Cobb County Disclaimer Goes to Court

There are people who deny the Holocaust. Under U.S. law, under California evidence standards, such a view is not legally tenable (see the Mermelstein case). While it is quite legal, under the First Amendment, for someone to say that they doubt whether the Holocaust occurred, they do not have the privilege of putting a stamp in the front of U.S. history texts saying that the statements about the Holocaust are "hypothetical" or in any other way subject to challenge.

Under all fair rules of evidence in science, in law and in education, evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution is the best explanation for how it all adds up.

Are there really some who would wish to disclaim the best science we have, and to suggest to our kids that it's just not so? Why shouldn't we view them as just as wacko as the Holocaust deniers? Yes, they have a right to their odd, unsupportable views. But they don't have a right to insist that everyone else ignore the evidence, the consensus of the experts, and the formal, legal decisions on the issue.

As a pragmatic view, every fact taught as fact in school, is questionable. As Einstein demonstrated, even things so basic as the "laws" of motion can be found to be "in error" in extreme circumstances. We don't put disclaimers on Newtonian physics, however. We shouldn't treat well-evidenced Darwinian evolution any differently than we treat Newtonian or Einsteinian physics.

I think it was the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan who observed that everyone gets to have their own opinion, but not everyone gets to have their own set of facts.

Or, in the alternative, how about we get a disclaimer that represents the majority of Christians in the U.S.? Something along the lines of, "Evolution theory is the best science we have in biology. it doesn't threaten your faith -- and anyone who tells you differently is probably a charlatan, or at least weak in their own faith." It's factually accurate, at least as factually accurate as the disclaimer now in the books. It should offend no one of any religious persuasion, as a consequence. It's at least as non-offensive as the current disclaimer, to this Christian, but for the opposite reason.

I called the attorney handling the Cobb County case, and was told that no trial date has been set as of yet. I will keep an eye on the case, but right now it appears to be sitting still.

The evidence for this is in some ways similar to the evidence for Plate Tectonics. We cannot observe continents go skidding around the world and smash into each other. We can confidently infer it however from the geological evidence and we can observe 'micro' tectonic in operation today. Thus we infer Plate Tectonics 'really happened' and in much the same way we can do the same for common descent. It's an imperfect analogy, but no analogy is perfect.

An interesting but perhaps misleading analogy. The movement of plates can indeed be measured contemporaneously at 2-7 cm/yr (altho I am not a geophysicist, nor do I play one on TV). The key point, however, is that there is no distinction between "micro" and "macro" tectonics. The large scale movements are simply the small movements over a longer time scale. Similarly, there is no difference in mechanism between "micro" and "macro" evolution - simply the difference in time scale.

— frank schmidt

I asked them that question and they, while it would not affect their overall view, said they would not take the book as serious if the author did prefix the book with such a statement.

Oh gaddamn all of you with your semantic wrangling. No one can clearly state their opinon without being jumped upon to further clarify what they meant, or having words misrepresented and misinterpreted. I enjoy intellectual subjects, but shit like these sort of forums just pisses me off.
Secondly, there is no goddamn way that you can even throw a theory involving history into the scientific realm. It is simply not science. It can be affected by science, but it has no business dealing with it in such a manner. It is a historical theory, nothing more nothing less. Both evolution and ID fall into this category. You are simply trying to surmise how something happened, and here is where it falls into a historical perspective. Science deals with things that can be repeated, and the past developments of life cannot be duplicated.
Thirdly, I hear a lot of reiterated bullcrap here. Tired arguments have been brought to the discussion here, old statements that are just wrong and misleading.
Finally, all of this discusion is very stimulating. But in the end the real evidence will be when we're all dead. If we continue to exist, hooray! But if not we can see that evolution was correct and our lives have just been the assinine scramblings of animals that hold no value or meaning. Or I guess we won't see if thats the case.

In closing I would just like to say that I am currently tired as hell. Forgive the off-the-cuffnes of the above comment. I may return here, but I stubled on this site while doing Biology homework. This has not been an enlightening discussion however, and for that I curse you and all your progeny for wasting so much fucking time being assholed intellectuals. Have a nice night.

Science deals with things that can be repeated, and the past developments of life cannot be duplicated.

Secondly, there is no goddamn way that you can even throw a theory involving history into the scientific realm. It is simply not science. ... I hear a lot of reiterated bullcrap here. Tired arguments have been brought to the discussion here, old statements that are just wrong and misleading.

Like it or not, 'religion' crosses 'science' with this topic. One cannot be taught creation if one believes in evolution and vice versa. The existence of life and its many forms should be studied in a biology book. But the theories of where life began and how it came to be in its current form should not. Remove the origins component from science books and we can all learn to appreciate the wonders of this world.

I know it's not that simple, believe me. But we have to first recognize the issue. There is so much to be learned in science, but we (all of us) ruin it with the absolutes that are not provable. (and please, don't even try to "prove" evolution or creation, they aren't provable)

There is so much to be learned in science, but we (all of us) ruin it with the absolutes that are not provable. (and please, don't even try to "prove" evolution or creation, they aren't provable)

"millions of observations scientists have made about living things over the past several hundred years"... That's exactly what needs to be taught in biology today (period).

But explain to me how a fossil can be "proved" to be millions of years old. You can't prove it, no one observed it at that time. I can't prove that it's only a few thousand years old either. You can talk about carbon dating and other dating techniques which have scientifically known behavior, but there's no way to prove that the behavior is uniform throughout time, etc. There are significant flaws in dating techniques.

Why not focus on the "millions of observations" that define what science is today? Whether its through intelligent design or random evolution, it's still something worthy of studying and classifying as science.

What is not science is the proposition of origins. This is what needs to be separated from science, and left to debate. Present the various positions and let every person come to their own conclusion. If you believe evolution contains stronger evidence, then by "natural selection", it will win out. If you find creation is a more believable explanation, then God will welcome you into His kingdom with open arms.

Everyone should see the Mount St. Helens video about the rock formations that were created from the first eruption. They are indistinguishable from rock formations estimated to have taken millions of years to form, and yet we have observable proof that MSH's formations developed in a few weeks' time.

"Everyone should see the Mount St. Helens video about the rock formations that were created from the first eruption. They are indistinguishable from rock formations estimated to have taken millions of years to form, and yet we have observable proof that MSH's formations developed in a few weeks' time."

Classic creationist bait and switch - either ignorance or a lie:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html

Even if you doubt the actual dates, you still have to explain the *sequence* of the fossil record. Nothing but mainstream science does that.

If you find creation is a more believable explanation, then God will welcome you into His kingdom with open arms.

But explain to me how a fossil can be "proved" to be millions of years old. You can't prove it, no one observed it at that time. I can't prove that it's only a few thousand years old either. You can talk about carbon dating and other dating techniques which have scientifically known behavior, but there's no way to prove that the behavior is uniform throughout time, etc. There are significant flaws in dating techniques.

There are significant flaws in dating techniques.

— Tom

I think it's inefficient that the smart people here have to reargue the same fifteen things every time some dunce stumbles through the door. When possible, I think we should--if we're even going to respond--link to well-made answers whenever possible.

The dating questions are so stupid that one christian geologist wrote basically a primer for his fellow christians, because he was tired of them, as he saw it, besmirching his faith by making idiotic arguments against solid science.

Radiometric Dating

A Christian Perspective

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

OK, Tom, fill me in. I'm a physical geologist, so I tend to defer detailed discussions about evolutionary mechanisms to PvM and others, but this one's in my court.

OK, Tom, fill me in. I'm a physical geologist, so I tend to defer detailed discussions about evolutionary mechanisms to PvM and others, but this one's in my court.

You can talk about carbon dating and other dating techniques which have scientifically known behavior, but there's no way to prove that the behavior is uniform throughout time, etc

— Tom Comment #10099

Dating techniques are flawed because they produce obviously wrong answers. We KNOW the earth is only a few thousand years old, God said so! This is Absolute Truth. If the rocks seem old to your techniques, it's because God MADE them to seem old. Were you there when those rocks were made, huh, were you? If you spent more time with your Bible and less time with your Geiger counter, you could be as righteous as I am. What are you waiting for?

— Flint

Neil:

So long as my point isn't lost amidst the words. Creationists come in all levels of sophistication and knowledge, but ultimately they are creationists and deny evolution for the same simple reason: the interpretation the experts assign to the evidence contradicts an unimpeachable preference. It is wrong because if it is not, THEY are wrong.

We should count ourselves lucky that IDers are our opponents. Not everyone has opponents who humiliate themselves in print, the internet, in person, etc.

Flint,

After reading many of your earlier posts, I have been impressed with your grasp of the hard-core creationist mentality. I suggest that regardless of their resistance to reality, we need to continue to respond to them, even if there is little to no hope of them escaping from the (intellectual) Dark Side. My suspicion is that a significant amount of their popular support is 'soft ' and potentially can be convinced by reality-based arguments.

Neil

Neil,

Well, some thoughts on this stuff, for what they're worth.

1) I really don't have any good feel for the "shape of the curve" on which we might graph the non-fanatics. Even if we grant that the virulent creationists occupy the tail of the curve, there's no question that their total output is impressive and influential, and that their strategies evolve through unquestionably intelligent design. Maybe the silent majority is unconvinced, I don't know.

My personal (and therefore limited) observation is that evolution is terra incognita to the overwhelming majority of the American public. Until Sputnik, it was illegal to teach it in public school. After Sputnik, students might have had a single class session where evolution was presented by unqualified teachers. So most people's notion of evolution is the standard cartoon sequence of fish crawling out onto land, becoming a dog, then a monkey, then a troglodyte, finally a human. The "ladder" image, which is plain wrong, is about the only "knowledge" knocking around in the otherwise-empty bin labeled evolution in most peoples' minds. About the only thing concerning this general ignorance in favor of evolution, is that people are aware that science "believes in it", and science (also very poorly understood) is synonymous with "good" and "smart" in our culture.

Competing with this, as I see it, is a generalized cultural religious homogeneity. Americans are overwhelmingly raised to believe that there is one god, who actually DOES something -- most especially with regard to our exalted position as the "highest" life form. Science might be generally agnostic and not factor any gods into their theories, and people are indifferent for the most part. But when science invokes no gods in the origin of US, that's going too far. When it comes to us, not involving any gods becomes a highly partisan anti-God position, rather than a neutral position.

And this explains the appeal, and the danger, of ID. For those not immersed in this tarbaby, the claim of ID is that "science has discovered that God created us after all." What a wonderfully congenial message that is - you can keep your faith in both Jesus and science. ID proponents carefully position themselves as trying to get a valid scientific theory into the schools. This is a seductive argument both because it appeals to what people want to hear, and because the fact that it's a flat lie can't really be understood without an education effort few people will make.

Anyway, for nearly everyone, exposure to evolution will take place through school and church. I predict that the more it's presented in school, the more it will be correspondingly be attacked in church, which will regard this campaign as "damage control." Perhaps bad publicity is better than no publicity? I don't know how this will shape up.

2) How should creationists claims be responded to? As another thread here argues, patient responses to the ludicrous become ludicrous themselves. This has historically been a problem, adopting a posture with respect to the Big Lie. If one carefully refutes point by point, one can hardly avoid creating the impression that the points being refuted are legitimate, valid, competitive points based on genuine merit. Conversely, responding with ridicule tends to backfire, creating the impression that one is hopelessly closed-minded.

The public debates are an extreme example of this problem. The creationist spews forth a long list of crap that's not simply wrong, but instead carefully misleading. Each individual point can truly be countered only with an argument the audience would require at least a semester of study to understand -- and another semester of different study for each point! And of course, creationists won't debate unless they get to name the moderator and (usually) bus in their own audience from poor churches in neighborhoods where scientific education is essentially unknown. The notion is, if any scientist agrees to debate the creationist claims must be worth debating; if nobody agrees, then science is locking out non-institutionalized viewpoints.

So the question of the general, popular response is important. I think it's important to bear in mind that the entire creationist/ID budget goes into PR campaigns and political lobbying, and none into research. Creationists seek hearts, and science defends minds. There is a disconnect here.

3) There is always the outside possibility that evolution's opponents can find genuine weaknesses in the theory, areas which have been taken for granted and not sufficiently investigated, and the like. Creationist attacks, in other words, are not necessarily 100% dishonest, though of course most of them (as befits a PR campaign) are misrepresentations calculated to take advantage of the target audience simply not knowing (and not *wanting* to know) better. As politicians well understand, *loyal* opposition is an absolutely requirement. I think some creationists are loyal in this sense, genuinely seeking a rapprochement with their faith, rather than a denial.

Flint:

Your responce to Neil is excellent. There is one factor that ought to be included. I used to be both an evangelical Christian, and an YEC. In the end, I ceased being a Christian, but remained agnostic about evolution for at least another 10 years, until I read "The Blind Watchmaker". The reason I stayed agnostic is because I had an implicit trust that other Christians were trustworthy. It just did not occur to me that Christians would lie about the scientific evidence. Consequently, even as an agnostic, I assumed that the creationists must have some sort of genuine case.

I think this attitude would be wide spread amongst Christians. They would feel that even if the YECs are wrong, there must at least be some evidence in favour of what they say or else they would not be saying it. With that attitude, they don't need to examine the evidence to "know" that when evolutionists say there is no evidence for YEC, or ID, that the evolutionists are being close minded and stopping "genuine scientific debate".

For this reason I think it is essential for defeating creationism in the short term that, in addition to detail point by point responces, it should be made clear that the creationists are not being honest with the evidence. Really this should be especially encumbant on Christian evolutionists, because we atheists and agnostics just won't be believed on the subject.

Tom Curtis,

I agree, but I also have an issue here, as they say. I'm convinced that while Philip Johnson is cynically aware of his dishonesty, many creationists are not. As an example, I'm convinced Duane Gish is as sincere as he is deluded. For him (and those like him), the possibility that evolution is true is simply unthinkable. Evolution must be wrong, it has to be wrong, God really DID say so; Genesis is not ambiguous. Since scripture is absolute truth, any conflict between scripture and evidence can have only one possible explanation -- the evidence has been fatally misinterpreted. All that remains, all that can remain, is to determine the cause of the misinterpretation, what combination of ignorance, humanism, atheism, bias, or whatever contributed to such obvious error. If there is no currently plausible way to fit some bit of evidence into scriptural Truth (and to the scientific ignoramus, uh, typical American, nearly anything is plausible), that's OK, God will fill us in in His own time.

And so I read some of what you regard as dishonesty with the evidence, as instead sincere attempts by non-specialists to place the evidence within the context Truth requires. Maybe, as non-specialists, they don't know exactly how it fits, but as Christians, they know it MUST fit. So I suspect most Christians, lacking any useful knowledge to serve as a better context, look at the creationists and see only the facts that (1) these people are Christians; and (2) they are obviously and enthusiastically sincere. I just don't read Salvadore, for example, as lying. He simply has too much of his self-image wrapped up in his faith. For him, it's not a matter of honesty, it's just that the price of doubt exceeds his ability to pay. He might get the details wrong, but the Big Picture?

It's as hard to determine if they're lying, as it is to determine that they aren't trolling. More or less impossible. But I suspect the head creationists with some science education, Behe and Dembski, know by now not only that they've failed to create a science, but that their arguments require proving the unprovable. Why do they soldier on? Maybe out of religious devotion. Mabye they believe in the political consequences of believers thinking they created Jesus-Certified Science. I don't know. And that only applies to the few IDiots with any scientific education. There's no reason to suspect that the Philip Johnsons and the Kent Hovinds can understand the impossibility of creating creation science.
Over and over, people fail to learn from history that when your religion conflicts with science, the sooner you 'reinterpret' your religion to accomodate science, the better you'll look in retrospect.

I agree that it is almost impossible to know whether a persistent liar is actually a liar, or merely a sincerely and massively individual - and vice versa. So far as I can tell, most of the YEC leadership would fall into the latter category, as indeed would most of the ID leadership. That is why I suggested it be shown they are not "honest with the evidence", rather than that they are deliberate liars.

When Gish cites a joke as evidence against evolution, he is not being honest with evidence even if he is not a deliberate liar. When Royal Truman accuses someone of ad hoc assumptions for coming to a conclusion (based on evidence) that Truman agreed with, he is not being honest with the evidence. The creationists may not be deliberately lying in the sense of saying things they know to be false with intent to decieve. But they are demonstrably making claims based on non-existant evidence; chopping their words fine to avoid admissions of error; repeatedly asserting as facts things that have clearly shown in their presence to be false; and so on. I think if you could show this to most Christians, they would not try to make fine distinctions about sincerity etc. They would conclude that Gish and co are straight up liars.

The problem is getting them to listen to that evidence in the first place. If an atheist or other non-Christian source gets up and presents the evidence, their minds close two seconds before the presentation starts. They here the atheist calling a Christian a liar and never get as far as considering the evidence that it is true. They will only listen if conservative, well respected Christians or Christian publications start spreading the message.

Facile skepticism about the past (see 10044, 9861 above) is a familiar trait of creationist/ID defenders. But it's untenable. What's the point of repeatability if knowledge of the past is not part of science? And a quick move to 'only testimony counts' is useless: the evidence shows that testimony itself is often unreliable-- and we show this by appealing to multiple kinds of evidence about the past and cross-checking the results. Well understood physical evidence of past events is the gold standard here. And processes like plate tectonics, sedimentation, fossilization, and evolution (descent with modification) meet that standard in spades. If you're skeptic enough to reject all that, you've already handed out enough rope to hang all empirical science.