The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Is Justice Scalia a creationist?

Posted 10 June 2015 by Matt Young

The Washington Post reported the other day that Justice Antonin Scalia, in a commencement address, said,

Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so, and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were.

I suppose that "at least 5000 years" gives you some wiggle room, but I would hardly call, say, 200,000 years "at least 5000 years." That is a bit like saying, "The trip from Boulder to New York is at least 20 kilometers." Jerry Coyne, who is much nicer than I am, thinks that it might have been "just an offhand remark that's been blown out of proportion." Well, maybe, but I watched most of the speech on Professor Coyne's website, and I could not help but notice that Justice Scalia was reading that text: he did not misspeak. Justice Scalia dissented in Edwards vs. Aguillar, but he seemed more concerned with whether the legislature intended creation "science" as a religious doctrine than with its scientific merit. He also supported the "balanced treatment" argument to the effect that students who learn evolution are entitled to the opposing view as well. His argument was well reasoned but depended on the assumption that creation science is not a religious doctrine if its supporters think it is not. Contrary to some reports, Justice Scalia did not say, "The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution"; rather, he was paraphrasing the testimony of witnesses and states explicitly "that I by no means intend to endorse its accuracy" but that "what is crucial is not [the legislature's] wisdom in believing that [a certain secular] purpose would be achieved by the bill, but their sincerity in believing it would be" [italics in original]. Still, Justice Scalia generally comes across as an authoritarian, uncomfortable with ambiguity and guided by literalist interpretations. If he takes the Bible as literally as he takes the Constitution, then it is easy to see that he might well believe in a young Earth. I hope I am wrong and Professor Coyne is right.

79 Comments

tomh · 10 June 2015

Who knows what anyone truly believes, the important thing, in my opinion, is that Scalia would be perfectly happy to have ID taught in schools. I'm as certain as I can be that, if another creationist case, ID most likely, came before the Court, Scalia would find a way to approve it.

TomS · 10 June 2015

The impression that I got about Scalia on Edwards is that he wants to overturn the rules from Lemon, and he doesn't care what vehicle he uses to do that. There are a number of religious post-modernists who don't think much for science or anything which presents an authority contrary to what they can wish to be the case.

paulc_mv · 10 June 2015

I can't read minds, but my take is that Scalia just couldn't care less about the universe outside the narrowly constructed framework of law, politics, and religious faith. So as far as he's concerned, it is appropriate to say "5000" if he can get away with it without raising any eyebrows. If science literacy spreads to the point where his colleagues frown on this, he'll roll with the punches.

I think the mistake made by a lot of scientists and science enthusiasts is to imagine that everyone strives to understand objective reality. Many people, including highly educated ones, are perfectly content to inhabit a socially constructed reality.

James Downard · 10 June 2015

Scalia definitely wants to scuttle Lemon, but a review of how Scalia evaluated the Edwards v. Aguillard creationist testimony (which hadn't really been done by prior critiques, and which I endeavor to remedy in TIP 1.6 at www.tortucan.wordpress.com) shows how superficial his analysis was, accepting and morphing the attitudes until they fell within his very limited Kulturkampf conceptual comfort zone.

Like William Jennings Bryan before him, I don't think Scalia has a clue about how old things are and he simply doesn't care. In that sense neither are YEC strictly, but may be functionally ones because when they think about humans, it is within the context of a 5000 "years or so" modality they inherited from their religious upbringing,

paulc_mv · 10 June 2015

TomS said: There are a number of religious post-modernists who don't think much for science or anything which presents an authority contrary to what they can wish to be the case.
I agree, but I think "pre-scientific" is a better description than "post-modernist." It's true that both views promote the idea of truth as a social construction, but calling Scalia's views postmodern suggests that there is something new about people like him. Historically, there have always been people for whom truth is a question of received wisdom. In fact, the idea that truth is accessible to all who can perform an experiment is the recent innovation rather than the idea that truth comes from authority.

paulc_mv · 10 June 2015

paulc_mv said: Many people, including highly educated ones, are perfectly content to inhabit a socially constructed reality.
One more thought. As silly as it is, I can't help thinking of the scene from The Matrix.
Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? [Takes a bite of steak] Cypher: Ignorance is bliss.
Scalia's a happy guy. There are all sorts of social signals to suggest to him that he's important. He has conservative friends, probably not all creationists, but maybe some of them. What matters for Scalia is to continue to inhabit the universe in which his importance is confirmed. That is not particularly the universe of scientists, in which he's a clever fellow in some ways, shockingly ignorant in some others, but not all that important in the scheme of things. So why should Scalia give a damn about science? And somebody like me might be taken aback... he's reputedly a smart person... how could he be so ignorant? But that's only because science is important to me. To him it's not, and he is hardly unusual in this regard.

Mike Elzinga · 10 June 2015

This ID/Creationist crap is likely to go around again. As this 2016 election cycle starts, Republican dominated legislatures are pushing as much of their agenda as they can ram through before people catch on and start kicking them out of office.

(Of course they are also aware of the fact that voters can wake up and realize they have been had by these Right Wing nut cases, so they are also making it harder to vote in as many states as they can.)

But, the next time around - and I think that there are stealth efforts still going on that will ensure a next time - we have to hit them hard with their own pseudoscience. They have spent nearly five decades bending and breaking scientific concepts and evidence in order to "argue" their case; but now they have a huge, steaming pile of crap "science" that doesn't apply to the real world. It is all on record in the public domain; and they can't disown it any longer. It would be irresponsible, professional misconduct for any instructor to attempt to pass any of that junk off as a legitimate alternative to science.

We've been all over this topic many times; ID/creationism has, in spades, all the hallmarks of a pseudoscience. It is dead wrong at even the most basic levels of science in high school physics, chemistry, geology, and biology. Instructors and the public need to understand this in spades; and these ID/creationists need to be exposed as the unrepentant hoodwinkers that they have always been.

This issue is no longer a matter of "opinion" or "fairness" or legal jargon over "secular purpose." Teaching ID/creationism is as wrong as teaching that it is okay to smoke heavily, load up your body with lots of sugar, fat, and salt, teaching that it is okay to dump toxic chemicals onto other people's lawns and into their drinking water, or teaching that the world is flat. ID/creationism is as wrong as "pyramid power" and all the other pseudoscience that gets pawned off on the public in order for the practitioners of this crap to gain fame and fortune.

Scalia appears to be about as ignorant of science as the ID/creationists. If he had even an inkling of what is wrong with ID/creationism - and if he had at least one ethical cell in his body - he would know that there is no legal justification for instructors to pass ID/creationism off as science.

Scalia doesn't appear to understand the mentality of a peddler of pseudoscience because he can't distinguish science from pseudoscience. It isn't a legal matter; just as teaching geocentricism, or that the Hawaiian Islands don't exist, aren't legal matters.

The dirtiest part of this whole game is that, while it may not be unconstitutional to teach junk science, responsible, professional instructors would never consider doing such a thing. However, ID/creationists - like faith healers and other charlatans who flock to fundamentalism for their fame and fortune - hide behind the First Amendment and tie the system up in knots just to get their way and bypass the crucible of peer reviewed science.

Scalia doesn't appear to get that part at all. Or maybe he does and would like to see more of it. Maybe he is really a Social Darwinist in a judge's robes.

Pierce R. Butler · 10 June 2015

Didn't Scalia write in the Hobby Lobby decision that whatever business owners claimed as their religious belief, courts must take that claim seriously without questioning either factuality or sincerity?

In Big Tony's view, even elected legislators merit less consideration than capitalists.

Pierce R. Butler · 10 June 2015

Pierce R. Butler said: Didn't Scalia write in the Hobby Lobby decision ...
Correction: Samuel Alito wrote the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision; Scalia merely concurred.

Scott F · 10 June 2015

Is Justice Scalia a creationist?
Of course he is. He just doesn't want to be thought of as stupid, and he knows that's what people would say of him, if he didn't hide behind a bunch of legal gobbledygook.
If he takes the Bible as literally as he takes the Constitution, then it is easy to see that he might well believe in a young Earth.
Given that Scalia is an Authoritarian, the Constitution says exactly what he wants it to say to achieve the outcomes that he wants at the time he wants it. No more, no less. In that, he is no different than our Biblical "Literalists" who read whatever they want to read into the "literal" text of the Bible. What's amazing is that he pretends to be a "Literalist", even a "Strict Constructionist", yet the practical effect is that he is a pure "Moral Relativist". Things are "true" because people believe them to be true, and there is no objective reality. I've always said that to the Authoritarian, "Belief" is fundamentally true and immutable, while "Facts" and "Reality" are malleable and totally arbitrary.

Robert Byers · 10 June 2015

Authoritarian? Thats a profile from the past!
If his opinions on origins can be questioned because they might reflect on judgements THEN everyone can seek out secret/or not opiinions of judges.
If its open to question then the court decisions AND the left says they are not. Fine with me.
Mankind has only been around 5000 years. The bible says so and saying otherwise is saying the bible is wrong. Fine but admitt it.
He probably only meant organized human society. Thats the timeline tjey give starting with the sumerians.
l
I do think more court cases are needed to fix the present censorship problem in public institutions.
I just read about his decision on allowing prayer and I think the nation is ready for a more close alleigance to the constitution as written by the people. nit the problems of revisionism now done.
Truth is the objective of education and state censorship mrans a option for truth is dismissed and so break, in this case, the separation concept.
The schools ain't the state anyways and surely never did a very protestant/puritan people put in anything to oppose the bible.
Its a fraud surely. It will end.
Freedom to think and teach is the motto for these days against the bad guys.
HGopefully like on Pandas Thumb !

Scott F · 10 June 2015

Reading from the full text of Scalia's dissent here in Edwards v. Aguillard, one finds this little nugget:
The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save, and not to destroy. We have repeatedly held that, as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act.
Given two possible interpretations of the ACA, or "Obama Care", currently before the Court today, how many of you are willing to bet that Scalia will find his "plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act", rather than to "destroy" it? Any takers?

Scott F · 10 June 2015

Again, reading from Scalia's dissent, where he says,
The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger.
Supporters Defenders of Scalia would say that he is here merely quoting the testimony of the witnesses in the case. This is true. These are not his words. But he chose to quote these word to support his decision. I'm reminded of Judge Jones decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (the first judicial decision that I ever read cover-to-cover), where he also quoted extensively from the witnesses. However, when he did so, when he quoted from witnesses for the plaintiffs, he was quoting them favorably to support his judgment. In fact, I remember at the time that the Creationists were complaining that Judge Jones was simply parroting the plaintiffs, rather than presenting his own arguments. In contrast, when Jones quoted from the witnesses for the defense, he did so to point out their deficiencies, and why they were not believable. I conclude from this reading that this is a common practice: that the judge/justice quotes from the witnesses that they find convincing to support their decision (that is, they quote the evidence). If this is a common practice, then one must conclude that Scalia is also quoting the evidence that *he* himself found convincing. He explicitly says,

Senator Keith repeatedly and vehemently denied that his purpose was to advance a particular religious doctrine

and

We have no way of knowing, of course, how many legislators believed the testimony of Senator Keith and his witnesses. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that many of them did. Given that assumption, the Court today plainly errs in holding that the Louisiana Legislature passed the Balanced Treatment Act for exclusively religious purposes.

Scalia makes this observation uncritically, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. (Not "dismissing" it, not "arguing against it", but "ignoring" it.) One can only conclude that he also finds the evidence that he quotes to be convincing, buying hook, line, and sinker:

[citations omitted] The Louisiana Legislature explicitly set forth its secular purpose ("protecting academic freedom") in the very text of the Act. … … it [the Court majority] would have discerned quite readily what "academic freedom" meant: students' freedom from indoctrination. The legislature wanted to ensure that students would be free to decide for themselves how life began, based upon a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence -- that is, to protect "the right of each [student] voluntarily to determine what to believe (and what not to believe) free of any coercive pressures from the State." The legislature did not care whether the topic of origins was taught; it simply wished to ensure that, when the topic was taught, students would receive "‘all of the evidence.'"

This whole notion of "academic freedom" is not a new one. Scalia explicitly endorsed it and explicitly ruled in favor of the whole modern notion of "ID" in Edwards, quoting the notions extensively and verbatim. A set of notions that Judge Jones explicitly rejected as a transparent sham to hide the religious underpinnings of ID. Gish himself could not have written a better defense of "Scientific Creationism", "ID", and "academic freedom" than Scalia did. Is Justice Scalia a creationist? I rest my case, your honor.

Scott F · 10 June 2015

Robert Byers said: Mankind has only been around 5000 years. The bible says so and saying otherwise is saying the bible is wrong. Fine but admitt it.
Okay. You win. You got me dead to rights. I admit it. I say otherwise, and I say that the bible is wrong. At least we can agree on that much.

He probably only meant organized human society.

But that's not what he said. It would have been easy enough to say "human society", but he didn't. He explicitly chose not to.

I do think more court cases are needed to fix the present censorship problem in public institutions.

There is no censorship problem in public institutions. Schools teach about the bible all the time, without any problem. People are allowed to pray in schools all they want. Students are allowed to express any opinion they want. Legislators are allowed to pray in public institutions. There is no censorship. When there is censorship, it is typically used in the Bible Belt to prevent students from learning about the scientific evidence for Evolution.

I just read about his decision on allowing prayer and I think the nation is ready for a more close alleigance to the constitution as written by the people.

And where in the Constitution does it say that the government (the government run school) can tell people what to pray, how to pray, when to pray, and what not to pray, pray tell?

The schools ain’t the state anyways

You mean, the schools built with "state" money, and the teachers and staff paid for with "state" money? You mean, those things we call "public schools" are not part of the "state"? Those schools that in California and Oregon consume 55% of the "state" budget? Why do you think they call it the California "State" University system? Why do they call them Oregon "State" Colleges? In fact, private schools can and do teach creationism on their own dime without anyone complaining or saying that they can't.

W. H. Heydt · 10 June 2015

Robert Byers said: Mankind has only been around 5000 years. The bible says so and saying otherwise is saying the bible is wrong. Fine but admitt it.
The bible is wrong.
He probably only meant organized human society. Thats the timeline tjey give starting with the sumerians.
There's a lot of archaelogical evidence showing organized human society going quite a bit further back than 5000 years. Try around 11,000 years, that we have evidence for.

W. H. Heydt · 10 June 2015

Scott F said:Why do you think they call it the California "State" University system?
*that* one is easy... Some years back, a few of the largest State Colleges worked to be allowed to call themselves "State Universities". Once that was accomplished, the rest of the State Colleges pulled a temper tantrum and demanded that they too--no matter how small--be allowed that title as well. None of them are to be mistaken for the (equally public) University of California.

paulc_mv · 10 June 2015

Robert Byers said: Mankind has only been around 5000 years. The bible says so and saying otherwise is saying the bible is wrong. Fine but admitt it.
I have no problem admitting this. In fact, I had no problem even when I was a practicing member of the same religion as Scalia. The Bible is not a science textbook, and Genesis can be both metaphorical and the revealed Word of God if it is important for you to think it is the latter. If not, then there is no problem at all. Glad you are capable of seeing reason.
He probably only meant organized human society. Thats the timeline tjey give starting with the sumerians.
This interpretation is generous, but actually plausible. I'm normally not in the business of making excuses for the likes of Scalia, but when he says "Humanity" he may be thinking of something more along the lines of humans in city-states with a code of law. (Though it makes you wonder what he thinks of the "humanity" of those who continue to live as hunter-gatherers today.) I stand by my previous comment that he probably doesn't care much either way and is almost entirely uninterested in scientific conclusions.

phhht · 10 June 2015

Robert Byers said: Mankind has only been around 5000 years. The bible says so and saying otherwise is saying the bible is wrong.
Where does the bible say that, Robert Byers? Cite chapter and verse. Of course you cannot. That's fine, but admit it.

phhht · 11 June 2015

phhht said:
Robert Byers said: Mankind has only been around 5000 years. The bible says so and saying otherwise is saying the bible is wrong.
Where does the bible say that, Robert Byers? Cite chapter and verse. Of course you cannot. That's fine, but admit it.
You see, Robert Byers? The bible DOES NOT SAY that humankind is only 5000 years old. If it did, you could cite chapter and verse. When we deny that, we're not saying the bible is wrong. We're saying you are wrong. Which is more likely, Byers, that the bible is wrong, or that you are?

paulc_mv · 11 June 2015

phhht said:
phhht said:
Robert Byers said: Mankind has only been around 5000 years. The bible says so and saying otherwise is saying the bible is wrong.
Where does the bible say that, Robert Byers? Cite chapter and verse. Of course you cannot. That's fine, but admit it.
You see, Robert Byers? The bible DOES NOT SAY that humankind is only 5000 years old. If it did, you could cite chapter and verse. When we deny that, we're not saying the bible is wrong. We're saying you are wrong. Which is more likely, Byers, that the bible is wrong, or that you are?
Probably even Robert Byers can understand that the Bible would not say "Humanity is 5000 years old as of the day that you are reading this." So he means that this is what you would infer. Without accepting Ussher's chronology in detail, I think you can conclude that if the Bible gives a certain number of generations between Adam and those who wrote it, the time period would consist of only thousands of years. Even taking it to be a history without significant gaps, you would reach the same conclusion. But it's obviously wrong. So what?

Yardbird · 11 June 2015

Robert Byers said: Freedom to think...
Perhaps some day you will demonstrate the least little ability to make use of that freedom. You've never expressed a single idea of your own. That's fine, but admit it.

TomS · 11 June 2015

paulc_mv said:
T phhht said:
phhht said:
Robert Byers said: It takes some work to get a particular number of years. Different people have arrived at different numbers. And there are differences according to which text tradition one chooses. The beginning that is somewhat familiar, which goes "NN was so many years old when MM was born", stops at the time of Jacob. There is a sort of "Dark Ages" between the entry into Egypt and the Exodus. And another one between the last stories of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. But allowing the amount of leeway that people need to make the Bible consistent with itself and with what people want it to say, it has been easy to make room for Old Earth Creationism. Young Earth Creationism was mostly confined, in the United States, to Seventh Day Adventists, up until 1961. Mankind has only been around 5000 years. The bible says so and saying otherwise is saying the bible is wrong.
Where does the bible say that, Robert Byers? Cite chapter and verse. Of course you cannot. That's fine, but admit it.
You see, Robert Byers? The bible DOES NOT SAY that humankind is only 5000 years old. If it did, you could cite chapter and verse. When we deny that, we're not saying the bible is wrong. We're saying you are wrong. Which is more likely, Byers, that the bible is wrong, or that you are?
Probably even Robert Byers can understand that the Bible would not say "Humanity is 5000 years old as of the day that you are reading this." So he means that this is what you would infer. Without accepting Ussher's chronology in detail, I think you can conclude that if the Bible gives a certain number of generations between Adam and those who wrote it, the time period would consist of only thousands of years. Even taking it to be a history without significant gaps, you would reach the same conclusion. But it's obviously wrong. So what?

TomS · 11 June 2015

paulc_mv said:
phhht said:
phhht said:
Robert Byers said: Mankind has only been around 5000 years. The bible says so and saying otherwise is saying the bible is wrong.
Where does the bible say that, Robert Byers? Cite chapter and verse. Of course you cannot. That's fine, but admit it.
You see, Robert Byers? The bible DOES NOT SAY that humankind is only 5000 years old. If it did, you could cite chapter and verse. When we deny that, we're not saying the bible is wrong. We're saying you are wrong. Which is more likely, Byers, that the bible is wrong, or that you are?
Probably even Robert Byers can understand that the Bible would not say "Humanity is 5000 years old as of the day that you are reading this." So he means that this is what you would infer. Without accepting Ussher's chronology in detail, I think you can conclude that if the Bible gives a certain number of generations between Adam and those who wrote it, the time period would consist of only thousands of years. Even taking it to be a history without significant gaps, you would reach the same conclusion. But it's obviously wrong. So what?
Sorry, I don't know what happened. I meant to point out that up until 1961, YEC was confined in the US, mostly to Seventh Day Adventists.

paulc_mv · 11 June 2015

TomS said: Sorry, I don't know what happened. I meant to point out that up until 1961, YEC was confined in the US, mostly to Seventh Day Adventists.
Yes (or I assume so), but Ussher's chronology is older. I don't think there is any non-contorted reading of the Bible that would give you more than 10000 years since Adam. And I agree with Robert Byers point that the only reasonable conclusion is that the Bible is wrong, or at least not intended literally.

Frank J · 11 June 2015

Yet another reason why I never say that anyone “is a creationist.” The word has so many meanings that it’s worse than useless. Case in point, a long-time critic of ID/creationism, a staunch “Darwinist” who frequents these boards, has called himself a “creationist.” And he is at least as much of the public defines it. Is Scalia an anti-evolution activist? Absolutely. Does he personally believe that a creator is ultimately responsible for life, its origin and changes? Probably, but that has no bearing on what he thinks happened where, when, and by what testable proximate causes. Or how he arrived at those conclusions.

Still, Justice Scalia generally comes across as an authoritarian, uncomfortable with ambiguity and guided by literalist interpretations. If he takes the Bible as literally as he takes the Constitution, then it is easy to see that he might well believe in a young Earth.

— Matt Young
While such a radical authoritarian ideology increases the probability that he personally thinks the earth is young, or at least that “kinds” don’t share common ancestors, all other variables equal, I strongly suspect that for Scalia in particular, the probability is near zero. Here’s why: Polls that use clear language, not that idiotic, endlessly cited Gallup one, show that only ~10% of the general public believes the whole YE thing. Most committed Biblical literalists believe some version of OEC. But few of those literalists have given 5 minutes though to “what happened when,” let alone how those conclusions are determined (with multiple lines of evidence acquitted by many researchers working independently in many fields, neither seeking nor fabricating the outcome, as none other than Pope John Paul II saw fit to point out). Those who remain literalists after seriously considering the evidence, overwhelmingly admit (when asked, which is almost never) that they believe their origins account “on faith,” thus implying, and often outright admitting, that the evidence does not support it. But since they are almost never asked, many continue to “challenge” the evidence for evolution. Yet they never, ever support their own alternate account on its own evidence, or even perceived “weaknesses” in those “creationist” accounts that they don’t accept. In other words, they invariably avoid anything that would display the slightest confidence that the evidence validates their particular origins account, and not any other. All with an obsessive preoccupation with what others must believe. Most critics dismiss that as “cognitive dissonance.” But I think that for many of these activists, something else is going on. Given that Scalia has been shown more evidence than 99% of people, there’s virtually no chance that he thinks the evidence supports “independent origin of ‘kinds’,” regardless of chronology.” And even less chance that he thinks the evidence supports a young earth, as opposed to merely a young “civilization” (per his quote). Note: this is not a defense by any means! But does he believe any of that “in his heart in spite of evidence”? Possibly. But in 28 years, has anyone asked him? Probably many people have, though I doubt that anyone used wording I would like, such as: “Exactly which, if any, of the mutually-contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis do you think that the multiple lines of independent evidence supports?” If so I wonder if his answer – or evasion, as is more common among activist politicians, e.g. Rick Perry – is on record. If not, we can always keep asking. Not just of him, but of all public figures who have been messing with science education. It’s time to stop letting them off the hook!

Matt Young · 11 June 2015

Yes, I agree that "creationist" can be ambiguous. Indeed, I consider theistic evolutionists and even deists to be creationists in some sense. However, the term as used in Edwards and in the phrase "creation science" means some kind of young-earth creationist. It was in that sense that I used the word. My apologies if such usage was ambiguous. I meant to ask whether Justice Scalia was a young-earth creationist. That would be unusual but not impossible for a Roman Catholic.

TomS · 11 June 2015

The Bible is sufficiently vague about the age of the world that there were many different calculations of the date of creation. It is true that everyone assumed that the world was "young", before the scientific evidence began to make it clear otherwise. But the Bible did not give unambiguous guidance to just how young. And there were enough ways of reinterpreting the Bible for even fundamentalists. Jehovah's Witnesses managed to make the world something like 100,000 years old (but I think that they have backed off from that). The idea that each of the "days" of Genesis 1 was a thousand years goes back to the 1st-2nd century Epistle of Barnabas.

richard09 · 11 June 2015

Scalia is a political hack and also a religious buffoon, who is actually not all that smart. He has a knack for generating somewhat plausible legal arguments to support the conclusions that his right-wing politics and dumb-ass religion give him up front. In no way does he "follow the law" to the proper decision, instead, he makes his decision from personal prejudice, and then finds a way to (superficially, at least) make it seem reasonable. He is sufficiently insulated from the consequences of his ignorance and stupidity that he feels (rightly) that at this point he can rule almost any way he wants, and the sad part is, at least two or three other justices on the SC will follow his lead no matter how risible it is.

John Harshman · 11 June 2015

TomS said: The Bible is sufficiently vague about the age of the world that there were many different calculations of the date of creation. It is true that everyone assumed that the world was "young", before the scientific evidence began to make it clear otherwise. But the Bible did not give unambiguous guidance to just how young. And there were enough ways of reinterpreting the Bible for even fundamentalists. Jehovah's Witnesses managed to make the world something like 100,000 years old (but I think that they have backed off from that). The idea that each of the "days" of Genesis 1 was a thousand years goes back to the 1st-2nd century Epistle of Barnabas.
TomS said: The Bible is sufficiently vague about the age of the world that there were many different calculations of the date of creation. It is true that everyone assumed that the world was "young", before the scientific evidence began to make it clear otherwise. But the Bible did not give unambiguous guidance to just how young. And there were enough ways of reinterpreting the Bible for even fundamentalists. Jehovah's Witnesses managed to make the world something like 100,000 years old (but I think that they have backed off from that). The idea that each of the "days" of Genesis 1 was a thousand years goes back to the 1st-2nd century Epistle of Barnabas.
Even if each Genesis day is 1000 years -- and that's a highly unnatural reading -- it only makes the world 12,000 years old. There really isn't all that much wiggle room. Different estimates of age based on Genesis differ only trivially, and none make the world more than a few thousand years old. The notion that YEC is a recent phenomenon is pernicious. But I'm curious how you came to a different conclusion.

TomS · 11 June 2015

richard09 said: Scalia is a political hack and also a religious buffoon, who is actually not all that smart. He has a knack for generating somewhat plausible legal arguments to support the conclusions that his right-wing politics and dumb-ass religion give him up front. In no way does he "follow the law" to the proper decision, instead, he makes his decision from personal prejudice, and then finds a way to (superficially, at least) make it seem reasonable. He is sufficiently insulated from the consequences of his ignorance and stupidity that he feels (rightly) that at this point he can rule almost any way he wants, and the sad part is, at least two or three other justices on the SC will follow his lead no matter how risible it is.
Excuse me, my lawyer friends our there, but is it not the job of a lawyer to serve the client by generating a legal argument to support the client? It would be unethical to follow one's opinion of what the law means, if that does not serve the interests of the client.

paulc_mv · 11 June 2015

John Harshman said: Even if each Genesis day is 1000 years -- and that's a highly unnatural reading -- it only makes the world 12,000 years old. There really isn't all that much wiggle room. Different estimates of age based on Genesis differ only trivially, and none make the world more than a few thousand years old. The notion that YEC is a recent phenomenon is pernicious. But I'm curious how you came to a different conclusion.
What is new is Young Earth in the face of readily available evidence of an old earth. I would not call Ussher a YEC because he was just trying to fill in the details of a then "obvious" assumption that the earth was about as old as our written records. Since then, the preponderance of evidence shows the earth is billions of years old, and humans have been around for (not sure) over 100000 years in their modern form anyway. The majority of the religious community followed scientific findings as they developed and made their beliefs consistent with this evidence over time. YEC is a fairly modern backlash to the mainstream understanding.

Yardbird · 11 June 2015

TomS said: Excuse me, my lawyer friends our there, but is it not the job of a lawyer to serve the client by generating a legal argument to support the client? It would be unethical to follow one's opinion of what the law means, if that does not serve the interests of the client.
IANAL, but that sounds right to me, yet I'm left wondering just who you think is Scalia's client.

John Harshman · 11 June 2015

paulc_mv said: What is new is Young Earth in the face of readily available evidence of an old earth. I would not call Ussher a YEC because he was just trying to fill in the details of a then "obvious" assumption that the earth was about as old as our written records. Since then, the preponderance of evidence shows the earth is billions of years old, and humans have been around for (not sure) over 100000 years in their modern form anyway. The majority of the religious community followed scientific findings as they developed and made their beliefs consistent with this evidence over time. YEC is a fairly modern backlash to the mainstream understanding.
I'll agree that the current round of YEC is a backlash. But data regarding an old earth has been accumulating since at least the 17th Century, and most churches resisted that conclusion for longer than would have been reasonable. Buffon, for example, was forced by the Church to recant his ideas on the age of the earth.

TomS · 11 June 2015

John Harshman said: Even if each Genesis day is 1000 years -- and that's a highly unnatural reading -- it only makes the world 12,000 years old. There really isn't all that much wiggle room. Different estimates of age based on Genesis differ only trivially, and none make the world more than a few thousand years old. The notion that YEC is a recent phenomenon is pernicious. But I'm curious how you came to a different conclusion.
I apologize for giving the impression for saying that "young Earth" is a modern idea. Obviously, it was the common opinion before the 19th century. But there were differences on just what the Bible dating was. The Bible did not give enough information for determining it exactly. Not that minor differences would add up to as much as an old Earth. The Epistle of Barnabas gave the 7 thousand years of creation to be the entire time span of the world, from beginning to end. I mentioned it as an example of how flexible people were in reading the Bible. People were extremely flexible in producing "unnatural" readings of the Bible. But once science began to uncover evidence of an "old Earth", it didn't seem too take long for even conservative readers of the Bible to find ways of adopting the old Earth. The young Earth didn't seem to be so important as to be worth defending. A prominent defender of Old Earth Creationism was William Jennings Bryan.

John Harshman · 11 June 2015

TomS said: But once science began to uncover evidence of an "old Earth", it didn't seem too take long for even conservative readers of the Bible to find ways of adopting the old Earth. The young Earth didn't seem to be so important as to be worth defending. A prominent defender of Old Earth Creationism was William Jennings Bryan.
I think you underestimate the degree, beginnings, and duration of resistance on the part of Christian sects to the idea of an old earth.

Just Bob · 11 June 2015

John Harshman said:
TomS said: But once science began to uncover evidence of an "old Earth", it didn't seem too take long for even conservative readers of the Bible to find ways of adopting the old Earth. The young Earth didn't seem to be so important as to be worth defending. A prominent defender of Old Earth Creationism was William Jennings Bryan.
I think you underestimate the degree, beginnings, and duration of resistance on the part of Christian sects to the idea of an old earth.
Is there a specific moment when the Catholic Church indicated, one way or another, that it accepted an old Earth, or at least no longer officially opposed the idea?

Dave Luckett · 12 June 2015

It would appear that the current position of the RCC is that it takes no doctrinal position on the age of the Earth or the Universe:
Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5). The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).
Source:http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution This is issued over the imprimatur: "NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004" And so would appear to be authentic. As to when the RCC ceased to actually oppose the idea of an ancient earth and Universe, non-opposition would appear to have been unspecified until 1950, with the Papal encyclical Humani generis. It was only then that Pope Pius XII laid it down that (a) Genesis is not to be read as a literal history book and (b) the teachings of the ancient Church fathers and doctors of the law on the interpretation of scripture were not infallible. This makes it clear that a liberally metaphorical reading of Genesis is permissable, provided that its essential truths, that God created all things from nothing, and that Creation is as God wills it, are recognised. I suspect that the fact of an earth far, far older than Scripture would imply, if Scripture were read literally, slowly grew in what Catholics call "the mind of the Church" from probably the turn of the eighteenth century onwards. It must be remembered that this "mind of the Church" refers to consensus not only among scholars, divines and doctors of law, nor even in the Curia and the Holy Father himself, but to the whole Church, specifically including its laity. I don't think that it was ever stated in formal terms that Genesis is a perfectly literal account of physical reality; it was simply assumed in the lack or paucity of other knowledge. But the Church undeniably did at one time try the orthodoxy of the faithful who held to a view of the earth and the Universe as very ancient; it specifically abjured those who implied that it, or life, was the result of purely mechanical processes. However long the Universe or the Earth or life or human beings have existed, their existence is by God's will and of His doing.

fusilier · 12 June 2015

Yardbird said:
TomS said: Excuse me, my lawyer friends our there, but is it not the job of a lawyer to serve the client by generating a legal argument to support the client? It would be unethical to follow one's opinion of what the law means, if that does not serve the interests of the client.
IANAL, but that sounds right to me, yet I'm left wondering just who you think is Scalia's client.
Exactly. I would _expect_ a judge to be impartial, and not advocate for any client. Quite clearly, Scalia, Thomas, and the like aren't impartial. fusilier James 2:24

DS · 12 June 2015

Well I would expect a Supreme Court Justice to interpret the Constitution of the United States and try to preserve the intent of the original writers. Now let's see, did they intend for this to be a country dominated by religious bigotry? Would they have wanted religious dogma to replace valid science in the state run educational system? Would they have wanted the personal religious views of judges to determine how they voted on matters of public policy? Would they really want the government to be taken over by a party who allowed themselves to be hijacked by sect of religious fanatics who dictated to them exactly what to say and exactly how to vote, all while claiming to represent all the people?

The Supreme Court should be trying to protect us from this kind of virulent nonsense, not trying to perpetuate it. The court should be advocating sound public policy based on the best available science and the principles of representative democracy, not pandering to some arbitrary religion that denies reality and attempts to suppress science at the expense of the entire society. A good judge should put aside his personal biases and try to rule as fairly as possible for all concerned. It isn't illegal for a judge to hold religious views, it is illegal for him to impose them on others simply because he has the power to do so.

Just Bob · 12 June 2015

Dave Luckett said: I suspect that the fact of an earth far, far older than Scripture would imply, if Scripture were read literally, slowly grew in what Catholics call "the mind of the Church" from probably the turn of the eighteenth century onwards.
That's pretty much what I assumed, since I didn't recall a definitive statement like the several specifically addressing evolution.

harold · 12 June 2015

I apologize for giving the impression for saying that “young Earth” is a modern idea.
I see no need for apology. YEC in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is false is a modern idea. Sure, there was some evidence that the Earth might older than Ussher calculated in the 17th century, but a LOT LESS than there is today. Current right wing science denial is a contemporary phenomenon. The "take the KJV literally" thing was invented, or at least suddenly and massively adopted, as a backlash against birth control, civil rights, and scientific evidence that tobacco and pollution can be harmful. It's a cheap, fake way to say "I'm a racist, sexist homophobe who believes in kissing the ass of oil companies and cigarette companies for some reason, but I'm 'moral' because of some out of context quote from a seventeenth century translation of a sixth century BCE committee compilation of some ancient legends and myths".
Is Scalia a creationist?
It's impossible to tell, because he's someone who conforms to the Fox/Limbaugh/Tea Party ideology, and that includes pandering to evolution denial.
Jerry Coyne, who is much nicer than I am
Seems unlikely, although Coyne is probably nicer than Scalia is.

Just Bob · 12 June 2015

harold said: It's a cheap, fake way to say "I'm a racist, sexist homophobe who believes in kissing the ass of oil companies and cigarette companies for some reason, but I'm 'moral' because of some out of context quote from a seventeenth century translation of a sixth century BCE committee compilation of some ancient legends and myths".
Gee, Harold, you have to quit this pussyfooting around and just say what you mean.

Frank J · 13 June 2015

What’s amazing is that he pretends to be a “Literalist”, even a “Strict Constructionist”, yet the practical effect is that he is a pure “Moral Relativist”. Things are “true” because people believe them to be true, and there is no objective reality.

— Scott F
I have been noticing that irony for years. Recently I read one some of James Downard's articles. One quotes Scalia from the "Edwards" case, and the way he massacres the English language to promote his feel-good agenda is mind-boggling. It's just what the authoritarian far-right accuses of "the left"! The result in this case is that these people who have the audacity to call themselves "conservatives" are demanding "equal time" for pseudoscience (be it YE claims or merely long-refuted bogus "weaknesses" of evolution) that at best have not earned the right to be taught anywhere, much less at taxpayer expense. This is the ultimate "handout." Not to mention how they demand that Johnny get credit for wrong answers on the test!

However, the term ["creationist"] as used in Edwards and in the phrase “creation science” means some kind of young-earth creationist.

— Matt Young
Yes. AIUI, at that time creationism had become full-blown pseudoceience, as opposed to mere "I believe my interpretation of Genesis regardless of what the evidence says," and the YEC variety (Flood "geology" etc.) was the politically active one. OEC pseudoscience (e.g. Hugh Ross) was around already, though apparently not as politically active. But starting around that time many who would have promoted OEC, and former YEC believers who realized the absurdity of YEC, but were still committed to the "kulturkampf," (apologies to James Downard) joined the "don't ask, don't tell what happened when" strategy that became known as ID. So we'll never know that they now personally reject YEC, or even "kinds." If people-on-the-street would stop seeing creationism as an honest belief and start seeing it as a strategy to misrepresent science to promote what one might not even personally believe, then we might start making progress. Oh, there'll always be ~30% that deny evolution and ~10% that buy the whole YE nonsense. But the ~70% - a majority last time I checked - that either vaguely denies evolution, is unsure, or buys the "fairness" nonsense, will finally be a thing of the past.

Frank J · 13 June 2015

I just read Coyne's article. First, I'm not sure if the "23% YEC" refers to just Vatican clergy, all Catholics or some other group, but whatever group he means it almost certainly includes many, possibly most, that not strict young-earthers. As I often say about that idiotic, endlessly-cited Gallup poll, many, possibly most, of that 40-45% that choose the "man created in his present form in the last 10,000 years" are "thinking souls, not cells." So I agree with him that Scalia was doing something similar. The general public rarely gives 5 minutes' thought to natural history, dismissing it all as "a long time ago." But people of all religious and political viewpoints do often speak of "Adam and Eve," usually giving no clue if they mean it as a fact, allegory, or never thought about it either way. Well, I have asked many people over the years, and the typical answer (in my words) is: "I guess Adam and Eve could have had biological parents, but I never thought about it." And of course they never will think about it again unless/until someone else (usually me) brings it up, because they don't care either way. The minority that I have encountered that are strict literalists - YE or OE variety - do care, but eventually admit that their belief is not based on evidence but rather "revelation" from words that feel-good.

Nonliteralists are nevertheless mostly sympathetic to literalist beliefs, be they young-earth, flat-earth, geocentric, etc. They don't take as kindly to deliberate misrepresentation of science. But then very few of them have any idea how much has been going on in the last 50+ years, and how devious the tactics have become.

harold · 13 June 2015

Frank J said: I just read Coyne's article. First, I'm not sure if the "23% YEC" refers to just Vatican clergy, all Catholics or some other group, but whatever group he means it almost certainly includes many, possibly most, that not strict young-earthers. As I often say about that idiotic, endlessly-cited Gallup poll, many, possibly most, of that 40-45% that choose the "man created in his present form in the last 10,000 years" are "thinking souls, not cells." So I agree with him that Scalia was doing something similar. The general public rarely gives 5 minutes' thought to natural history, dismissing it all as "a long time ago." But people of all religious and political viewpoints do often speak of "Adam and Eve," usually giving no clue if they mean it as a fact, allegory, or never thought about it either way. Well, I have asked many people over the years, and the typical answer (in my words) is: "I guess Adam and Eve could have had biological parents, but I never thought about it." And of course they never will think about it again unless/until someone else (usually me) brings it up, because they don't care either way. The minority that I have encountered that are strict literalists - YE or OE variety - do care, but eventually admit that their belief is not based on evidence but rather "revelation" from words that feel-good. Nonliteralists are nevertheless mostly sympathetic to literalist beliefs, be they young-earth, flat-earth, geocentric, etc. They don't take as kindly to deliberate misrepresentation of science. But then very few of them have any idea how much has been going on in the last 50+ years, and how devious the tactics have become.
The Catholic Church is not a science organization anyway. If they outright demanded science denial of their adherents, that would be a problem. It does not follow that they are obliged to require any particular threshold of understanding of science. They permit acceptance of science, to the extent that some Catholic clergy and monks are also scientific experts, including in cosmology. I happen to think that, if the Catholic version of God exists (I see no reason to think that, but "if"), creationists will go to Hell, but not for being sincere creationists. If some idiot is a good person and loves Jesus but is dullwit enough to think the Earth is 6000 years old, I'm sure the Virgin Mary and the gang can make room for him in heaven, in the unlikely (in my subjective opinion) event that they exist and have supernatural powers. Most creationists are guilty of massive numbers of ethical lapses that count as sins under Catholic dogma (and also as ethical lapses under my own understanding of ecumenical/secular humanist ethics). These are mainly peripheral to actual creationist claims, for example lying, threatening, deceiving, etc. Therefore, if unrepentant, they will indeed, if it exists, roast in Hell for every microsecond of an agonizing eternity, but not directly because of their opinion of that age of the universe. I suppose this observation is similar to my observation that although it would violate the constitution to enforce the Ten Commandments as the law of the land, it would create the silver lining that all right wing politicians would be in prison.

Just Bob · 13 June 2015

harold said: I suppose this observation is similar to my observation that although it would violate the constitution to enforce the Ten Commandments as the law of the land, it would create the silver lining that all right wing politicians would be in prison.
Hah! I'm sure you're right about the politicians. But I'm afraid nearly all of us would have to imprison ourselves (because no one else would be left to do it) for the sin of coveting. What kind of person could go through life without ever desiring something that belongs to someone else? Who could intentionally turn off those kinds of thoughts and never once think such things? Coveting is, after all, merely thoughts.

harold · 13 June 2015

Just Bob said:
harold said: I suppose this observation is similar to my observation that although it would violate the constitution to enforce the Ten Commandments as the law of the land, it would create the silver lining that all right wing politicians would be in prison.
Hah! I'm sure you're right about the politicians. But I'm afraid nearly all of us would have to imprison ourselves (because no one else would be left to do it) for the sin of coveting. What kind of person could go through life without ever desiring something that belongs to someone else? Who could intentionally turn off those kinds of thoughts and never once think such things? Coveting is, after all, merely thoughts.
Well, two possible solutions - 1) Only non-mental commandments are enforced, except in cases where people turn themselves in and confess. Right wing politicians are clearly committing adultery, bearing false witness, and so on, right now. The only way to know if you're "coveting" something is if you walk into a police station and admit it. 2) Or, since everyone violates something, we could use a system in which some threshold of frequency or quantity is required. Either way, the worst miscreants would be cursing the day that they pandered by running on a Ten Commandments platform.

Just Bob · 13 June 2015

harold said: Either way, the worst miscreants would be cursing the day that they pandered by running on a Ten Commandments platform.
I would like to see a legal code that specifies precisely which acts or words amount to not "honoring" one's parents. (By "see" it, I don't mean see it put into effect, but just see someone's attempt to write out exactly which such acts or words must be punished and which not.)

harold · 13 June 2015

Just Bob said:
harold said: Either way, the worst miscreants would be cursing the day that they pandered by running on a Ten Commandments platform.
I would like to see a legal code that specifies precisely which acts or words amount to not "honoring" one's parents. (By "see" it, I don't mean see it put into effect, but just see someone's attempt to write out exactly which such acts or words must be punished and which not.)
I wouldn't mind seeing some bronze age justice doled out to those who don't honor our collective population of parents when they scheme to reduce minimum social security benefits, but I'm probably digressing into BW territory.

Frank J · 14 June 2015

I happen to think that, if the Catholic version of God exists (I see no reason to think that, but “if”), creationists will go to Hell, but not for being sincere creationists. If some idiot is a good person and loves Jesus but is dullwit enough to think the Earth is 6000 years old, I’m sure the Virgin Mary and the gang can make room for him in heaven, in the unlikely (in my subjective opinion) event that they exist and have supernatural powers.

— harold
Against my better judgment I'm joining the tangent onto religion. It has been 46 years since I left Catholicism (and all organized religion), but my impression from what priests and teachers said is somewhat like yours, meaning that you'd get a break "up there" for many sincere beliefs, even if they conflict with the church's official position. That impression began when someone asked if Jews (or maybe it was Protestants, I forget) were going to hell. Instead of a clear yes or no, the teacher gave a long-winded "sort of no." Lack of straight answers was one of the things that drove me away from organized religion, but I digress. If there is a judging God like Catholics (& many Jews and Protestants) describe, my guess is that most sincere evolution deniers will be allowed in heaven. Though to some, an eternity of hearing God remind them that they were wrong about evolution will seem worse than hell ;-). I'm not so sure about anti-evolution activists. The ones that lie about evolution due to real paranoia that civilization will collapse if the "masses" accept evolution might get a slap on the wrist, but those who do it for ego or profit had better get used to something more than global warming. :-)

Charley Horse · 14 June 2015

I just read an article at Salon. It gives a bit more insight into Scalia.

SOURCE: http://www.salon.com/2015/06/14/antonin_scalia_is_unfit_to_serve_a_justice_who_rejects_science_and_the_law_for_religion_is_of_unsound_mind/

QUOTE: “Have you seen evidence of the Devil lately?”

Scalia replied, “You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn’t happen very much anymore … because he’s smart.” Scalia attributed the spread of atheism to Satan, who was “getting people not to believe in him or in God. He’s much more successful that way.” Satan had, in Scalia’s estimation, become “wilier,” which explained “why there’s not demonic possession all over the place.”............

“You’re looking at me as though I’m weird,” he declared. “My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil.”

Personally, I have no reason to think that Scalia would not allow proselytizing to public school students. A prediction...if a Retaliban gets elected president, there are many who have tossed their hat in the ring, he/ she will nominate one or more of Scalia's ilk.

paulc_mv · 14 June 2015

Charley Horse said: I just read an article at Salon. It gives a bit more insight into Scalia.
Yeah, I saw that, and I saw his comments about the Devil before too. It fits with what I was saying that Scalia views truth as a social construction--whether he'd ever think of it that way and I'm certain he would not. What's important to him is that there are other people with similar religious beliefs, and because they have not been universally shouted down as buffoons, he feels totally comfortable in keeping his belief. That there may actually be more buffoons than rational people even in high places is a possibility he is not interested in considering. And why should he? The steak tastes like steak to him even if it's imaginary.

paulc_mv · 14 June 2015

paulc_mv said: And why should he? The steak tastes like steak to him even if it's imaginary.
Or for a less nerdy reference "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" To salary, I would add social status and sense of importance. Would you want to be the Scalia who goes back to college, learns a little biology and realizes that he's an idiot with respect to science and no great shakes at jurisprudence either?

phhht · 14 June 2015

And see this: faith-derangement syndrome

phhht · 14 June 2015

Charley Horse said: I just read an article at Salon...
Sorry Charley.

Charley Horse · 15 June 2015

phhht...cute...:)

Scalia's reliance on the majority believing in the Devil and twisting that to imply the interviewer was traveling in some disconnected circle is so typical of creationists. They just don't want to understand/ accept that billions of people could believe the wrong thing and it is still wrong.
It's obvious, to me, that he is willing to work around the Constitution's protection of individual rights to reach a decision that more conforms to his personal beliefs and that of the majority of Bible thumpers.

TomS · 15 June 2015

Didn't Scalia's mother ever chide him by asking: If everybody jumped out the window, would you do it. too?

DavidK · 15 June 2015

Really all Scalia needs to say is, "Well, I'm not a scientist, so ..." like the rest of the conservative denialists and creationists, and base his arguments on nebulous religious assertions.

Matt Young · 15 June 2015

Doubtless off task, but Leonard Pitts devoted his column today to a concurring opinion in a death-penalty case by Justice Scalia. Information only; please let us not discuss Mr. Pitts's article unless it is somehow relevant to the present topic.

harold · 15 June 2015

Charley Horse said: phhht...cute...:) Scalia's reliance on the majority believing in the Devil and twisting that to imply the interviewer was traveling in some disconnected circle is so typical of creationists. They just don't want to understand/ accept that billions of people could believe the wrong thing and it is still wrong. It's obvious, to me, that he is willing to work around the Constitution's protection of individual rights to reach a decision that more conforms to his personal beliefs and that of the majority of Bible thumpers.
It almost seems as if some people are voicing the hypothesis that Scalia became religious, and then, as a result of his religious state, believing in the Devil and so on, became a right wing ideologue. Is that a fair paraphrase? I don't entirely agree. I don't believe in the Devil myself, but the current pope is the head of the religion that Scalia so ostentatiously claims to belong to, and differs markedly from Scalia and the American right wing on numerous issues. I can't read the pope's mind, but I'm going to guess that the pope is sincerely Catholic and does believe in the Devil. Scalia's decisions are NOT based on Catholicism in any clear way. They are, however, virtually 100% in lockstep with what Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney, for example, would advocate. I don't think either of those two is a practicing Catholic. The American extreme right does include Catholics, but not all Catholics are extreme right and not all members of the extreme right are Catholic. For me, it is impossible to know whether Scalia has any sincere religious faith whatsoever. All I know is that whatever his true feelings, he's always say that God favors whatever right wing Republicans, or more to the point, those who fund the Republican party, want, right now. It's like a broken clock. He'll say that if he believes it, but he'll also say that if he doesn't believe it. My model of Scalia - devoted right wing ideologue who will say and do anything to advance the Limbaugh/Fox/Republican ideology - is excellent at predicting Scalia's behavior. 100% accurate to date, in fact.

harold · 15 June 2015

Matt Young said: Doubtless off task, but Leonard Pitts devoted his column today to a concurring opinion in a death-penalty case by Justice Scalia. Information only; please let us not discuss Mr. Pitts's article unless it is somehow relevant to the present topic.
I think this is highly on topic. This is a clear example of Scalia choosing between Catholic dogma (which does not condemn the death penalty per se but does explicitly require "guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_capital_punishment) versus right wing dogma (much more "liberal" about application of the death penalty). Give Scalia a choice between what Dick Cheney would want and what the pope would want, and he chooses Dick Cheney every time. Therefore I think his claims to religiosity are suspect. Even if you oppose religion you can admit that some dastardly hypocrites pretend to be religious for social benefits. What are we so quick to find Justice Scalia innocent of this possible motivation for his religious claims? I'm not religious and not an apologist for the Catholic Church, but even so, I find Scalia's claims to religious conviction highly suspect. They look more like the dissemblings of schemer to me.

paulc_mv · 15 June 2015

Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of Scalia as a Catholic. In principle, the Catholic church has doctrine about just war, and presumably about the just application of the death penalty. Scalia's views are not what I would call Catholic (but my family was always more Dorothy Day than Opus Dei--a quick search reveals I am not the first to make this pun).

In practice, the Catholic church has generally gone along with wars and the application of the criminal justice system. Catholic prison chaplains have participated in the death penalty and continue to do so. The grounds in the past were presumably no better than today. So I think it is sort of plausible that Scalia is a practicing traditionalist Catholic. He doesn't worry himself too much about doctrinal details and could probably be reduced to a quivering mass in a theological argument with a Jesuit--except that he probably doesn't care that much.

Ray Martinez · 15 June 2015

John Harshman said:
paulc_mv said: What is new is Young Earth in the face of readily available evidence of an old earth. I would not call Ussher a YEC because he was just trying to fill in the details of a then "obvious" assumption that the earth was about as old as our written records. Since then, the preponderance of evidence shows the earth is billions of years old, and humans have been around for (not sure) over 100000 years in their modern form anyway. The majority of the religious community followed scientific findings as they developed and made their beliefs consistent with this evidence over time. YEC is a fairly modern backlash to the mainstream understanding.
I'll agree that the current round of YEC is a backlash. But data regarding an old earth has been accumulating since at least the 17th Century, and most churches resisted that conclusion for longer than would have been reasonable. Buffon, for example, was forced by the Church to recant his ideas on the age of the earth.
In the 1850s science accepted an old earth. If not Darwin's theory would have been dead-on-arrival.

Ray Martinez · 15 June 2015

John Harshman said:
TomS said: But once science began to uncover evidence of an "old Earth", it didn't seem too take long for even conservative readers of the Bible to find ways of adopting the old Earth. The young Earth didn't seem to be so important as to be worth defending. A prominent defender of Old Earth Creationism was William Jennings Bryan.
I think you underestimate the degree, beginnings, and duration of resistance on the part of Christian sects to the idea of an old earth.
Could you please show us a verse, phrase, or term in Genesis that conveys a young earth claim?

paulc_mv · 15 June 2015

Ray Martinez said: Could you please show us a verse, phrase, or term in Genesis that conveys a young earth claim?
This is a nonsensical question, because obviously you would not find a single sentence that could convey an age of the earth that would continue to apply in the future. The Bible presents genealogy and history that would only be consistent with a certain number of years since the creation of Adam. Generously, I will assume it is less than 10000. I also don't doubt the care Ussher took in his scholarship even if I think his conclusion was completely wrong. So the Biblical text taken as a whole and assumed to be literal conveys a young earth claim. Of course, you can distort units to make it consistent with an old earth. More reasonably, you can conclude that it is not a scientific document. By 1850 many people had reached that conclusion.

Rolf · 15 June 2015

Didn't Bishop Ussher establish beyond reasonable doubt that cration week took place somewehere around 4400 years BCE?

Must have been some spectacle to watch!

paulc_mv · 15 June 2015

Rolf said: Didn't Bishop Ussher establish beyond reasonable doubt that cration week took place somewehere around 4400 years BCE?
I thought cration week followed boxing day.

TomS · 15 June 2015

Ray Martinez said:
John Harshman said:
paulc_mv said: What is new is Young Earth in the face of readily available evidence of an old earth. I would not call Ussher a YEC because he was just trying to fill in the details of a then "obvious" assumption that the earth was about as old as our written records. Since then, the preponderance of evidence shows the earth is billions of years old, and humans have been around for (not sure) over 100000 years in their modern form anyway. The majority of the religious community followed scientific findings as they developed and made their beliefs consistent with this evidence over time. YEC is a fairly modern backlash to the mainstream understanding.
I'll agree that the current round of YEC is a backlash. But data regarding an old earth has been accumulating since at least the 17th Century, and most churches resisted that conclusion for longer than would have been reasonable. Buffon, for example, was forced by the Church to recant his ideas on the age of the earth.
In the 1850s science accepted an old earth. If not Darwin's theory would have been dead-on-arrival.
Lord Kelvin made several estimations of the age of the Earth, finally settliing, in 1897, on 20 to 40 million years old. While 3.5 orders of magnitude more than young-earth Biblical age, it was felt to be too small for natural selection to work.

Matt Young · 15 June 2015

That is all for Mr. Martinez; further comments will be sent to the BW. Other commenters, pls limit yourselves to a single direct response to Mr. Martinez.

Matt Young · 15 June 2015

Here is my single response to Mr. Martinez:

In the 1850s science accepted an old earth. If not Darwin’s theory would have been dead-on-arrival.

The statement is not correct. As Darwin knew, one of the arguments against evolution by natural selection was that the earth was not old enough. TomS says correctly that Lord Kelvin, a full half-century after the publication of Origin, still thought that earth was relatively young. Kelvin's opinion undoubtedly weighed heavily against evolution. Evolution, on the other hand, was evidence for an older earth. Later evidence -- radioactive dating -- in the early twentieth century finally established that the earth was far older than Kelvin had estimated. No sensible person today thinks that the earth is any less than 4.5 billion years old.

Dave Luckett · 15 June 2015

On the age of the earth, and therefore, I hope, on-topic:

I understand that Lord Kelvin's estimates were based on the energy output of the sun and the rate of cooling of the Earth, for both of which he could not assume any process not known to him, so he assumed chemical combustion to explain the first and no other source of heat for the second. But the sun's output of energy is from atomic fusion, and the earth's rate of cooling very much slowed by atomic fission in the rocks of the crust and mantle, both of which were completely beyond his knowledge. Understandably, these convergent errors caused a huge underestimate of the age of the sun and the earth.

In about 1900, it would have been perfectly rational to object to evolution on the grounds that there was not enough time for it to work. That clearly worried Darwin, as did the fact that he had no rigorous theory of genetics, knowing nothing of Mendel's work. Creationists do not understand how powerfully supportive of Darwin's theory it is, that facts not known in his day remove the difficulties once thought to exist. They think that a developing knowledge base is in some way a detriment; that changed understandings are evidence for unreliability, so different from what they think of as the unchanging word of God.

But as anyone who follows the theological and exigetical debate knows, what Biblical literalists think is unchanging is really a modern and quite radical interpretation of the ancient texts, at odds with mainstream scholarly opinion; while to science the fact that the understanding of the Universe changes with better data is a feature, not a bug.

W. H. Heydt · 15 June 2015

Dave Luckett said: On the age of the earth, and therefore, I hope, on-topic: I understand that Lord Kelvin's estimates were based on the energy output of the sun and the rate of cooling of the Earth, for both of which he could not assume any process not known to him, so he assumed chemical combustion to explain the first and no other source of heat for the second. But the sun's output of energy is from atomic fusion, and the earth's rate of cooling very much slowed by atomic fission in the rocks of the crust and mantle, both of which were completely beyond his knowledge. Understandably, these convergent errors caused a huge underestimate of the age of the sun and the earth.
IIRC, Kelvin for his maximum age of the Sun used the energy from gravitational collapse, as that was considerably more than any chemical reaction.

TomS · 15 June 2015

The Wikipedia article "Age of the Earth" has a brief survey of the late-19th-century estimates of the age of the Earth.

As I understand it, it is not so much that evolution required more than tens of millions of years, but natural selection needed more. Natural selection was in trouble, generally.

Matt Young · 15 June 2015

I understand that Lord Kelvin’s estimates were based on the energy output of the sun and the rate of cooling of the Earth, for both of which he could not assume any process not known to him, so he assumed chemical combustion to explain the first and no other source of heat for the second. But the sun’s output of energy is from atomic fusion, and the earth’s rate of cooling very much slowed by atomic fission in the rocks of the crust and mantle, both of which were completely beyond his knowledge. Understandably, these convergent errors caused a huge underestimate of the age of the sun and the earth.

That is not exactly correct. For the age of the earth he used the heat-transfer theory of Fourier with certain assumptions such as an average surface temperature of 0°C and an initial temperature of 7000°F. The theory was wildly oversimplified and used imprecise numbers. It is true that some of the internal heat is generated by radioactive decay, but that was by no means the main problem with Kelvin's theory. He separately estimated the age of the sun, but I am not as familiar with that estimate.

Joe Felsenstein · 16 June 2015

A fun quote from Ernest Rutherford, who demolished Kelvin's calculation of limits on the age of the Earth. He was very much worried about the reaction from Kelvin, who was very influential. At a 1904 speech Rutherford gave
I came into the room which was half-dark and presently spotted Lord Kelvin in the audience, and realised that I was in for trouble at the last part of my speech dealing with the age of the Earth, where my views conflicted with his. To my relief, Kelvin fell fast asleep, but as I came to the important point, I saw the old bird sit up, open an eye and cock a baleful glance at me. Then a sudden inspiration came, and I said Lord Kelvin had limited the age of the Earth, provided no new source [of heat] was discovered. That prophetic utterance referred to what we are now considering tonight, radium! Behold! The old boy beamed upon me.

Henry J · 17 June 2015

So, radium was the Curie for the problem of how long stuff took?

eric · 18 June 2015

Henry J said: So, radium was the Curie for the problem of how long stuff took?
Exactly. After Rutherford spoke, a feeling of fission went through the crowd as it was nu clear to everyone how the sun worked.

CJColucci · 19 June 2015

This illustrates an important point. There were genuine scientific problems with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. If the best physics of the day was right, the earth wasn't old enough for it to work. Under the prevailing theories of inheritance, there were serious holes in the theory. So it could have been wrong. But it turned out that the best physics of the day was what was wrong, and that a workable theory of inheritance was just around the corner. It could have been wrong, but as further evidence developed the problems disappeared. That's why it was science, as opposed to all variants of creationism, because it could have been wrong, and we knew what would have proved it wrong.

Robert Byers · 22 June 2015

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.