Of Baramins and Baloney 14

January 14, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Don

There is a mechanism known for the nylonase gene, and it is not Lamarckian. There is abundant evidence that Lamarck was wrong about his mechanism. And, contrary to your bald-faced assertion, chance + natural selection adequately explains the observations. If you have another explanation that involves deities twiddling with organisms in effluent ponds, what is the evidence for it? If you can’t provide evidence for it, then why should we accept it when a perfectly reasonable natural explanation is already in hand?

Coal in Spirit Lake? More AnswersinGenesis claptrap? Please. The TalkOrigins FAQ is down right now with server difficulties, but in a few days check this link

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html

and let me know if an open-eyed look at actual evidence, rather than hopeful squinting at evidence, changes anything for you.

Furthermore, I don’t believe (and I hope that you don’t either) that God is useless in all contexts. But in the context of science, a God who meddles invisibly in daily activities is simply not a testable concept. You may think that your Maker’s “opinion” of you “matters”, but you have no objective evidence for that notion. Other religious viewpoints have other takes on that argument; none of them have objective evidence for any of it. So it is irrelevant. It may matter to you, but it doesn’t change anything about how science has to operate in the material world, without reference to vague notions of your importance to some invisible and untestable deity.

Again, this goes back to EVIDENCE. Science works with objective evidence. No evidence, no science. Provide the evidence, as I have pleaded with you to do every time, and science can be applied. Without new evidence, you provide science with nothing. So it is as if you are standing on the air hose, if air is analogous to evidence. If you truly believe that creationism is useful NOW (not in the past), provide some new air. Please. The “coal in Spirit Lake” example above is not new; it is just the latest incarnation of attempts to justify the BELIEF that the earth is a few thousand years old. Conclusion-first is not the way science operates. Even if this was true, and proved that coal can form rapidly, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence for an old earth would still have to be negated with relevant and objective and massive new evidence. Old-earth is an old argument, and it is both tired and wrong. Give us new evidence that doesn’t resemble old conclusion-first canards, please. Please.

As for why scientists have a strong reaction to creationism, there are plenty of reasons, and they might be different for different scientists. I can think of at least three quite readily.

One is, as noted above, we’re simply tired of beating down the some old dead horses. People who are tired get testy. If it’s science, give us scientific evidence for it. Until then, quit bringing up the same old conclusion-first attempts to justify your religious views.

Another is that the attempts so far to introduce creationism (and its bastard son ID) into scientific curricula are basically attempts to RE-DEFINE science by people who are not scientists. Engineers would get testy if non-engineers re-defined their enterprise. Plumbers would get testy if non-plumbers attempted to re-define plumbing. Sociologists would get testy if non-sociologists attempted to re-define sociology. Etc.

Another is the blatant dishonesty of the creationist/ID proponents. All of the attempts to introduce creationism/ID into science curricula are transparent attempts to introduce religious doctrines into science curricula. These attempts do not come from scientists, they come from folks with a religious agenda who are dishonest about that religious agenda. See “Wedge Strategy” for evidence of this dishonesty, if you really need it. Dishonesty rightfully breeds contempt.

So I don’t accept that the sole motive is that people “don’t want it to matter.” They don’t want it because it’s WRONG (scientifically), because it is coming from a decidely NON-SCIENTIFIC community, and because it is coming from folks who are being DISHONEST about their motives. There are certainly more motives, but let’s start with those three.

Scientific dialog is protected now; it doesn’t need an injection of dishonesty to get better. Science education needs to be focused on the science, not on some conclusion-first notion that aims to protect a particular religious doctrine.

Hope this helps

Mark

“If the cultivation of understanding consists in one thing more than
another, it is surely in learning the grounds of one’s own opinions.”
- J. S. Mill

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »