The Real Reason Biologists Laugh at Creationists

Posted 17 April 2009 by Ian Musgrave

Over at Todd Woods blog about a month ago you could have found this interesting (and unintentionally amusing) statement.

"Anyone who knows me at all knows that I break down creationist biology into four main components: design, natural evil, systematics, speciation, and biogeography."

This automatically channels the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition sketch "Amongst our weapons are ..." Anyway, he fixed the numeric discrepancy (without acknowledging the blogosphere who pointed it out), but minor typographical errors are not the reason biologists laugh at creationists [1]. The reason we laugh at them is they are so gormless about biology. The point Dr Wood is making in that post is that animals (hey what about plants and protists) are "designed" to kill, which implies that God had an *active* role in making all things loathsome and nasty (cue Monty Python again), rather than us sinful humans being at fault and the world just degenerating. It is mildly amusing to watch the gears mesh, then miss completely obvious points. The problem is he is trying to explain the biological world without a understanding of even basic biology.

"Look at bears, for example. There you have a baramin with species that will eat just about anything, and if you include the giant panda, then you have an obligate herbivore. It would be easy to say that predators are merely predators because of behavior. At the Fall, God just modified their behavior from eating just plants to eating meat."

Cue the Gary Larson cartoon of two bears watching children at play, and one says "Come on Harvey, look at these claws, these teeth, they're not for eating nuts and berries". Now, Dr. Wood uses the bear as a too simple example, rather than a key exemplar. But the real point is the biology as stated is wrong. Simple examination of the biology of the Panda shows it's a carnivore modified to be a herbivore, rather than bears being herbivores modified to be carnivores (indeed the Pandas gut is only very slightly modified from the carnivore version). Again, this is why biologists laugh at Creationists, they just can't get the biology right. Natural evil is a real problem for Creationists [2], if all was good and warm and fuzzy with no death before the fall, and only degeneration is allowed, where do carnivores with their splendid adaptations for killing and eating come from? The cannot allow themselves to consider evolution of adaptations (they will allow some evolution, but only trivial amounts). Bear evolution, for example, where bears originate from a long line of carnivores, is shut out from their minds. Carnivory has a long history, with even some bacteria (including the superbly named Vampirococcus) being predators. In example after example, Dr. Wood shows that biology is an incoherent mess without the unifying thread of evolution. And he doesn't get it. Yeah, Man sins, evil and death enters the world and suddenly Drosera start thinking, "Hey, I've got these sticky tentacles, and digestive enzymes, I'm gonna get me some MEAT". And what about the saphrophitic fungi eh? Why do they get short shrift, or Vampirococcus? As another example of the problem Creationist have with biology, I will refer you "Fellowship, Creation and Schistosomes" (Mace, Simms and Wood 2003) where Dr. Wood and others try to explain how the Schistosome parasites could have arisen [3]. Note that this is a technical publication, a supposedly serious research article like a scientific paper. Now this was published back in 2003, and Dr. Woods position has eh, evolved a bit since then, but the paper is still cited as an example of serious creationist "research" and neatly illustrates the problems therein. Now creationists have a problem with Schistosomes. These are parasites that have a complicated life cycle. The eggs of the parasite are released in the faeces and if they come in contact with water they hatch into a miracidia, a free-swimming larva. The larva then has to infect a snail of the correct genus within one or two days. Inside the snail, the larva undergo asexual reproduction. After this another free-swimming larva, the cercaria, is shed into the environment and must infect a suitable vertebrate host. Once the cercaria penetrates the skin of the host it loses its tail and becomes a schistosomule. The worms then migrate through the blood vessels ending in the mesenteric veins where they mate and start laying eggs in the vessels of the intestinal wall. The eggs burrow through through the tissues and are passed in the faeces. Now the creationist problem, as stated by Dr. Wood, is that since everything was perfect before the fall, disease only entered the world after the fall. Also, the only post-fall developments could be degenerative, we can't have any of the nasty evolution stuff (at least on anything other than trivial scales). But the complex life cycle of the Schistosomes clearly is a complex adaptation not a degeneration. How can they explain this? They decide that the Schistosmes were originally symbiotic (or mutualistic in some way), and then degenerated into a parasitic condition, possibly by infecting the wrong host. This is in itself not a silly idea, organisms that normally live elsewhere and accidentally get into the wrong tissues of the host can be an important source of disease, like gangrene. But it's how they go about trying to establish this reveals their ignorance of biology.

First they try and establish that Schistosomes are a "Created Kind" and compare them to the liver flukes (Fasciola). Now liver flukes also have a complex life cycle similar to the Schistosomes, with larva in molluscan hosts, and the formation of cecaria. On the basis that Schistosomes are sexual, and Fasciola are hermaphrodite and have a slightly different gut architecture, and ones cercaria must be eaten (but still actively burrows in through the gut lining), but the other directly invades via the skin, that they must be two separate "Created Kinds". Well, we couldn't have any of that nasty adaptive evolution happening could we? Except of course that Schistosomes and Fasciola are but two representatives of trematoda, a large class of parasitic worms that include a two host cycle, with one stage usually occurring in molluscs, the second usually in vertebrates. The cercaria is common to all the trematodes. As well as the liver flukes, there are the lung Flukes (Paragonimidae) and the intestinal Flukes (Fascicoliposis). These are just the ones of disease importance to humans. Then there is Bivesiculidae, the Transversotremidae, the Lepocreadidae and on and on. Indeed there are over 180 families of trematodes which have the life cycle and larval stages (including cercaria) associated with Schistosomes. Indeed, the Schistosomes considered by Wood et al are just one genus in the family Schistosomatidae, venous system specialists that infect reptiles, birds and mammals (including humans). Then there is the family of Spirochidae, blood vessel generalists that infect reptiles and Sanguinicolidae, blood system generalists that infect fish (See diagram above right, taken from Brant and Loker, 2005, click on it to embiggen). None of this is new, and was well established by 2003, when Wood's paper was published. Now, Mace et al compare just two genera, and pronounce them separate "created kinds", but when we have hundreds of genera, all with the Mollusc - Vertebrate infection cycle involving cercaria, then the idea that all these genera represent "created kinds" is just a trace unparsimonious (and can invoke Occam's Razor). Or we could say that the "created kinds" just extend to the organ system specialization, but then there is massive diversity which means a whole lot of adaptive evolution is going on, with over a hundred of genera in any given family forming adaptive diversity in a variety of hosts and environments. And creationists just don't like admitting to adaptive evolution. Then there is the one diagram in the article, which show hybridization data (which amusingly replicates the data shown by DNA studies, but those more modern studies imply that the Schistosomes and other trematodes are related by common descent[4]) and infection data. Since the Schistosomes that infect humans have a broad species infectivity, so they take this as evidence that Schistosomes came to cause disease by invading the wrong host. However, the fact that even the Schistosomes that have a very narrow specificity (about a third of them) also are parasites too is a strong strike against this idea. Note that all Schistosomes are parasites. Indeed the over 1000 trematode species we know are all parasites. Note the pattern here? Mace et al, want the Schistosomes to be "fallen" versions of a mutalistic organism. What kind of mutualism requires a worm to burrow into the circulation and live in blood vessels is not explained, and there are no good examples of such extreme invasive mutualism. Indeed, given the extreme diversity of trematode worms, and the blood inhabiting trematodes (Schistosomatidae, Spirochidae and Sanguinicolidae) the utter lack of a mutatistic version of the trematodes is very telling. What's more, it is hard to fit the actual biology of Schistosome infection with a "fallen" status. Schistosomes are venous specialists (except for one species that specializes in arteries). They must lay their eggs against the flow of blood, and engage in precision placement of eggs, the females back into the smallest venules and release eggs where the veins clamp down on them and hold the egg in place. The eggs them migrate through the blood vessels and into the gut. Such precision adaptations are incompatible with a "fallen" state. The recurring observations that supposedly "fallen" species have significant adaptations to perform their parasitism and carnivory has resulted in Dr. Woods musings. Creationists cannot accept that evolution is responsible for adaptations, so they must tie themselves in knots trying to explain how God designed in these adaptations (before of after the fall), and thus produced natural evil. This is why biologists laugh at creationists, they make their arguments with almost complete ignorance of biology, and even then the evidence of their cartoon version forces them into a corner that only evolution can get them out of. Oh yeah, the reference list. Almost all the real biology articles are very elderly, and ignores the comprehensive reviews of the evolution of of the Schistosomes that were easily available when the article was written. Note the authors did no original research themselves, just reviewed data obtained by real biologists. References: Brant SV and Loker ES (2005) PLOS Patogens, 1, e38
Platt TR and Brooks DR (1997) The Journal of Parasitology 83, 1035-1044 Cribb TH, Bray RA and Littlewood DTJ (2001) International Journal of Parasitology 31, 997-1011. Mace SR, Simms BA and Wood TC (2003) Impact 357, i-iii
[1] With my ability to create typographic errors, who am I to complain?
[2] As an Australian, growing up with our major religious traditions being Anglican, Catholic and Presbyterian, I find the literalists bemusing. We all got the idea that Genesis is filled with analogy and metaphor, heck I got that at age 10, when I was getting gold stars for my Bible verses, so why can't the Creationists get it?
[3] While not a professional parasitologist, I spent 3 years a a laboratory scientist, and one of my duties was parasite analysis. So I know my way around parasites. It only took me a few minutes to find several contemporaneous references to the evolution of schistosomes that Mace et al didn't cite.
[4] The creationists accept that species which hybridize are related by common descent, just like real biologists do. And the DNA data show that hybridizing species are mots closely related to one another, and other similar species are related, and slightly less similar species are related , and so on with no sign of the "discontinuity" the creationists insist on to separate "created kinds".

70 Comments

Tardis · 17 April 2009

“Anyone who knows me at all knows that I break down creationist biology into four main components: design, natural evil, systematics, speciation, and biogeography.”

Um - Five, My Lord...

DS · 17 April 2009

It's not just the fact that almost all creationists are completely ignorant of almost all of biology, it is the fact that they are willfully, almost insistently ignorant. Why on earth would anyone attempt to dictate to real experts what the interpretation of the data should be when they themselves have absolutely no idea what the data are? How can they expect that anyone would take them at all seriously when they steadfastly refuse to even atempt to educate themselves on even the most basic facts? An undergraduate would not even get a passing grade on a term paper containing so many typographical, factual and logical errors. Only the most ignorant reader would be fooled by any of this nonsense, unless of course they want to be fooled.

If any serious creationist does try to get a real education, they usually end up being convinced by the evidence and see the error of their ways. Exposure to compartative biology is the best anitdote for the myopic creationist disease. This kind of intense selection pressure insures that almost all creationists will be either ignorant or blatantly dishonest, or both. Pointing out this fact may seem harsh, but it is absolutely essential that people understand which side the evidence truly points to.

Aaron · 17 April 2009

Well, we couldn’t have any of that nasty adaptive evolution happening could we? ... And creationists just don’t like admitting to adaptive evolution

Be careful when syllogistically saying that Creationists don't believe in adaptive evolution. The latest trend in prominent Creationist propaganda has been in support of adaptive evolution WITHIN a baramin. (Even the vile Creation Museum is putting up a display about Natural Selection and how they were fans of it before it was hip) They will generally, ridiculously, try to draw some distinction between genetic drift that yields small changes (microevolution) and that which yields large changes over time ("macroevolution"); specifically disagreeing with the idea of morphological change. I think I know what you originally intended with your statements above, but you may want to re-word that; else it be quote-mined, twisted into being the crux of your argument and then dismissed by saying "Oh, we believe in adaptive evolution, see?" That aside -- nice article. Schistosoma, and other parasites, are certainly problematic for Creationists in the same way that they THINK "irreducible complexity" is a problem for scientists. If this became a prominent enough problem for them, I could see them trying to backpedal into some sort of explanation regarding "Exaptation" or something... btw -- you should have mentioned Sacculina (the parasite that infects crabs and basically takes over their mind and body). Those are a particularly vicious parasite.

Ravilyn Sanders · 17 April 2009

Tardis said: Um - Five, My Lord...

Four, five no big difference! Come on every one knows infinity plus one is infinity right? God is infinite right? God Himeself is Trinity right? That makes three is infinity and so 3 = 4 = 5 = ad ~~inifinitum~~ trinitum. QED. Woods, Woods, would you give me a PhD in Math for this thesis in Literalist Math? Please, please pretty please.

Richard Simons · 17 April 2009

I think I will add this (Mace, Simms & Wood) to my collection of things that can go wrong in a scientific paper. Quite apart from anything else, their citation system is one I haven't met before. Each reference is numbered consecutively (apart from the 13 biblical references at the beginning) then in the references list identical citations are cross-referenced, for example "14. Boissier, et al., ref. 12." Checking on reference 12, we find that it has been submitted but we are not told to where. For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the conventions, this would normally be listed as a personal communication.

Looking elsewhere, we see "10. Rollinson, et al., ref. 4, pp. 362–373." But reference 4 is not to Rollinson and only has four pages. A third of the references are to books, all at least 15 years out of date when the article was written.

If I were coming cold to the subject, looking at the reference list alone would be enough to make me highly doubtful of the quality of the work in the rest of the paper.

James F · 17 April 2009

Richard Simons said: I think I will add this (Mace, Simms & Wood) to my collection of things that can go wrong in a scientific paper.

It's in Impact, it's not a scientific paper.

Ravilyn Sanders · 17 April 2009

Richard Simons said: then in the references list identical citations are cross-referenced, for example "14. Boissier, et al., ref. 12." Checking on reference 12, we find that it has been submitted but we are not told to where.

As a programmer, I am not impressed. Any one can write a function that refers to another function. Recursion! Man! That is the true hallmark of a programmer. Call me back when they manage to do recursive references ;-). 14 refers 12 and 12 refers to 14. That would be stunning!

Joshua Zelinsky · 17 April 2009

"are mots closely" - I presume that "mots" should be "most."

John Harshman · 17 April 2009

You're being way too hard on Todd Charles Wood. He isn't ignorant of biology. In fact, of all the creationists I've seen, he knows the most. But like Kurt Wise, he is forced by his unshakable preconceptions to fit his perfectly good square peg into a ridiculously small round hole.

Give him some credit. He has frequently taken other creationists to task for their ignorance of biology. See this, for example:

http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=u4FIU0eLuT6SmyXcvLmbCiFa4UnoWsTP3lyArVOo%2FgM%3D

Sure, he says ridiculous things. But when he does, he knows they're ridiculous; he just believes them anyway. He and Wise are the most rational of YECs.

John Harshman · 17 April 2009

Oh, and this is a basic misreading of Wood's point, which should be obvious if you read the whole thing. He's saying that you can't ignore the fact that carnivore morphology, not just behavior, is obviously designed (or "designed", if you prefer), from the bottom up, for eating meat, and killing to get it. He's claiming that the Fall must have involved a highly elaborate subsidiary creation, in which almost every species was modified to fit a whole new ecology.

He's just trying to fit Genesis to reality, without changing anything it says. It's a difficult job, but he's not the ignorant idiot you make him out to be. He's facing reality in his own way, much more than the average creationist ever does.

Stacy · 17 April 2009

Aaron said:
Well, we couldn’t have any of that nasty adaptive evolution happening could we? ... And creationists just don’t like admitting to adaptive evolution
Be careful when syllogistically saying that Creationists don't believe in adaptive evolution. The latest trend in prominent Creationist propaganda has been in support of adaptive evolution WITHIN a baramin.

Aauurrgghh - you beat me to it...

However, state board member Linda Taylor seems to agree with the strategy of teaching more than one "theory". According to her: "I would support teaching evolution, but with all its warts. I think that some of the facts have been questioned by evolutionists themselves. I would want them taught as theories."

From: http://flsciencestandards.blogspot.com/

James F · 17 April 2009

I think I've figured out a common feature of YEC biologists (small group that they are) like Todd Woods, David DeWitt, and Georgia Purdom. They get their Ph.D.s and end up in places like Liberty University and Bryan College, but they don't do postdoctoral research. True, Nathaniel Abraham tried to do one at Woods Hole, but that didn't work out (hard to do work in evolutionary biology when you're a YEC). I think that there's only so far you can go in a student/apprentice capacity while maintaining such extreme cognitive dissonance. What do you think - good rule of thumb?

James F · 17 April 2009

* Wood

Joshua Zelinsky · 17 April 2009

James F, the sample size is too small to make a meaningful determinant.

Also, I strongly agree with what John said above that the original post doesn't give Woods enough credit. I'd however counter that with a separate response: At this point how is Woods's viewpoint that different from outright omphalism? Is there any biological evidence that would convince Woods that he is wrong? Given this I have to conclude the answer is no.

raven · 17 April 2009

Carnivory has a long history, with even some bacteria (including the superbly named Vampirococcus) being predators.

There is another good example. Bdellovibrios grab other bacteria, bore inside, replicate using the host contents, and then burst the cell open and drift off. Exactly like a virus but they are bacteria preying on other bacteria. What did the rotifers, paramecium, and amoebas do before the fall. And why should microscopic creatures suffer just because some babe ate an apple? LOL Wood and Wise et al. are justing writing comic book scenarios of reality. Cargo cult immortality, "if I don't pretend my cult version of reality is true, I won't go to heaven and live forever." Sort of Pascal's wager for people with too much time on their hands.

Glen Davidson · 17 April 2009

It's the usual, explaining the inexplicable (diversity of life) by the inexplicable (mind of god). Or actually today, it's explaining the explicable (obviously evolutionarily-produced diversity of life) via the inexplicable (mind of god). In the same vein, one has to deny that evolution readily explains organisms eating other organisms, and instead to blame it on evil.

So of course their whole point today is to disparage explanation (the evolutionary model) and to claim that life is in fact inexplicable. Imagine that not being allowed into science classes!

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

stevaroni · 17 April 2009

Note the pattern here? Mace et al, want the Schistosomes to be “fallen” versions of a mutalistic organism.

Maybe there were originally two schistosomes, and they ate these really tiny apples they weren't supposed to eat and ...

John Kwok · 17 April 2009

I don't know, maybe some nonparametric test, like a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, perhaps:

Joshua Zelinsky said: James F, the sample size is too small to make a meaningful determinant. Also, I strongly agree with what John said above that the original post doesn't give Woods enough credit. I'd however counter that with a separate response: At this point how is Woods's viewpoint that different from outright omphalism? Is there any biological evidence that would convince Woods that he is wrong? Given this I have to conclude the answer is no.

Glen Davidson · 17 April 2009

include the giant panda, then you have an obligate herbivore

Besides which, I do not believe that pandas are obligate herbivores. They do eat animals on occasion, and almost certainly could live on some sort of omnivorous (where meat is at least in double digit percentages) diet. Yes, they get easy facts wrong in just about everything they write. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Jedidiah Palosaari · 17 April 2009

This tying oneself up in knots to explain, as you so aptly state, is the primary reason I gave up on the idea of Literal Creationism that I grew up with.

Glen Davidson · 17 April 2009

Here's one of the claims to be found on the web regarding pandas eating meat:

Interestingly, bamboo is the primary food of the giant panda’s diet, although they do occasionally eat small rodents or musk deer fawns. terpconnect.umd.edu/~jhwaddy/zoo.html

What they appear not to be any more, is anything like efficient hunters. They'll eat meat, but they can only catch the relatively helpless and slow animals. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Ian · 17 April 2009

You forgot to mention the creationist time period:
the baraminute

If you divide 6,000 years into minutes, you can get it to roughly equal the number of years there has been evidence of life on Earth. This works even better if you fudge it up a bit using a method called "a scientific barage" in creation-speak.

So one baraminute = (approx) one year.

Baraminutes are measured with a barometer, of course, which conveniently explains why creationist arguments weather so well - at least, they never seem to wear them out and have to get rid of them....

John Kwok · 17 April 2009

Glen, still you should regard the giant panda as primarily a herbivore. It may be an "opportunistic" carnivore on occasion:

Glen Davidson said: Here's one of the claims to be found on the web regarding pandas eating meat:
Interestingly, bamboo is the primary food of the giant panda’s diet, although they do occasionally eat small rodents or musk deer fawns. terpconnect.umd.edu/~jhwaddy/zoo.html
What they appear not to be any more, is anything like efficient hunters. They'll eat meat, but they can only catch the relatively helpless and slow animals. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Mike from Ottawa · 17 April 2009

The reason creationists bugger up the basic biology and don't pursue post-doctoral research is the same: they have no actual interest in biology itself, only an interest in (mis)using it to promote their particular religious views. If they had an actual interest in biology itself, they'd at least be trying to do some research in a descriptive mode, which they don't.

I occasionally run across an atheist who does the same thing with evolutionary biology, but this is far rarer, I expect because evolutionary biology poses no threat to atheism and folk are more apt to act brainlessly when on the defensive.

Mike · 17 April 2009

DS said: Why on earth would anyone attempt to dictate to real experts what the interpretation of the data should be when they themselves have absolutely no idea what the data are? How can they expect that anyone would take them at all seriously when they steadfastly refuse to even atempt to educate themselves on even the most basic facts?

We should keep clear that Woods, et al., couldn't care less what the experts think. They produced this "article" strictly for consumption by the mass of fundamentalists uneducated in biology. It looks "sciency" and therefore is science. To that extent, they are lying. They are trying to give the impression that there is a mass of scientific understanding supporting their "alternative". They're giving that impression not to the scientific community, but to the general public, and that's not just fundamentalists but also the rest of the voting public who might be persuaded to give them the benefit of the doubt on whether they have a "scientific" alternative.

Glen Davidson · 17 April 2009

Glen, still you should regard the giant panda as primarily a herbivore.

Well I do. I was objecting to Woods' characterization, "the giant panda, then you have an obligate herbivore." Had he simply said that the giant panda is "primarily an herbivore" or is "an herbivore," I'd not have disagreed. But they still have an omnivore's (not a "carnivore's," in fact) physiology, and and will eat meat on occasion, hence "obligate herbivore" is not the right term for the panda. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Mike Elzinga · 17 April 2009

James F said: I think I've figured out a common feature of YEC biologists (small group that they are) like Todd Woods, David DeWitt, and Georgia Purdom. They get their Ph.D.s and end up in places like Liberty University and Bryan College, but they don't do postdoctoral research. True, Nathaniel Abraham tried to do one at Woods Hole, but that didn't work out (hard to do work in evolutionary biology when you're a YEC). I think that there's only so far you can go in a student/apprentice capacity while maintaining such extreme cognitive dissonance. What do you think - good rule of thumb?

I doubt that lack of post doc experience is the reason, although I suspect that ID/creationists deliberately avoid every possible contact with reality, and hence are more likely to avoid post doc research. But they also avoid every other situation in which their misconceptions would be confronted and lead to the cognitive dissonance that might correct them. Many people don’t do post doc research because they don’t end up in academic positions. Those who head directly into industry or government labs are often those who don’t do a post doc. But that doesn’t mean they are lacking in any of their skills or knowledge. In fact, I personally know many who are superb scientists and have been superb from the time they obtained their bachelors degree. These are people who continued their graduate work while holding down jobs. If I were to hazard a guess, I would place the blame on ID/creationist’s ability to exploit weakness, loopholes, and over-extended faculty. By keeping their misconceptions hidden, avoiding any significant responsibility in their graduate work, by forming essentially a parasitic relationship with the groups in which they did their graduate work, they manage to avoid the kind of scrutiny that would flag their misconceptions. I would also guess that most of them simply did routine grunge work that didn’t challenge any of their misconceptions. I suspect that by the time they got to their graduate work, they already had developed some sense about how to slip around these confrontations with reality. In any really challenging graduate work (I know this to be true in physics) grad students have to design, build and use apparatus to obtain meaningful and repeatable data. That means they must deeply understand the physical principles on which these apparatus are built and the fundamentals of the phenomena they are studying. I’m not as familiar with biology, but I suspect there is a lot of routine work that can be done in groups that doesn’t demand the deep thinking about fundamental concepts. This can happen in physics also. There has been a lot of research on misconceptions in physics, chemistry and biology. What has been learned is that serious misconceptions can persist well into graduate work, and as we see with these creationists, even beyond. Basically they are exploiting an overloaded system of education.

Mike · 17 April 2009

John Harshman said: Sure, he says ridiculous things. But when he does, he knows they're ridiculous; he just believes them anyway. He and Wise are the most rational of YECs.

I don't think Woods, Wise, et al., escape criticism on that count. They're still intentionally misleading the public into thinking that the scientific process supports their "alternative". Peer review is an inescapable component of the scientific process, and they're flipping the bird at it under the table.

Seward · 17 April 2009

I think it is kind interesting that he pegs "natural evil," but not "moral evil." Because moral evil (if I were a theist) is how I would describe a universe "designed" as it is today. That is, if it were in fact designed this way. That being said, do creationists address the problem of evil in any unique way?

Seward · 17 April 2009

Natural evil = no agent

Moral evil = agent

Richard Simons · 17 April 2009

James F said:
Richard Simons said: I think I will add this (Mace, Simms & Wood) to my collection of things that can go wrong in a scientific paper.
It's in Impact, it's not a scientific paper.

True, but it pretends to be one. In the past, I hadn't included anything written by creationists, IDers, etc because they are so plainly ludicrous but, quite apart from the content, many are such excellent examples of how not to write and present a scientific paper.

John Harshman · 17 April 2009

Mike said: I don't think Woods, Wise, et al., escape criticism on that count. They're still intentionally misleading the public into thinking that the scientific process supports their "alternative". Peer review is an inescapable component of the scientific process, and they're flipping the bird at it under the table.

I don't see either of them acting from malice or deception. They believe what they're saying. Misinterpreting and quote-mining their remarks, as Ian has done here, is not helpful. Wise and Wood (note the spelling) are up front about their ideas. Their essential point of difference from mainstream science (and it's a big point) is that they accept a literal interpretation of Genesis as a foundation of science, into which all empirical evidence must be fit. The fit is a poor one, as Wood frequently acknowledges. But he claims that the poor fit is a consequence of our lack of understanding. He's as rational as you can be if you insist on biblical literalism. Check out his article on the chimpanzee genome: perfect understanding of the data, perfect rejection of the clear conclusion, because it just can't be true.

eric · 17 April 2009

Aaron said: They will generally, ridiculously, try to draw some distinction between genetic drift that yields small changes (microevolution) and that which yields large changes over time ("macroevolution"); specifically disagreeing with the idea of morphological change.

Yes. As the topic is 'why biologists laugh at creationists' I'll add that one doesn't even need a biology degree to laugh at this one. Its kind of like saying that the mechanism of compound interest can get you from $1 to $2, but never to $100.

mark · 17 April 2009

Did Adam and Eve have immune systems?

What about the verse, Lines on the Antiquity of Fleas?(Strickland Gillian):

Adam

Had 'em.

James F · 17 April 2009

My point was that the field of biologist YECs is evidently devoid of people who have completed postdocs - a characteristic of the known sample rather than a statistical argument, if you will. If there are YEC biologists who have postdocs under their belt, that would sink my observation. As far as I know, however, there are none. What I was getting at is, unless you are in a system where your peers reinforce your beliefs (Liberty U. Chemistry/Biology faculty, etc.), a post-PhD research position is unrealistic for a YEC, thus no YECs who have done postdocs.

John Kwok said: I don't know, maybe some nonparametric test, like a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, perhaps:
Joshua Zelinsky said: James F, the sample size is too small to make a meaningful determinant. Also, I strongly agree with what John said above that the original post doesn't give Woods enough credit. I'd however counter that with a separate response: At this point how is Woods's viewpoint that different from outright omphalism? Is there any biological evidence that would convince Woods that he is wrong? Given this I have to conclude the answer is no.

James F · 17 April 2009

Ah, point taken. You ought to read Abbie Smith's dissection of a paper in Answers Research Journal, where for "wild type" bacteria they scooped samples from a pond. Oy....

Richard Simons said:
James F said:
Richard Simons said: I think I will add this (Mace, Simms & Wood) to my collection of things that can go wrong in a scientific paper.
It's in Impact, it's not a scientific paper.
True, but it pretends to be one. In the past, I hadn't included anything written by creationists, IDers, etc because they are so plainly ludicrous but, quite apart from the content, many are such excellent examples of how not to write and present a scientific paper.

James F · 17 April 2009

Mike Elzinga said: I doubt that lack of post doc experience is the reason, although I suspect that ID/creationists deliberately avoid every possible contact with reality, and hence are more likely to avoid post doc research. But they also avoid every other situation in which their misconceptions would be confronted and lead to the cognitive dissonance that might correct them.

I just mean that given their mindsets, independent biology research at a postdoctoral level is highly unlikely - as far as I know none of them have completed a postdoc.

Many people don’t do post doc research because they don’t end up in academic positions. Those who head directly into industry or government labs are often those who don’t do a post doc. But that doesn’t mean they are lacking in any of their skills or knowledge. In fact, I personally know many who are superb scientists and have been superb from the time they obtained their bachelors degree.

Let me hasten to add that it was NOT my intention to imply that those who don't do postdocs are poor scientists. I just can't see how a YEC would keep up the charade long enough to complete a postdoc.

Basically they are exploiting an overloaded system of education.

This is an excellent point - that's how PhDs can slip through.

eric · 17 April 2009

James F said: Let me hasten to add that it was NOT my intention to imply that those who don't do postdocs are poor scientists. I just can't see how a YEC would keep up the charade long enough to complete a postdoc.

I'll quibble with the word "charade." The quality of the work stands or falls on its own merit, independent of the religious beliefs of the scientist. Now, a wierd set of beliefs may give the reader more reason to suspect fraud or bias. But if a paper is good and doesn't include fraud or bias, then science has gained by it regardless (or maybe in spite of) the motives of the person doing the work. Really I have no issue with YECers that want to be scientists. By all means go for it. Do good, solid, reproducible work, that's all I would ask.

James F · 17 April 2009

Clarification on "charade": they would be performing experiments while holding beliefs that would make the basic premises and conclusions impossible. Squaring phylogenetic trees with Noah's ark and a 6,000-year-old earth, etc. I'm fine with them doing science, in fact, I hope it converts them to actual scientific thinking (see Denis Lamoureux). The real problem is that many of them end up as propagandists for AiG and the DI and ultimately hurt science far more than any research they could accomplish would help it!

eric said:
James F said: Let me hasten to add that it was NOT my intention to imply that those who don't do postdocs are poor scientists. I just can't see how a YEC would keep up the charade long enough to complete a postdoc.
I'll quibble with the word "charade." The quality of the work stands or falls on its own merit, independent of the religious beliefs of the scientist. Now, a wierd set of beliefs may give the reader more reason to suspect fraud or bias. But if a paper is good and doesn't include fraud or bias, then science has gained by it regardless (or maybe in spite of) the motives of the person doing the work. Really I have no issue with YECers that want to be scientists. By all means go for it. Do good, solid, reproducible work, that's all I would ask.

Dean Wentworth · 17 April 2009

John Harshman,

I agree with your assessment of Wise and Wood. Their articles do follow a common theme: The evidence supports common descent but hopefully further research will make it fit creationism better.

Mike Elzinga · 17 April 2009

James F said: I just mean that given their mindsets, independent biology research at a postdoctoral level is highly unlikely - as far as I know none of them have completed a postdoc.

I think that is the case. Once they get the letters behind their name (in fact, the more the better), they bug out of the educational process as soon as possible and begin to pass themselves off as “authorities” with the letters after their names becoming suitable badges of intimidation. I suspect this has something to do with the fact that a number of these DI “fellows” have several shallow degrees. In a choreographed debate, those debaters who have the most degrees are the ones to be believed. So, for them, getting by the hurdles in education, no matter how they game the system, is a means to appearing formidable and knowledgeable. Unfortunately it also makes a mockery of advanced degrees; but the rubes wouldn’t know that.

numi · 17 April 2009

WIASAD, what kind of a person, obviously of some functional intelligence level and education, knowingly denies their own personal knowledge, and willingly indulges in outright lies and obfuscation in support of an insupportable position?

Politician comes to mind but I'm sure there are more appropriate descriptions. Any suggestions?

stevaroni · 17 April 2009

WIASAD

WIASAD? I don't know that one (neither does The Google) Can someone help an old guy out here?

MIke · 17 April 2009

John Harshman said:
Mike said: Peer review is an inescapable component of the scientific process, and they're flipping the bird at it under the table.
I don't see either of them acting from malice or deception. They believe what they're saying.

I understand the argument, its just that it doesn't excuse misrepresenting what they're doing as science. The mantra, shared by various factions of the movement, is that a different "world view" produces alternative scientific conclusions. That's flatly wrong, and a separate issue from whether or not they can accept current science as valid. There is no necessity in going from rejection of science in favor of one interpretation of the Bible to an "alternative" science. Its a whole additional step, and its dishonest. Whether or not they themselves believe what they're doing is science is also immaterial. What they're writing is clearly being used to show evidence of a valid "scientific" alternative, and they understand that. I'm not saying that they aren't entitled to their own views of science and religion, but it doesn't make them immune to criticism. Stating that ones religious beliefs prevents a belief in the validity of current scientific conclusions, and that one hopes that, in the future, a better understanding is possible, is honest, even if it drives militant atheists up a wall. Misrepresentation of science, particularly by someone who understands what they're doing, deliberately crosses a line, and is dishonest. Doesn't matter if its done with malice, with the best of intentions, or completely unintentionally, its still misrepresentation for the purposes of propaganda.

John Harshman · 17 April 2009

MIke said: I'm not saying that they aren't entitled to their own views of science and religion, but it doesn't make them immune to criticism. Stating that ones religious beliefs prevents a belief in the validity of current scientific conclusions, and that one hopes that, in the future, a better understanding is possible, is honest, even if it drives militant atheists up a wall. Misrepresentation of science, particularly by someone who understands what they're doing, deliberately crosses a line, and is dishonest. Doesn't matter if its done with malice, with the best of intentions, or completely unintentionally, its still misrepresentation for the purposes of propaganda.

My understanding of the word "misrepresentation" is that it implies conscious deception. There are excellent reasons for criticizing Wood and Wise -- their "science", after all, is nonsense -- but don't criticize them for lying, because they aren't. It's unfortunate that their commitment to creationism forces them to say, and believe, as many as six impossible things before breakfast. It's certainly legitimate to ask them why baraminology has achieved exactly nothing during its existence as a "science", and to point out how lame all their "research" has been. And there's certainly a fair degree of self-deception involved in their failure to examine the assumptions of their methods. But "dishonest"? "Deliberately crosses a line"? How can you make that claim? Going after Wood for being unable to count to 5, or for saying pandas are herbivores, is just silly. Go after him for the real, fundamental flaws of his logic.

Seward · 17 April 2009

Mike,

There is no necessity in going from rejection of science in favor of one interpretation of the Bible to an “alternative” science.

Well, I'd say it depends what one thinks is required to defend the Bible or any other religious text or belief in God in general; what sort of apologetics one adopts in other words. Clearly some people require "scientific creationism" is an important aspect for demonstrating that their belief in God is a rational belief.

John Kwok · 17 April 2009

James F, I agree completely with your assessment. I was just teasing Joshua, by suggesting that one could calculate a statistical test (though his statistical assumptions would be correct, regardless):

James F said: My point was that the field of biologist YECs is evidently devoid of people who have completed postdocs - a characteristic of the known sample rather than a statistical argument, if you will. If there are YEC biologists who have postdocs under their belt, that would sink my observation. As far as I know, however, there are none. What I was getting at is, unless you are in a system where your peers reinforce your beliefs (Liberty U. Chemistry/Biology faculty, etc.), a post-PhD research position is unrealistic for a YEC, thus no YECs who have done postdocs.
John Kwok said: I don't know, maybe some nonparametric test, like a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, perhaps:
Joshua Zelinsky said: James F, the sample size is too small to make a meaningful determinant. Also, I strongly agree with what John said above that the original post doesn't give Woods enough credit. I'd however counter that with a separate response: At this point how is Woods's viewpoint that different from outright omphalism? Is there any biological evidence that would convince Woods that he is wrong? Given this I have to conclude the answer is no.

eric · 17 April 2009

James F said: Clarification on "charade": they would be performing experiments while holding beliefs that would make the basic premises and conclusions impossible.

Yeah, but what do I care about their internal psychological state? Again with the caveat that strange beliefs may indicate fraud or bias, I can't see why strange beliefs matter if the research is good. Mike Elzinga's point is well taken, many creationists may be doing it as a resume booster rather than because they have any interest in doing science. But for working scientists, I honestly don't care how they harmonize their internal beliefs with their scientific practice, as long as their scientific practice is good.

Mike Elzinga · 17 April 2009

MIke said: I'm not saying that they aren't entitled to their own views of science and religion, but it doesn't make them immune to criticism. Stating that ones religious beliefs prevents a belief in the validity of current scientific conclusions, and that one hopes that, in the future, a better understanding is possible, is honest, even if it drives militant atheists up a wall. Misrepresentation of science, particularly by someone who understands what they're doing, deliberately crosses a line, and is dishonest. Doesn't matter if its done with malice, with the best of intentions, or completely unintentionally, its still misrepresentation for the purposes of propaganda.

These people should not be given any quarter whatsoever. After over four decades of repeated corrections to their misconceptions and misrepresentations, they still continue to propagate these same errors using well-funded institutes designed for just this purpose. And their propaganda has been effective enough that the rubes who follow them will now quote with snarky “authority” to an expert in a scientific field, “Well, that’s just your opinion.” They are entitled to their views only if they keep them to themselves within their churches and don’t screw up the educations of others who depend on real science connected with the real world. Unfortunately, they have chosen to put on airs of authority and meddle in the affairs and educations of others. Misdirecting people to waste time, money, resources, and life is considered to be the crime of fraud in any other arena of societal interaction. That these people hide behind the US Constitution’s protection of the “free exercise of religion” makes their misdirection no less criminal even if the law can’t touch them. If the law can’t handle the situation, huge, continual spotlights on their lies and political shenanigans can at least highlight their snake-oil salesmanship and help blunt its effect. It’s not as satisfying as giving them the treatment they deserve for fraud, but at least it makes them look silly by rubbing their noses in it.

James F · 17 April 2009

eric said:
James F said: Clarification on "charade": they would be performing experiments while holding beliefs that would make the basic premises and conclusions impossible.
Yeah, but what do I care about their internal psychological state? Again with the caveat that strange beliefs may indicate fraud or bias, I can't see why strange beliefs matter if the research is good.

Empirically speaking, their research is not good. Go to PubMed and type in: Liberty University[ad] Thirty-eight papers come up, eight of them reviews. THIRTY-FOUR of those were by Dr. Hila Spear, all of them in the field of nursing. With one more paper on nursing, that leaves three biological/biomedical papers for the entire university. I've published more than that, and in far better journals, in one YEAR.

eric · 17 April 2009

James F said: Empirically speaking, their research is not good.

I agree. Wholeheartedly. Just so long as you aren't advocating a philosophical litmus test on potential Ph.D.'s. We do that, and we become the thing we are fighting against.

Dean Wentworth · 17 April 2009

stevaroni,

From another old guy who couldn't figure it out. It stands for "When it's all said and done." It took me a while to find out.

DS · 17 April 2009

Mike wrote:

"Misrepresentation of science, particularly by someone who understands what they’re doing, deliberately crosses a line, and is dishonest. Doesn’t matter if its done with malice, with the best of intentions, or completely unintentionally, its still misrepresentation for the purposes of propaganda."

I completely agree. These charlatans cloak themselves in the facade of scientific respectability when they knowingly violate the most basic principles of science. They don't do the research, they don't even bother to become familiar with the research, then they force their conclusions to conform to a set of presuppositions. Fine, if that's the game you want to play, but you don't get to call it science. You don't get to try to fool people into thinking that it is science or that it somehow trumps science without your integrity being called into question. If you were honest you call it what it is, religion pure and simple. You would publish such things in theological or religious publications, not pseudoscientific repositories for nonsense. And you would have real references from real scientific literature, not some hodge podge of incomprehensible gibberish. Believe whatever you want to believe, just don't go around telling people that you can believe things that are contrary to known facts and try to call it science.

Anyone can claim that crying is part of baseball, but only someone who could not play baseball and who had absolutely no respect for baseball or any integrity at all would try to claim that it should count in determining who wins and who loses. You can cry all you want in baseball, you just don't get any runs for it, nor should you.

John Harshman · 17 April 2009

James F said: My point was that the field of biologist YECs is evidently devoid of people who have completed postdocs - a characteristic of the known sample rather than a statistical argument, if you will. If there are YEC biologists who have postdocs under their belt, that would sink my observation. As far as I know, however, there are none.

There may be a simpler reason than their inability to cope. Why would a creationist who maintained through a 4+ year PhD program have any greater problems with a 1-2 year postdoc? I suggest that a simpler reason is that they don't have to. Any creationist PhD worth his salt will be able to land a tenure-track position at some fundy college almost immediately. You don't think we take low-paid positions in other people's labs just for the fun and honor of it, do you?

James F · 18 April 2009

John Harshman said: You don't think we take low-paid positions in other people's labs just for the fun and honor of it, do you?

Hell no. No one in their right mind would do a postdoc unless he or she planned to advance to an independent research position or some other faculty job. In one of my overly dramatic moments I swore to some friends that I'd rather die than do a second postdoc. I think my initial remarks were taken as a statement of causation rather than correlation. As you, Mike Elzinga, and others have pointed out, it's a matter of taking the path of least resistance to get a doctorate and thus gain credibility with the public. Most people know what a Ph.D. is but are not familiar with postdoctoral research, and they may even assume that a Ph.D. in engineering, philosophy, etc. makes someone an expert in biology. YEC biologists want to do YEC apologetics, not research, so they are conspicuously lacking in postdoctoral work.

DS · 18 April 2009

The point here is that there is exactly as much scientific evidence for "the fall" as there is for "the flood", that is to say, absolutely none whatsoever. Now you can believe anything you want, but what you can't do is claim that you believe in "the fall" or "the flood" based on scientific evidence. If you do that, then those who are familiar with the evidence will rightfully label you as either ignorant or dishonest and they will rightfully point you to all of the evidence that disproves any particular claim that you try to make.

If these people had any pretentions of doing anything remotely scientific, they would provide testable hypotheses and examine the evidence to see if it were consistent with the predictions of their hypotheses. If they were not, they should have the intellectual honesty to admit that they were not and to admit that they were in fact consistent with the predictions of modern evolutionary theory. Then, they should have the courage to admit that science does not support their conclusions and that they believe what they believe despite the evidence. If they did that, then no one could argue with them. They would be protected by the Constitution.

Testing ideas against evidence is how Darwin was able to convince the scientific community in the mid 1800's that his ideas were in fact correct. He provided plausible mechanisms and evidence to support them. He didn't rely on Biblical literalism or inerrancy and he didn't try to conform his views to religious myths or presuppositions. Creationists would do well to learn the lesson that Darwin taught us 150 years ago.

nn · 18 April 2009

numi said: WIASAD, what kind of a person, obviously of some functional intelligence level and education, knowingly denies their own personal knowledge, and willingly indulges in outright lies and obfuscation in support of an insupportable position? Politician comes to mind but I'm sure there are more appropriate descriptions. Any suggestions?

Definitely seems to happen in the mainstream sciences too. I read a book about geology and the discovery of ice ages recently and it had some interesting examples of some of the modern theories of catastrophic floods in western north america at the end of the last ice age literally needed their opponents to die, even given overwhelming evidence. For biology there are similar cases; for example there are still holdouts who don't accept cladistics, even though that's pretty well supported by now.

John Kwok · 18 April 2009

That's true in other sciences too. For example, one of my college professors, a noted paleoclimatologist, is a global warming skeptic (And he's the only one in his geological sciences department, which is noted for its research in paleoclimatology. He's now a professor emeritus there, and is receiving support now from the oil industry.):

nn said:
numi said: WIASAD, what kind of a person, obviously of some functional intelligence level and education, knowingly denies their own personal knowledge, and willingly indulges in outright lies and obfuscation in support of an insupportable position? Politician comes to mind but I'm sure there are more appropriate descriptions. Any suggestions?
Definitely seems to happen in the mainstream sciences too. I read a book about geology and the discovery of ice ages recently and it had some interesting examples of some of the modern theories of catastrophic floods in western north america at the end of the last ice age literally needed their opponents to die, even given overwhelming evidence. For biology there are similar cases; for example there are still holdouts who don't accept cladistics, even though that's pretty well supported by now.

DiscoveredJoys · 19 April 2009

Just out of morbid curiosity... did dead stuff (animals, wood, dung etc.) rot prior to "the Fall"?

If there were no creatures eating (the remains of) other creatures the Garden of Eden would have been deep in dead stuff. Even if no creature died then you would still expect there to be drifts of dead leaves, unless there were no seasons...

Without wanting to be too personal, did Adam and Eve poo prior to "the Fall"? What happened to it afterwards?

Henry J · 19 April 2009

Just out of morbid curiosity… did dead stuff (animals, wood, dung etc.) rot prior to “the Fall”?

Well, presumably fungi (and perhaps other scavengers) had to eat too, and as I understand it, that's what causes rotting. Henry

tresmal · 19 April 2009

Before the fall nothing died. And there was no dung, everybody (including animals) farted lilac scent (or perhaps a fresh lemon scent). Therefore there was nothing to rot.

Henry J · 19 April 2009

But in that case, fungi would have had nothing to eat. ;)

Henry

Pete Dunkelberg · 19 April 2009

Before the Fall there was very little time for predators to get hungry and start to figure out what to do about it.

Henry J · 19 April 2009

Before the Fall was the Summer. ;)

John Kwok · 20 April 2009

Hi all,

I know this is off topic, but should interest those of you who may be in New York City next weekend:

In honor of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday, the Tribeca Film Festival will be screening "Inherit the Wind", the critically acclaimed fictional account of the 1925 "Scopes Monkey Trial" on Saturday, April 25th at 1 PM. Afterwards, there will be a panel discussion featuring Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director, National Center for Science Education, Dr. David Kohn, Director, Darwin Digital Library, American Museum of Natural History (He was a major consultant to the American Museum of Natural History's "Darwin" exhibition.), journalist Jonathan Weiner (author of "Beak of the Finch", about ongoing research on Darwin's Finches by noted evolutionary biologists Peter and B. Rosemary Grant) and director Jon Amiel, whose latest film is "Creation", a fictionalized account of Darwin's life.

You can purchase tickets online here:

http://www.tribecafilm.com/filmguide/Inherit_the_Wind.html

Regards,

John

P. S. Ken Miller will be speaking twice next month here in NYC. Alas, both events aren't free. For more details, you can look under here:

http://www.millerandlevine.com

and also here:

http://www.brownnyc.org

Ray Martinez · 23 April 2009

Darwinists laughing at Creationists?

We need to remember that the "Creationists" (= Fundamentalists) being laughed at in the OP accept the main claims of their enemy (Materialism): the concepts of evolution and natural selection to exist in nature---just like all Darwinists.

Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species immutabilist.

Stanton · 23 April 2009

Maybe scientists wouldn't laugh at Creationists as much if Creationists attempted to do research instead of proselytize and spew fire and brimstone inanities.

But, unfortunately, Creationists demonstrate time and time again that they would sooner die than attempt to do research, and they would sooner die than stop proselytizing and spewing fire and brimstone inanities. Reading through the comments left by Creationists and other evolution-deniers clearly show this.

Henry J · 24 April 2009

But a Creationist who starts doing research (in a biology related field, anyway) stops being a Creationist, so you still don't have a Creationist doing research. :p

Henry

Jesus Christ · 27 July 2009

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, it does not matter about Creation or Evolution. Here is what matters. The United States had an increase of 13 Million people from 2004 to 2009. That's only 5 years. In 25 years that will be 65 Million people. In 50 years that will be 130 Million people. In 100 years that will be 260 Million people. In 500 years that will be 1 Billion 300 Million people. Add that to the 300 Million people we already have and you come up with a grand total of 1 Billion 600 Million people in the United States by the year 2509. There are 195 countries listed in the world. What do you think the world's population will be in 500 years? If there is poverty, starvation, global warming and a hole in the ozone layer now, what do you think these problems will be like in 500 years? Does the word "CANNIBALISM" mean anything? Save your generations from suffering a miserable and horrible end. Stop creating and if you have children tell them when they grow up not to create. I am 100% sure they will appreciate not being left behind to suffer that situation. Help spread this message to the entire world. +JC

Dave Luckett · 28 July 2009

Or on the other hand, see http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html for a reasonably rational appraisal of US population growth. Who you goin' to believe, the US census or some whackjob who posts on the internet under the handle of "Jesus Christ"?