to the observable net behavior of the universe at large scale, there is nothing wronger, ever, than Newton's law.

In the first place I clearly said "in a wide range of conditions." You even quoted me. Newton's theory stood, unsuspected of error, for 200 years. Every reasonable person would call that a wide range of conditions. Even today if you don't get too much mass in one place and things aren't going too fast and you don't look more than maybe a million light years, it works just fine.

Would you characterize this discussion we are having right here, in this paragraph, as more technical, or more philosophical in nature?

Well, truth be told, I think it is semantic. I know you are a reasonable person so I suspect we're just having a failure to communicate.

Are we engaged in correcting a technical mis-understanding, or are we engaged in an ontological/epistemological discussion about the interpretation, limits, meaning, and implications of what we observe?

See what I mean? I thought we were discussing if a statement of a scientific theory can properly be said to be a philosophical one.

So...I take it you adhere to one of the earlier models of the atom, wherein electrons are in smooth orbit around nuclei, in obedience to Newton's or Einstein's laws of motion?

I don't know how you'd get that from what I said.

However, now that you bring it up, my understanding is that electrons in very high, but still bound, energy states actually can be usefully treated as classical particles moving under the influence of classical central inverse square force. It just goes to my point that classical physics is a very good approximation of reality.

[js1138]

You will be happy to provide relevant quotes, with appropriate context?

[js1138]

In the top down view, the collective consciousness is timeless and permeates to the cellular level. Of course, the top/down, bottom/up can be combined as well without personifying it.

You will pardon me if I ask again for some evidence of collective consciousness.

[donh]

I think it is a mistake to say that a scientific theory is philosophical

Because? A theory is not a material entity; it is not a tangible force; it is not an part of a formal mathematical proof; it is not an element of grammar...and it seems at least vaguely connected to the world of ideas about how the universe is organized, such as Plato's in the Parable of the Cave. Do you think the parable of the cave is not philosophy?

Do you consider the equation F=ma a philosophical statement? How about the statement that momentum is conserved? I don't think either is philosophical in the slightest.

Sure I do. F=mA is just symbols in a row without some philosophy attached to it. F=mA can't tell you, all by itself, to what phenomena it sensibly applies, or why you should apply it. I'm curious what elegant criteria you have discovered that tells you that some things that seem to be highly abstract statements about the way the universe is organized are philosophy, and some are not?

However, now that you bring it up, my understanding is that electrons in very high, but still bound, energy states actually can be usefully treated as classical particles moving under the influence of classical central inverse square force. It just goes to my point that classical physics is a very good approximation of reality.

Well now, that's a bit of physics that escaped my attention, can you tell me how the orbital velocities of the electrons were measured?

These theories are formal mathematics and they are fully deterministic as I have said. If they truly reflected reality then it too would be deterministic. But as we know, it is not so the theories are "wrong" - but still enormously useful.

"Fully Deterministic" could be a pretty bold claim--is it in this case?, or are you just pointing out that Newton's laws, like Euclid's, could be considered a nice looking set of fundamental predicates in a system of formal development.

Can you point me to the formal proof of the theory of gravity? Can you show me how the theory of gravity can be used to calculate which slit a bucky ball will fall through in the slit experment?

[Fester Chugabrew]

You will be happy to provide relevant quotes, with appropriate context?

Take a look at this link and tell me if students are instructed of any possible origin for life other than an unintelligent combination of chemicals.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . a joint effort between humanities and science.

Science without theology is a dead pursuit. Theology without facts and evidence is a fairy tale. Why folks seem so bent on compartmentalizing the process of education is beyond me.

The Trial of Galileo shows well how both church and science can err, and how both church and science can flourish when they intermingle. Neither of these two, given their history, can boast of perfection. Error is to be expected in view of our current condition.

The key to satisfaction in the pursuit of education is the allowance of free thought and free expression, with each observer having the right and capacity to accept or reject whatever propositions are made to reason as a result of having evidence.

A person can reject the proposition that 1 + 1 = 2, but he should not expect a vocation as banker. (A liberal Democrat, perhaps, but not a banker.) A person can reject the proposition that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but he should not expect a vocation as editor of National Geographic.

Dogmatic evolutionists abhor the notion that such things as free thought and free expression should be allowed in public schools, but they are not the sole owners of public schools. When the state establishes public schools, and requires by law that all children attend, then the state must allow all views to be allowed lest it be guilty of violating the First Amendment.

A good many people are so hard-headed about the distinction between immutable facts and reasonable conjecture, that they squeeze "science" into a fruitless, dead, narrow dogma. There is a place for immutable facts, but, given the extent of human knowledge, that place is smaller than we think. Let reasonable conjecture be permitted even in "science" class, but let it also be qualified as such.

The best solution to this whole controversy would be to abolish public schools altogether.

[Fester Chugabrew]

On a different track altogether, a good many evolutionists subscribe to uniformitarianism where geology is concerned. I am a catastrophist because I accept the biblical account of creation and the flood. Is there a "scientific" reason we must accept the proposition that all geologic processes have taken place at the same rate throughout all time? IOW, is it as plain as 1 + 1 = 2?

I don't think so because the longest anyone has ever been known to live is 969 years*. Who have been the observers who would be able to verify and record a constancy dating back billions of years? Where human intelligence is concerned (and that means "science" because science is completely limited to human intelligence), there is no record to affirm what we naturally assume to be true.

I can accept uniformitarianism as a reasonable position. From my experience in life I could easily accept the proposition that the sun revolves around the earth as reasonable, too. From my position as an observer that is exactly what it does, and no scientist will ever prove me wrong. All physical motion is relative to the point from which it is viewed. You could claim yourself to be the center of the universe, and for all science knows, you'd be absolutely correct.

Also, do we have any choices other than that a.) time has no beginning, or b.) it does. I mean, science has to make some fairly large assumptions from the get go, doesn't it? And if it is making assumptions that cannot be tested or proven, it has a fairly shaky foundation, right?

-------
*969 years = an arbitrary point of reference, to be sure. But what does science know about the number of observers and what they have recorded since the time human intelligence was capable of providing documentation?

[betty boop]

A good many people are so hard-headed about the distinction between immutable facts and reasonable conjecture, that they squeeze "science" into a fruitless, dead, narrow dogma.

Seems to me the truly great questions of human life are eternally revisited by the human mind. The history of human culture down the ages testifies to the validity of this observation. For when you think about it, the earliest formulation of atomic theory came about in the ancient world of the pre-Socratic Greeks, with Democritus and Leucippus. The first formulation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics also occurred in this era, courtesy of Heraclitus. That man has continually revisited such questions is unavoidable, for they are great "open" questions. Trying to shoehorn their answers into narrow doctrinal forms strikes me as an exercise in futility from the get-go, for the simple reason that doctrinal reduction implies that such questions are "closed."

Which is why it seems the best thing science (or any other knowwledge discipline) can do is to frame its questions carefully, qualify its evidence, and then "follow the trail wherever it may lead."

Certainly i agree with you that the fullest and freest dialogue regarding the great questions is the best help for the advancement of human knowledge. I also agree that the public schools are justified in providing opportunities for such dialogue, given First Amendment requirements and the fact of public financing. All views ought to be "ventilated," it seems to me. In this way we avoid mass indoctrination of the young, and encourage them in the development of those mental habits necessary to the full exercise of critical reason. FWIW

Great post at #1806, Fester. Thank you so much for writing it!

[Fester Chugabrew]

1800. (I gotta stop doing this!)

I know we don't communicate a great deal in this forum, but I want you to know that despite a serious difference of opinion and many heated words, I feel indebted to you for your diligence in bringing the subject of evolution to the table at FR. I count it as one of the most stimulating experiences of my life to be presented with words and reasoning that touch on science and theology, and to be given the opportunity to comment upon them at the same time.

Thank you, and have a great life.

[donh]

On a different track altogether, a good many evolutionists subscribe to uniformitarianism where geology is concerned. I am a catastrophist because I accept the biblical account of creation and the flood.

To the best of my knowledge, pure uniformitarianism ("all geologic processes have taken place at the same rate...") has not been considered scientific for some time, if it ever was. Most of the big geological eras are accounted to have been initiated by comparatively instantaneous events, beyond that, I'd have said that all geological processes take place at variant rates, that only appear smooth from the 10,000 foot level.

Is there a "scientific" reason we must accept the proposition that all geologic processes have taken place at the same rate throughout all time? IOW, is it as plain as 1 + 1 = 2?

I'l take the liberty to interpret this question as "is the geological evidence of Deep Time pretty strong?". And, like evolutionary theory, I have to say it is very strong, because of independent confirming evidence from disparate fields of study. Science doesn't deal in "plain as 1 + 1 = 2", if by this, you mean anything approximating "proved true".

[betty boop]

Nature has space to publish only 10% or so of the 170 papers submitted each week, hence its selection criteria are rigorous. Many submissions are declined without being sent for review.

Dear Patrick, it seems you are confounding the quantitative with the qualitative here. The rejection rate tells us exactly nothing about the rejection criteria. But it is the latter that we most wish to understand.

Anyway, the rejecting journal was not Nature.

Thanks for writing, PH -- long time no see!

[Ichneumon]

Someone confused and unable to admit his errors wrote: Your points don't need refutation. They need pity.

I can hear the petulance from miles away.

For instance it is quite clear that a probability is calculated, the linked pages show that.

YET AGAIN, this point is absolutely not under dispute. Your frequent repetition, as if it's any kind of "rebuttal", of one of the points we all agree on (and implying that it in any way shows that my points "need pity") while studiously *avoiding* the points you've been repeatedly refuted on, is a classic case of a red herring.

You employ this cheap rhetorical device *very* frequently. Please explain why you do it, I'm genuinely curious.

Do you do it because you think you're being clever? If so, you're quite mistaken, since I've never seen anyone fall for it, and it's blindingly obvious when you employ such a dodge.

Do you do it because you really are unable to grasp the fact that your "rebuttals" fail to address the refutations of your posts, and you actually believe that nattering on about irrelevancies and/or points that aren't the ones actually under dispute somehow supports your flawed arguments?

Or is it done for some other reason(s), like simple trolling perhaps, or passive-aggressiveness, or something else?

I'm fascinated by your unusual "style" of discussion, and I'd really like to understand it better.

[AC wrote:] They are calculated.

[I responded:] Gosh, what a shocker. Red herring #832,485 (give or take).

Again, your shock is no argument for anything but your shock.

ROFL!!!

This is just... Hilarious! The really, *really* funny thing is that later in his petulant post AC writes: "Damage to any of three different areas [of the brain] could render individuals unable to understand sarcastic comments." Obviously, he's writing from personal experience.

Clue for the sarcasm impaired: When I wrote, "gosh, what a shocker", it didn't actually mean that I was surprised that the formula produced a calculated result. It meant that I was rolling my eyes over the fact that you were stating the obvious as if you thought I didn't already know it. It was the equivalent of, "no s***, Sherlock", or "tell me something I don't know".

I'm glad I could clear that up for you. I'm sorry I wasn't aware of your handicap earlier, or I would have made allowances for it.

Furthermore, when AC writes, "Again, your shock is no argument for anything but your shock", this is yet *another* red herring, because my "what a shocker" snicker wasn't used to make any "argument" whatsoever. My actual arguments were based on those silly "mathematics" and "facts" thingies. Note how AC didn't address *those*, he just fixated on my snickering and whined about how *that* wasn't an argument, as if *that* was the substance of my post and as if by addressing *that*, he had dismissed my actual argument. RED. HERRING.

Plus your gambling problem does not help your argument either.

My gambling example *is* part of my valid argument (as well as part of my policy of "don't argue with a fool, bet him money"), even though you have chosen to sidestep it entirely (snideness is not adequate rebuttal), either through disingenuous evasiveness or a failure to understand it.

Notice that the summation for the calculation of pi has a symbol on top. That means something.

Yes it does, but nothing that rescues your errors. Red herrings, anyone? The astute reader will also note that although AC snottily says that it "means something", he is unable/unwilling to explain what, if anything, it actually means in the context of the actual points under dispute.

Pretending to have an argument while failing to actually make one is classic bluff behavior by those who have found themselves cornered and/or out of their depth in a discussion.

And the set of rationals is closed when using all of the operations in the equation.

ROFL!! Yes folks, you heard it here first -- AC tries to imply that pi must actually a rational number. Since I think it's highly unlikely that even he can be confused enough to actually think that, the only alternative is to conclude that he is intentionally and dishonestly posting something that he knows is making a blatantly false implication in order to try to "rebut" one of my points via sheer fakery.

Disgusting, I know, but he does it a *lot*. Again, I'm really curious as to what would motivate someone to behave this way -- I'd still like him to explain his behavior.

And since I know he'll try to bluff a response implying that that's not what his point was (without actually explicitly saying what it *was*), let's cut to the chase: Do you, or do you not, believe that pi is a rational number? Yes or no. No waffling.

Plus, AC is just flatly and completely wrong when he writes, "And the set of rationals is closed when using all of the operations in the equation". Nope, sorry, thanks for playing, Don Pardo will tell you what lovely consolation prizes you've won. As AC himself points out -- so he can't claim to have missed it -- the "summation for the calculation of pi has a symbol on top", and although it was a red herring relative to *my* argument, it does indeed "means something" fatal to AC's fall-on-his-face error. He incorrectly claims that "the set of rationals is closed when using all of the operations in the equation", because the set of rationals is *NOT* closed when using the operation of summation to infinity, which is one of the "operations in the equation" that AC cut-and-pasted into his reply.

Nice try, son, but you've tripped and fallen yet again. One wonders why you keep trying. While the fraction of "hits" in the Buffon's Needle process converges slowly towards 2/pi, your own is converging towards zero.

Finally, your not understanding irony is no virtue.

What's really no virtue is your pretense that I'm unable understand irony, when in fact it should be obvious to anyone who isn't *actually* brain-damaged that I sometimes use irony myself to deflect your lame attempts to employ irony as red herrings. Game, set, and match. Get back to us when you're able to keep up.

And no, your attempts to employ irony to sidestep *relevant* points doesn't put us on equal footing.

As you so kindly treated Alamo-girl, I will return the favor. Don't post to me.

As you're well aware, I haven't been posting directly to you for almost two years now, after you became incensed when I asked you questions which highlighted your hypocrisy and pointed out your tactics, at which point you decided that you didn't like to be reminded of your behavior. Here's a synopsis of that discussion, although masochists are welcome to follow all the posts in that exchange to see how it played out.

Since then, as you well know, I have respected your wishes and directed my dissections of your fallacious posts and your game-playing to "All" or other participants in the thread. I apologize for not fixing the "To:" field in my last reply, I had *thought* that I had redirected it as usual and had certainly intended to, but apparently I overlooked it this time.

Nonetheless, isn't it rather childish of you to object to my replying to you after we've been having a lengthy back-and-forth discussion in which you've been a willing participant? If you don't want me replying to you, why do you keep replying to my posts? Feel entirely free to ignore them if you don't actually want to have a discussion with me. But if you can't help yourself, why not drop the silly "moommmmm, he's posting to me after I've been replying to him for days!!!" whine? For someone who doesn't want to be included in the discussion, you seem to go out of your way to find my posts (even though they don't ping you) so that you can reply to them.

Make up your mind.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Science doesn't deal in "plain as 1 + 1 = 2", if by this, you mean anything approximating "proved true".

I'd like to think it does, and tend to conclude as much. That is to say sciences deals in proven truths, but not exclusively.

I would not expect Deep Time (though I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that) to be "proven," but I would like to know how it can be lent veracity when the number of intelligent observers is limited as it is. Who ever deals in teaching matters of "Deep Time" should be able to have verifiable evidence for a.) the number of intelligent observers, b.) how long they lived, c.) whether they recorded their observations, and d.) whether this information is contiguous from the time human were first able to document time.

Am I too constrictive in suggesting that science, since it is, in essence, human knowlege, must be limited to what humans have observed and recorded? Man in his current condition is both able to think back in time and consider the future, but if the story of evolution is true, this has not always been the case. IOW, there was no such thing as science until the first humans were able to observe and reflect upon the data available to reason and senses.

This is why I am not willing, as an observer myself, to grant the notion of 4.5 billion years as anything more than reasonable conjecture. I won't call such notions those of raging village idiots. Far from it. At the same time I won't call such notions more than they really are.

[PatrickHenry]

Dear Patrick, it seems you are confounding the quantitative with the qualitative here. The rejection rate tells us exactly nothing about the rejection criteria. But it is the latter that we most wish to understand.

Understood. I only wanted to point out that rejection is common. Far more common than acceptance. At Nature it's ten times more common. I have no information to judge the quality of the paper you've mentioned; and I probably couldn't make such a judgment anyway. I have no information as to whether the author made use of the rejection comments and then re-submitted the paper, or whether he tried other journals, etc. We haven't been told who the author is, what his credentials are, what the paper was about (presumably something about biology, and Gibbs energy), or why it was rejected.

All we know is that one paper (author unknown, contents unknown) was rejected one time (reasons unknown). Not much to go on for reaching any broad conclusions about the virtues of peer-review. But I'm mad about you, BB!

[Fester Chugabrew]

Try responding to AC with something of more substance and less bravado, but not before you beat my most recent chug time of 3.14159265 seconds for a 12 oz. Schlitz.

[donh]

I don't think so because the longest anyone has ever been known to live is 969 years

Not too compelling for science as it is practiced. If we restricted ourselves only to evidence that was continuously witnessed first-hand, as it occured, we'd still be doing alchemy and astrology for a living. We wouldn't have QM, and we certainly wouldn't have galactic astronomy. It is a common enough thing for creationists to proffer the notion that inductive evidence is inadequate gruel to draw scientific conclusions from, because induction is fallible. However, science doesn't have the problem with it you'd like to make a case for, because a) science doesn't mind being fallible, and b) knowing it is fallible, science works very hard on being critical about the evidence it looks at.

[donh]

That is to say sciences deals in proven truths, but not exclusively.

If that were so, than you could show me the proof, of, say, the theory of gravitation, right? Feel free.

[Fester Chugabrew]

If we restricted ourselves only to evidence that was continuously witnessed first-hand, as it occured, we'd still be doing alchemy and astrology for a living.

Not at all. Galileo witnessed the revolution of the earth around the sun first-hand. Much of science is built upon first-hand observation. In fact, it really doesn't have anything else to go on. Science, by definition, entails first-hand human observation and reporting.

[Fester Chugabrew]

If that were so, than you could show me the proof, of, say, the theory of gravitation, right?

No, I can't. Gravity is a miracle. It is supernatural. Now, as for 1 + 1 = 2, that, as a primary student of the mathematical sciences, I can prove.

[donh]

Am I too constrictive in suggesting that science, since it is, in essence, human knowlege, must be limited to what humans have observed and recorded?

In the sense that you mean this, yes, restrictive quite beyond reason. We conclude that all prime numbers are odd, for example, even though no human has laid eyes on the largest prime number that could exist. Nonetheless, we feel a high degree of confidence in this theory, due to our confidence in inductive reasoning. Similarly, having dug into the earth over and over, and finding that we can predict what we can find from digging in the earth, regarding many interesting details of expected morphology at expected depths, we are inclined, by similar reasoning, to think the earth is old. It's not a proof, but we have a good deal of provisional confidence in the thesis, and that's as strong as the talk gets in science.