Yes, A Really Lousy Week (for Creationism - Dr Dino Going Down)

Scientific American ^ | 8 April 2006

[balrog666]

Following up on my previous post about how creationists suffered a few setbacks, this news has also come to my attention: the creationist theme park Dinosaur Adventure Land, operated by the prominent evolution denier Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) and the Creation Science Evangelism ministry, has just been shuttered by the authorities. All of this arises from the church's building without a permit back in 2002. (Here's the ministry's own account of the situation.)

Links are at source.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"But what interests me, is why would anyone object, if some FReepers limit themselves to certain particular types of threads...who cares, or why should anyone care, where Freepers prefer to post..."

Some people like to address and debate issues; others like to invent them.

[PatrickHenry]

... my impression was that only backwoods nutjob hicks seriously argued against evolution anymore.

What changed your mind?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I've been of FR for some years now. I'm not at all surprised that many Conservatives are anti-science (in general) and anti-evolutionary theory (in particular.) I did teach college mathematics for some years; the anti-evolutionary screeds were popular back then (more so in biology, but all the sciences and mathematics shared the same building.) Likewise, when I was an undergrad (and even a grad student) the anti-science guys were out in force on school campuses. Of course, that back before the Nixon Southern Strategy and almost all the Creationists were Democrats.

[andysandmikesmom]

You are correct about that, its quite interesting...

[andysandmikesmom]

Or perhaps some people fear the amount of good scientific knowledge displayed here...

[PatrickHenry]

Of course, that [was] back before the Nixon Southern Strategy and almost all the Creationists were Democrats.

They haven't changed a bit since the days of the Solid South, except now they think they're the epitome of what it means to be Republican. Back in the days of the Roosevelt New Deal, they thought they were the heart and soul of the Democrats. Same people.

[ml1954]

I'm not at all surprised that many Conservatives are anti-science (in general) and anti-evolutionary theory (in particular.)

Since it's become a 'hot' topic, I've been surprised to learn that a couple of otherwise intelligent conservative friends I've know awhile are apparently anti-evo. I'm hoping it's just an NRO/American Spectator promoted fad. But the force does seem to be stronger than I thought.

[Zuriel]

**Sure dude, happens all the time.**

Sure dude, got it all figured out, don't cha?

Go ahead, keep whistling in the graveyard, to keep your courage up.

[puroresu]

Maybe it's too bad you guys didn't let the south secede. After all, without Dixie, America would now be a country more like Canada or Sweden, since the remaining GOP turf (heartland states such as Kansas, Nebraska, and Utah) would be easily outvoted by the large Democrat east and west coast states. It would be more to your liking. Socially liberal, secular, politically correct, supporting federal power over state & local autonomy. It'd be evo-nirvana!

[Vision]

You're really sick and obsessed with it

[Doctor Stochastic]

Voting for the same policies.

[puroresu]

Not quite. The south has always been a conservative area. It was once Democratic, but the Democrats were once a more conservative party. Franklin Roosevelt began the Democrats' lurch to the left. The south remained in his camp, partly out of party loyalty (Southerners still regarded the GOP as the Yankee aggression party) and partly because the GOP offered no clear conservative alternative at the time. Most GOP leaders during the New Deal were merely "New Deal Lite". Roosevelt had more trouble with Southern Democrats such as Senator George (Georgia) and Senator Bailey (North Carolina), who tried to block many New Deal proposals when the "moderate" GOP had long since rolled over. FDR was so furious with George that he recruited a candidate to oppose him in the Democratic primary (but Georgia voters re-elected the conservative George).

By the 1960's, the GOP had begun to come out of its "moderate" phase with new leaders such as Reagan and Goldwater. With the Democrats moving ever further to the left, southern voters switched parties and set the stage for GOP & conservative growth, the election of Nixon, Reagan, and our current president, along with GOP control of congress, etc.

[js1138]

When I was in college in the late 60s it was that left that was anti-science.

[Quark2005]

That and GWB's poorly considered comments. GWB is a good man, but he really should have stuck with main stream issues.

I don't know if you heard G.W.'s comments on the issue - I get the impression that he was caught off guard with a question in an area that he hasn't made a big issue on either way from the start. Bush has iterated the importance of scientific peer review in the past, and his science advisor (John Marburger) made favorable statements on the issue.

But yes, he could have done better this one, I think.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The Left has no more use for science than the Right. Both fear evidence. It's a political sickness. The Creationists make identical arguments as do the PostModernDeconstructionists. Neither likes experiment. (I would argue that both fear knowledge.)

[js1138]

Knowledge that can't be controlled by those in power.

[DannyTN]

"Nice try. However, the 'pseudo-religious hustlers' are not held to the same standards as scientists. Try to publish some pseudo-scientific piece of crap in a respectable scientific journal and see what happens. And please let us know."

Show me a major religious denomination that fully backed or endorsed Hovind.

Scientific journals have published a lot of crap through the years. The list of science mavericks that were ridiculed by scientific journals and were refused publishing is actually quite long.

list of science Mavericks ridiculed by conventional scientists (I've seen much longer lists, this one is quite small compared to some I've seen)

[balch3]

so-called conservatives cheering government interference in what an individual does with his own private property. I guess principles don't matter to Darwinists (if they had any in the first place).

[DannyTN]

"How about one example of where a non-naturalistic assumption has led to a specific testable hypothesis verified by subsequently acquired data?"

Much of early science was founded by Christians who were asking the basic questions of what can we learn about the Universe that God created, what can we learn about God through study of His creation, how do the things that God made work?

Evolution really hasn't added much to science. And in some cases has been a major hindrance.

There is little in the medical field that evolution has added. With the noted exception that certain organs were thought to be vestigal and not have function. The end result was that tonsils which do have a function were removed needlessly in many cases. Human tailbones which provided an anchor for certain key muscles and without which defecation is quite painful were removed because evolution taught they were vestigal and had no function. Evolution taught that Apendixes were vestigal but we now know they help prohibit colon cancer.

Evolution taught that leftover DNA that had no function was to be expected and consequently labeled non protein coding DNA as Junk DNA. That may have hindered research on so called Junk DNA, which we now are discovering has numerous uses.

The following is from this link: Christianity and the beginnings of modern science" And while it isn't noted whether the Christians listed were Creationists or not, their belief in the supernatural certainly didn't hinder there scientific questioning. And the following list is far from complete. Even many greats such as Copernicus, and Gallileo, aren't even listed here.

"In his very helpful book, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born, D. James Kennedy gives a list of some of the outstanding Bible-believing scientists who gave the lead in founding the following branches of science. This list is worth repeating:"

Antiseptic Surgery Joseph Lister
Bacteriology Louis Pasteur
Calculus Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics Johannes Kepler
Chemistry Robert Boyle
Comparative Anatomy Georges Cuvier
Dimensional Analysis Lord Rayleigh
Dynamics Isaac Newton
Electronics John Ambrose Fleming
Electrodynamics James Clerk Maxwell
Electromagnetics Michael Faraday
Energetics Lord Kelvin
Entomology of Living Insects Henri Fabre
Field Theory James Clerk Maxwell
Fluid Mechanics George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy Sir William Hershel
Gas Dynamics Robert Boyle
Genetics Gregor Mendel
Glacial Geology Louis Agassiz
Gynaecology James Simpson
Hydrography Matthew Maury
Hydrostatics Blaise Pascal
Ichthyology Louis Agassiz
Isotopic Chemistry William Ramsey
Model Analysis Lord Rayleigh
Natural History John Ray
Non-Euclidean Geometry Bernard Riemann
Oceanography Matthew Maury
Optical Mineralogy David Brewster

[AntiGuv]

That's a cool link (notwithstanding your misguided intent). Thanks!

So, I'm curious about something. Since your items include several key features of astrophysics, does this mean that you accept the 13.7 billion year old cosmic-inflation Big Bang universe?

And, BTW, you do realize that your logical fallacy is that all of these items you list were innovations that challenged previous concepts. None of them were the discarded, supernaturalist relics of a profoundly ignorant past.