By Bob Ellis
Dakota Voice
Ken Blanchard at the South Dakota Politics blog continues the ongoing blogosphere discussion of the merits of evolution theory by referring to a review by Jerry Coyne of Michael Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution.
South Dakota Politics is one of my favorite blogs, but I have to disagree with Blanchard. He says,
I note only how much ground Behe is willing to concede to evolutionary theory. From Coyne:(Full Story)
For a start, let us be clear about what Behe now accepts about evolutionary theory. He has no problem with a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth, nor with evolutionary change over time, nor apparently...
12 comments:
This is just so incredibly misguided and ignorant it's hard to know where to begin. Comparing a heritable change to an organism, such as antibiotic resistance to learning how to swim, misses the whole point of one of the basic mechanisms of evolution — that is, heritability itself. The offspring of a resistant bacterium will all be resistant. Your learning to swim does not mean that your offspring will know how to swim from birth. The comparison is of apples and oranges.
The argument over radioisotope dating is similarly flawed. The techniques are based on a physical law of radioactive decay that holds up to all scrutiny across all scientific disciplines. It's described by a simple mathematical formula and is replicable in all situations. The techniques are extremely reliable... unless one is intentionally attempting to alter the basis on which they're done, as in the example you site. The fact is that fossil dating is done using multiple techniques and discrepancies must be resolved or the data is considered inconclusive... a fact that you entirely leave out, perhaps because you are entirely ignorant of it.
Which really sums the whole situation up very nicely. The people who object to evolutionary theory typically don't know what they're talking about. They have little to no understanding of the principles behind it. Your critique of Coyne and the evidence you cite are very good examples of this state of affairs.
Radiometric dating holds up to all scrutiny? Then how does it produce readings showing rock that we saw form less than 30 years ago is 2.8 million years old? How does C14 dating produce readings supposedly thousands of years old on organisms that are still living?
Radiometric dating techniques are built on several assumptions, few of which can be held reliable for even a few years, much less thousands or millions. If evolutionists obtain an obviously flawed reading, they throw it out. If it fits the framework of their hypothesis, then it must be accurate. Very scientific.
Basically the core of your argument is that there can never be any sound assumption made for anything within the frame of all disciplines.
If I'm wrong, then introduce a single assumption that is relieved of the burden of your own argument to the contrary.
In the real world of logical argumentation we peg your various category errors to what is called a problem of composition. If there is no secure assumption there is no secure argument and this means all arguments are either worthless or equal.
Take your pick.
"Radiometric dating holds up to all scrutiny? Then how does it produce readings showing rock that we saw form less than 30 years ago is 2.8 million years old? How does C14 dating produce readings supposedly thousands of years old on organisms that are still living?"
Same way that the driver of a car can find himself upside down in the ditch: they messed up.
Read up on radiometric dating.
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
You don't need to be an 'evolutionists' to concede geological and biological history of millions or billions of years.
Apparently, it's easy for creationists like Bob Ellis. All you have to do is discount all the evidence gathered in the last 200 years by scientists in multiple disciplines and crossing virtually every natural and political boundary that all point to evolution as a fact.
All you have to do is invent specious arguments (as vyoma said, comparing the heritability of organisms to similarities in non-replicating software applications), mouth trite and long-debunked talking points, and blather endlessly about what they've learned from a fictional TV show as proof that somehow their religious conviction represents scientific truth.
You respond to the critique of radiometric dating by alluding to (but dishonestly, not giving the specifics), of tests done on volcanic rock "formed" less than 30 years ago. Tell us, Bob, what made up that igneous "rock" (aka lava) that you prattle on about?
You people are fools. We neither doubt this nor care. Simply keep your religion in church where it belongs, and not in the classroom, and nobody will assail your precious beliefs.
Try to push your christian taliban teachings into the government and the classroom, and I for one will oppose you with everything at my disposal.
No offense, Bob, but your entire theology is built upon an unproven assumption -- i.e., that the Bible is the literal word of God. The only "proof" you have of that is the self-authentication of the Bible itself, which is to say you have no proof whatsoever.
I think it's obvious, daenku32, that they "messed up," but they messed up in their assumptions about radiometric dating. They assumed a certain beginning level of the measured elements in the sample, and assumed a constant, untainted decay rate--all of which are unverifiable--especially over the amount of time they allege.
No, you don't need to be an evolutionist to believe in an earth history of billions of years. But only an evolutionist needs to. The creationist has a plausible history and origin-theory that can agree with the geological and fossil evidence...without the need for billions of years. The only reason a Christian needs to believe in billions of years isn't because science clearly demonstrates it (it doesn't)...just so he can keep so-called intellectual people from calling him "dummy." And peer approval is a poor substitute for accuracy and consistency.
Those facts are easy to find, Dennis, unless you rely on pop culture to feed it to you. Mt. Saint Helens formed a lava dome less than 30 years ago that was dated as being 2.8 million years ago? Accurate? Not even slightly.
Religion that's only worth having in church isn't worth having. If that's all mine was worth, I'd drop it in a heartbeat. But Christianity has answers and application in every area of life, including science and history. It's far too relevant to keep cooped up in stained-glass windows on Sunday.
And those "Christian Taliban teachings" you hate so much...they were what this great nation were founded on, and they were taught in the classroom up until about 50 years ago when the good people of this country capitulated to radical secularists. I for one will work with everything I have to see this country restored to its former greatness--both intellectually and spiritually.
You're right, Anonymous 1:48, that I don't have proof that the Bible is the authentic word of God. I believe the evidence supports that contention, and I definitely don't hold my faith blindly (I've been somewhat of a skeptic since I was a kid), but you're correct that I can't prove it's true.
At the risk of patting myself on the back, at least I'm willing to admit my bias and assumption. It'd be wonderful if atheists and evolutionists would be that intellectually honest.
"Mt. Saint Helens formed a lava dome less than 30 years ago that was dated as being 2.8 million years ago? Accurate? Not even slightly."
This has been discredited. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm
The discrediting of radiometric dating has been discredited, huh?
So you this article says the K-Ar method can't accurately date samples younger than 1.25 billion years old. What if, just what if, the entire planet was younger than that? That means you'd always get a flawed reading, right? Think about that for a few minutes, then think about it some more.
The article also mentions "unacceptable mineral and glass impurities" in the submitted sample. I suppose we could only expect an ignorant Bible-thumping creationist to include contaminants in a sample. You couldn't possibly expect some creationist with a BS in geology from University of Washington, an MS in geology from San Jose State University, a PhD from Penn State, a member of the Geological Society of America, and member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists to correctly gather and submit a sample, now could you? (After all, belief in the Bible invalidates any other education or expertise someone might have). A good intellectual evolutionist would never make such a mistake, thus causing erroneous readings about their contention that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It's very reassuring that old-earthers are so much smarter than the rest of us primitives.
Also, "very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples" but not for "older samples." How convenient that only younger samples that might, through observation or historical record, be verified as younger give erroneous readings. Ones that are older than recorded history, well, somehow we just KNOW those are accurate. See any FAITH involved here? If you're oblivious to your own bias and presuppositions, I'm sure you don't, but I had to throw the obvious out there just in case anyone was in the mood for intellectual honesty.
The article also theorizes that excess argon got into the sample during the formation of the rock, but failed to dissipate or "degass." Yet we somehow know beyond any doubt that this didn't happen in other samples that we conveniently cannot verify through observation are younger than the reading indicates. How convenient that, even though in the modern age all this sample contamination, we can be certain that millions of years ago no contamination occurred and "excess" elements were introduced into samples. I guess like so many things, things were always done better back in the old days.
So here's what I glean from this article: If a reading undermines the contention that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, it must be:
1. An idiot creationist used the wrong dating method
2. An idiot creationist submitted a contaminated sample (while evolutionists never do)
3. The sample doesn't fit within the timeframe of our ideological theories
4. The equipment was contaminated
5. Certain dating methods simply will not "accurately" give readings young enough to fit a creation framework, even (or especially?) when we know those are young samples (how convenient)
Thanks for enlightening me. Now that I know that any demonstrably erroneous readings from radiometric dating do not indicate a flawed method, but that idiot creationists simply aren't as smart as their evolutionist betters, I can now join the herd and embrace evolution.
Are you holding your breath?
"So here's what I glean from this article: If a reading undermines the contention that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, it must be:
1. An idiot creationist used the wrong dating method
2. An idiot creationist submitted a contaminated sample (while evolutionists never do)
3. The sample doesn't fit within the timeframe of our ideological theories
4. The equipment was contaminated
5. Certain dating methods simply will not "accurately" give readings young enough to fit a creation framework, even (or especially?) when we know those are young samples (how convenient)
Thanks for enlightening me. Now that I know that any demonstrably erroneous readings from radiometric dating do not indicate a flawed method, but that idiot creationists simply aren't as smart as their evolutionist betters, I can now join the herd and embrace evolution."
Actually, yes, you nailed it. Lucky for you the real problem lies with the faulty methods of the "idiot creationist," because, frankly, the same principles that apply in radiometric dating also apply to things like nuclear fussion. It would appear that the Sun is shinning, back to the drawing board.
Post a Comment