In honor of the opening of Ken Ham's nefarious Ark "replica" today -- you know, the one made out of gopher steel and wood -- I decided to post this piece about a book written by evangelical scientists who know better than to treat the book of Genesis as history or science, for evangelical laypersons who either know better than to treat the book of Genesis as history or science, or can be taught to know better.
The book is called The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth, and it is an anthology written by competent people and directed at evangelical Christians. Indeed, the subtitle is, "Can Noah's Flood Explain the Grand Canyon?" The book, which I have not seen, appears to be lavishly illustrated, with 255 photographs and 104 diagrams and sketches, according to Church & State magazine. It is being sold in all 8 bookstores in the Grand Canyon National Park.
I am getting virtually all my information from an article in the latest issue of Church & State magazine. They note that the book has 11 co-authors, 8 of whom are evangelical Christians, and 3 are agnostics. The authors' specialties include geology, biology, and paleontology. Church & State quotes Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education to the effect that the book "does a great job of explaining the science of Grand Canyon's spectacular geology, as well as helping readers understand how the creationist misuse of Grand Canyon finds no support from science."
Importantly, the publisher of the book is an evangelical firm, Kregel Publications, which, according to co-author Tim Helble, "was a good match for us because they have ... published other books dealing with origins issues and would be able to sell the book in venues where evangelicals can be reached." The last seems very important to me.
The bulk of the Church & State article is an interview with Mr. Helble, a retired hydrologist with the National Weather Service. Mr. Helble states explicitly that the "11 authors wanted to help counter the misleading information being disseminated by the young-Earth creationist (YEC) ministries." He recognized the problem in 1994 when he found a book, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, edited by PhD geologist Steve Austin, and apparently chock full of errors. Here are a few snippets from the interview:
Three things we agreed to before we started writing were (1) our target audience is people who are uncertain about the age of the Earth, (2) a Christian reader shouldn't feel like he/she is being ridiculed and (3) a college science degree shouldn't be needed to understand it. ...
Of course the Bible has tremendous value -- I just think the young Earthers over-globalize the flood account, fail to see the worldview of the ancient Near East people and miss out on the rich poetic devices used in the early parts of Genesis. ...
I think those claiming censorship misunderstand how the scientific process works. You can't write an article about something like a geologic formation that basically says "the Flood did it," and expect to have it accepted by a scientific journal. There has to be a quantitatively realistic mechanism consistent with the laws of physics behind what you are proposing. ...
Creationism is a third rail in public schools, but there are some ways to inoculate students against it without directly addressing the subject. Schools could to do a better job of teaching how we know the Earth is old. For example, instead of just teaching that sedimentary rocks are made of sediments like sand and silt, students can be shown how fossils are found in such rocks of things that take a long time to form like intact reef systems, termite nests, forest communities and orderly nests of unhatched dinosaur eggs. ...
By the way, when a student brings up young-Earth arguments, the worst thing to do is attack his or her faith. All you're doing then is reinforcing the "us-vs.-them" mindset and helping the young-Earth ministries keep a lifetime follower. ...
It certainly seems like there is a clash [between science and religion] if you focus on the extremes -- the "new atheists" at one end and the YECs at the other. It's interesting that both of them insist on a wooden, literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.
I think religion and science can coexist if they don't tread on each other's turf where it's not appropriate. I've seen new atheists use some pretty bad theology, and I think religious people should accept that there are some things that you just have to take on faith -- stop trying to find "ultimate proofs" of difficult theological ideas like creation.
I am an old atheist (or, as I prefer to put it, a strong agnostic), and I do not know what is wooden about my interpretation of Genesis, but we will let that go. I think that among Mr. Helble's most important remarks are that people should not feel that they are being ridiculed (yes, I know it is difficult at times, and the line between gentle satire and ridicule is sometimes uncertain), students should not think their faith is being attacked, and religion and science can coexist if they do not "tread on each other's turf." That is, as your local accommodationist, I think he is right that we have to accept religious people as they are, but only as long as they do not make claims that are flatly contrary to scientific fact.
58 Comments
Joe Felsenstein · 7 July 2016
Surveys show that fewer than half of U.S. Christians are Young Earth Creationists. When a student starts propounding YEC views in a science class, it suffices to show that their science is wrong. Spending time on whether their interpretation of Genesis is the correct reading would seem to be a waste of time. They'll figure that out (and one can always point out that, empirically, most Christians do not agree with the YEC interpretation of Torah). And of course, in a public university like ours, it is a violation of Church/State for a teacher to engage in arguments about the truth or falsity of religions.
If, like me, your objective is to defend the teaching of evolutionary biology, you welcome a book like this. If your objective is to destroy religion, then you may be very upset at a book like this.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 7 July 2016
The Flood: A great explanation for everything except the facts.
Joe Felsenstein said:
And of course, in a public university like ours, it is a violation of Church/State for a teacher to engage in arguments about the truth or falsity of religions.
Speaking of the USA:
My understanding is that in a university there is much more leeway granted in discussing matters of religion than in K-12. The students are considered adults, able to understand what is being taught is not by the authority of the state, and able to make up their own minds.
In science classes, it would be inappropriate to discuss religion, but in a literature or philosophy class, it might be OK. I understand that some state universities have departments of religious studies.
Scott F · 7 July 2016
TomS said:
Joe Felsenstein said:
And of course, in a public university like ours, it is a violation of Church/State for a teacher to engage in arguments about the truth or falsity of religions.
Speaking of the USA:
My understanding is that in a university there is much more leeway granted in discussing matters of religion than in K-12. The students are considered adults, able to understand what is being taught is not by the authority of the state, and able to make up their own minds.
In science classes, it would be inappropriate to discuss religion, but in a literature or philosophy class, it might be OK. I understand that some state universities have departments of religious studies.
One of the best classes that I took in high school was labeled "World Cultures". It was unfortunate that the class was taught by a real nerd, but the material was great. Part of every culture that we studied was the religion. As extra credit, we were encouraged to attend religious services of 3 different religions, not our own. I recall going to Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist services. (We had the luxury of living in the Bay Area, where there was a wide variety of religions to choose from.) Most importantly, I felt that the goal was to introduce the people of these other cultures as people.
We never talked about the "truth" or "falsity" of any religion. We simple learned about what each religion taught, in an honest, nonjudgmental way. I suppose that most of the "strong" Christians considered the "other" cultures "quaint" or curiosities. But it was made clear from the start that we weren't there to ridicule or make fun on anyone or anything. (With the exception, perhaps, of the class contingent that kept making fun of the teacher himself.)
One can certainly discuss the tenants of a religion, without getting into whether they are "true" or "false".
But there is no way to avoid such discussions when religions start making fact claims about Science and about the world.
No, "Science" does not support a young earth. No, the "scientific consensus" is not continually on the edge of failure or collapse. No, the speed of light does not vary. No, the rates of decay of radioactive elements does not vary in unexplained ways. Yes, there are ice cores and varve cores where we can literally count multiple-tens of thousands of years.
If you stick to the facts, without being judgmental or belittling, I don't see any problem.
toddard · 7 July 2016
The cognitive dissonance -- it burns! Mr. Helble states the following in the interview:
"There has to be a quantitatively realistic mechanism consistent with the laws of physics behind what you are proposing. â¦"
and
"I think religious people should accept that there are some things that you just have to take on faithâ¦"
and
"I think religion and science can coexist if they donât tread on each otherâs turf where itâs not appropriate."
It seems to me that Mr. Helble has drawn an arbitrary line separating things that should require evidence and reasoning vs. things that require only faith. It's just that his line includes a few more things in the science column than some other Christians. My question to him would be what is the method used to determine what should be accepted on faith vs. what requires evidence? Where would he put the seven plagues? The divinity and resurrection of Jesus? The virgin birth?
I've never understood the logic behind anybody who subscribes to the idea of faith in some areas while insisting on scientific rigor in others, particularly when it comes to rationalizing the many claims in the Christian Bible.
eric · 7 July 2016
Joe Felsenstein said:
Surveys show that fewer than half of U.S. Christians are Young Earth Creationists. When a student starts propounding YEC views in a science class, it suffices to show that their science is wrong. Spending time on whether their interpretation of Genesis is the correct reading would seem to be a waste of time.
No only that, and not only is it a legal violation, but science teachers aren't hired for their qualifications in theology, so they are misusing their authority as a teacher when they do it.
I liken the situation to an adult chaperoning a kids' game of cops and robbers: your role is not to decide who shot who with their imaginary finger guns. Its to ensure the kids have a safe place to play and obey some basic safety and courtesy rules. As a science teacher, your role is not about deciding which sect (or none) gets their theology right. Its to ensure they have the space and support (in both lecture, book, laboratory, and psychological forms) they need to learn science.
eric · 7 July 2016
toddard said:
My question to him would be what is the method used to determine what should be accepted on faith vs. what requires evidence? Where would he put the seven plagues? The divinity and resurrection of Jesus? The virgin birth?
Good questions for any Christian who says they support science. However (and I say this without having read it), I doubt your issues with his interview position are relevant to the content of the book he just published. It sounds like they take a much more matter-of-fact approach in the book, and do not get into the philosophical discussion of accommodationism vs. non-accommodationism. Though I could easily be wrong about that.
I've never understood the logic behind anybody who subscribes to the idea of faith in some areas while insisting on scientific rigor in others, particularly when it comes to rationalizing the many claims in the Christian Bible.
All humans - yes, even atheists - make all sorts of really important belief decisions without insisting on scientific rigor. Do you need to perform a laboratory test to decide whether you believe one person throwing another to the ground is an assault? Or do you just need to know "this happened between strangers on a street" vs. "this happened in the octagon as part of a MMA competition"? How about the court system? We decide guilt or innocence by hand vote, often with no empirical evidence at all beyond human testimony. That's not exactly scientifically rigorous, and yet those decisions have far greater real-world consequences than most published scientific papers. (So if we're just measuring by importance, the legal ones should be more rigorous than the scientific ones, right?)
Science is a really good decision-making system. However compared to other systems it's also comparatively slow, its a data hog, and it (intentionally) has no forced-decision resolution system in the case where we don't have the right amount or type of data - in those cases, science just says 'no answer yet - needs more research.' But humans often don't have the luxury of making important belief decisions slowly, or with lots of data, or choosing not to decide. In those cases, we can't use science, and we don't use science.
And that is the logic behind insisting on scientific rigor in some areas but not in others, which hopefully you now get.
The problem with creationism and in general faithy defenses of miracles isn't that 'we must never make belief decisions without scientific rigor, and they do.' That's an incredibly bad argument. The problem with creationism is that questions like "how was the grand canyon formed" are in the sweet spot of science, where we can collect relevant empirical data, and we aren't under a time pressure to answer the qusetion, and there is no negative social consequence of deferring an answer until we are satisfied with the quality and quantity of data we've collected. Its the right type of question to use science on. There is no good methodological justification for using a different decision-making system on such a question. But please, please, throw out any conception you might have that science's methodology is the right methodology for every belief decision, because that's simply untrue - even for atheists - as well as laughably unworkable.
Okay...[/unnecessary rant on pet peeve]
Michael Fugate · 7 July 2016
Ah, the "I'm so much more superior to those extremists" argument (I notice that one of the authors writes for BioLogos sigh...). This is based solely on intuition - "if you are nice, don't question core beliefs, and present only facts, then they will listen and change their minds". Everything I have read about education based on evidence is that this doesn't work. They may listen and regurgitate on an exam, but in two weeks they will be a YEC again. It is painful to change minds - if that is what we want. People who do change will likely lose their communities - even families - a price too big for many to pay. These authors are writing off YECs completely - YECs are assumed to be incorrigible - and they wouldn't dare try to change their minds. For many, the loss of faith is a much bigger consequence than acceptance of science; they know that challenging YECism and succeeding will often result in a loss of faith. Many will be unable to reconcile evolution and Christianity both being true - as a Christian who accepts evolution which is worse - someone who is a Christian and a YEC or someone who is an ex-Christian and an evolution acceptor?
Also, I have no idea what religion's "turf" is. Take a look at National Academies' Science, Evolution and Creationism - especially pp. 12-15 - and tell me how religion "knows" anything. I have read enough theology to know that "revelation" is its only unique method - of dubious validity at best. Religion certainly doesn't own ethics or any other field.
PaulBC · 7 July 2016
Aside from the science question, I think this is a significant point.
I just think the young Earthers over-globalize the flood account, fail to see the worldview of the ancient Near East people and miss out on the rich poetic devices used in the early parts of Genesis.
YEC not only gets the science wrong, but it does a disservice to a significant piece of world mythology by turning it into bad fan fiction. It completely misses the point and exhibits an inferior understanding of the Bible than would have been found in a pre-scientific reader, who read it as sacred history and did not make the mistake of trying to shoehorn it into the mundane world.
RJ · 7 July 2016
The case of examining context to determine whether or not there is an assault is not similar to trying to make weighty ethical decisions based on ancient texts of dubious providence. The fundamentalists and others claim to be able to discern deeply non-trivial matters from faith. Not analogical.
Eric's comment is very strawmanny. It starts with a quote, and then in the last paragraph, dismisses a parody extremist construal of same quote.
Even the examples are far less telling than is claimed. Firstly, many or most court cases do not depend solely on oral testimony. Secondly, even when they do, there are principles of plausibility followed in (purported) common sense, by juries, and in admissibility, in law.
The examples given are in fact much more similar to science than they are to any theological activity. We have good (evidence-based) reasons to see them as better than random guessing. We don't have any such reasons for any kind of theology, whether it's the racist rantings of Adjective Adjective Reformed Baptist Adjective Chuch, or the veddy veddy refined 'scholarship' of a Catholic theologian with three doctorates.
Matt Young · 7 July 2016
the tenants of a religion
Tenets.
ancient texts of dubious providence
Provenance.
Interesting errors. Tenants is becoming common for tenets and shows, I suppose, evolution. I think I remember from somewhere that if 2 words sound similar they soon become confused, like flout and flaunt or founder and flounder, and merge. At least, tenet and tenant both have the same root. But unless you think someone pays rent and occupies a religion, the word is tenet. If we knew the provenance of the ancient texts, it would be providential, because we are not going to establish provenance any other way. Sorry for sounding pedantic during summer break.
Joe Felsenstein · 7 July 2016
In Providence, do the tenants of a religion have to pay rent?
ashleyhr · 7 July 2016
Are CMI panicking? Will they review the new book or will they ignore its existence, I wonder? http://creation.com/grand-canyon-uniformitarian-age-controversy
Rocks and rivers have both been around for a long time...
Henry J · 7 July 2016
AIUI, court cases usually focus on details of a particular event, whereas scientific research focuses on understanding general principles, of which specific cases are merely examples.
DS · 7 July 2016
Michael Fugate said:
Here is a recent paper in Nature Geoscience:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2065.html
Rocks and rivers have both been around for a long time...
So the Grand Canyon wasn't formed all at once. Then it could not have been formed by a world wide flood. And it certainly was not formed within the last five million years. So YEC loses. Again. So the Ark Park is a lie as well. Good to know.
Matt Young · 7 July 2016
Well, the Ark "Replica" is open; see here. There are a couple of videos, one showing the interior of the "Ark" and another showing a protester and a counter-protester talking past each other at elevated volume. The counter-protester, whose arms must have been getting very tired, held up a sign to the effect that life, DNA, molecules, and fulfilled prophecies were proof of God. The article notes,
A few dozen opponents of the park protested outside Thursday. They criticized its lack of focus on science and its policy of hiring only devout Christians. They also have balked at the religious organization getting an $18 million tax break from the state.
The reporter, Linda Blackford, also interviewed Dan Phelps at length and wrote,
Another longtime ark skeptic, Dan Phelps, head of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, showed up for the opening on Thursday. Phelps said he was impressed by the boatâs wooden craftsmanship and appalled by its scientific exhibits, which he called âbeyond pseudo-science, more like non-science.â
Answers in Genesis co-founder Ken Ham âhas gotten everything he ever wanted,â Phelps said. âHe has a second Creation Museum thatâs shaped like Noahâs Ark. Heâs the Ayatollah of Appalachia.â
The rest of the article could reasonably be described as fawning and includes such misinformation as,
Georgia Purdom, a geneticist for Answers in Genesis, which also owns the Creation Museum in nearby Petersburg, said the Ark Encounterâs mission is to âshare the Gospel.â
âWe want them to know the Bible is true,â she said. âWe want this to be as scientifically accurate, as well as biblically accurate as well.â
... Purdom said dinosaurs were land animals created on Day 6 of the worldâs creation, so âthere were between 60 to 90 kinds Noah would have had to take on the ark.â
Dave Luckett · 7 July 2016
I think that this is the actual line to attack young-Earth creationism - these are the wonders that the Lord has made, and he didn't need to break His own laws to make them!
I'd like to flank Ken Ham on the other side, too: "Mr Ham, can you point to the passage in scripture where the Lord explains that the Genesis stories of the Creation and the Flood are literal accounts of historical events, to be read as fact? I cannot find such a passage. Are you adding that into the scripture, sir? Is this the Word of God, or is it the word of Ken Ham? Are you a prophet, then? I had thought that the teaching was that Jesus was the last. Have you read Deuteronomy 18:20, where the Lord specifies the fate of false prophets?..." And so on.
W. H. Heydt · 7 July 2016
toddard said:
"I think religion and science can coexist if they donât tread on each otherâs turf where itâs not appropriate."
That's Stephen J. Gould's "Non-pverlapping Magisteria" (NOMA) idea. It seems to me that it suffers from a major fault. As scientists learn more and more about the world, science "grabs off" more and more territory. The religion side fights to hang on to what they have. As a result the "Magisteria" start overlapping and things get ugly.
DS · 7 July 2016
... Purdom said dinosaurs were land animals created on Day 6 of the worldâs creation, so âthere were between 60 to 90 kinds Noah would have had to take on the ark.â
Really? Well there were thousands of species of dinosaurs. Where did they all come from? Were they alive before the magic flood? DId they speciate after the magic flood? DId they all did die out after the magic flood? How many were on the ark? Was it sixty or ninety? What did they eat on the ark? What did they eat after they got off the ark? Were they "clean"? Were there seven of each "kind" or two? If Noah had access to all of them for so long, did he learn anything about them? DId he write it down? DId he publish it anywhere? Enquiring minds want to know.
Robert Byers · 7 July 2016
So Evangelical researchers are okay if they come up with the right answers! Say it ain't so Mr Young. A origin researcher is credible on the ability of the research and not the results surely. Anyways. The authors are saying silly things. Too much to itemize. Books like this actually help YEC. They cause a stir and the YEC responce is a nuclear bomb in ability and reaching audiences relative to these circles.yEC welcomes publicity. Will this book, seeming a science one, be allowed in public schools and universities etc??? or is it a religious book? Anyways. The new ark seems to be sailing and will have more shipmates then then this book readers. By the way I don't, and i think some YEC thinkers, see the Grand canyon as the result of the last stages of the flood. It seems now it was created suddenly by a lake overflow some centuries after the flood. this tying in with regular researchers ideas. I did think it was from the flood but actually probably a smaller body of water created in a few hours or days later.
Robert Byers · 7 July 2016
Joe Felsenstein said:
Surveys show that fewer than half of U.S. Christians are Young Earth Creationists. When a student starts propounding YEC views in a science class, it suffices to show that their science is wrong. Spending time on whether their interpretation of Genesis is the correct reading would seem to be a waste of time. They'll figure that out (and one can always point out that, empirically, most Christians do not agree with the YEC interpretation of Torah). And of course, in a public university like ours, it is a violation of Church/State for a teacher to engage in arguments about the truth or falsity of religions.
If, like me, your objective is to defend the teaching of evolutionary biology, you welcome a book like this. If your objective is to destroy religion, then you may be very upset at a book like this.
Amen then. If its illegal to teach the truth/falseness of religions in universities then censorship of creationism in subjects on origins is the state saying either creationism is wrong or they can't teach the truth .
If the former then the state is breaking the law. If the latter then its an absurdity of the education agenda.
Censorship in classes dealing with truth in subjects is state command that what is censored is not true.
I don't see how one can get around this.!!
phhht · 7 July 2016
Robert Byers said:
Joe Felsenstein said:
Surveys show that fewer than half of U.S. Christians are Young Earth Creationists. When a student starts propounding YEC views in a science class, it suffices to show that their science is wrong. Spending time on whether their interpretation of Genesis is the correct reading would seem to be a waste of time. They'll figure that out (and one can always point out that, empirically, most Christians do not agree with the YEC interpretation of Torah). And of course, in a public university like ours, it is a violation of Church/State for a teacher to engage in arguments about the truth or falsity of religions.
If, like me, your objective is to defend the teaching of evolutionary biology, you welcome a book like this. If your objective is to destroy religion, then you may be very upset at a book like this.
Amen then. If its illegal to teach the truth/falseness of religions in universities then censorship of creationism in subjects on origins is the state saying either creationism is wrong or they can't teach the truth .
If the former then the state is breaking the law. If the latter then its an absurdity of the education agenda.
Censorship in classes dealing with truth in subjects is state command that what is censored is not true.
I don't see how one can get around this.!!
So, Robert Byers, I say your religious beliefs are false.
All you have to do to refute me is to provide a single solitary shred of testable evidence for the reality of your gods.
But neither you nor anyone else can do that.
Why, Robert Byers, should I not conclude that you suffer from a kind of delusional disorder that causes you to believe in things that are not real?
Rolf · 8 July 2016
The solution is of course to teach all religions. There wouldn't be time left to teach anything else in shools. Scientology would also have to be included.
DS · 8 July 2016
Notice that if a scientist is an atheist his results can be ignored because of his "bias", but if a scientist is a religious believer, his results can be ignored as well. All results are ignored for any reason, as long as they are not the desired results. That's the way science works for people like booby. Expertise doesn't matter. Experience doesn't matter. All that matters is that if someone disagrees with you, they must be wrong for some reason. The important thing is to never, ever look at the actual evidence but attack the people doing the science instead. Typical conspiracy theory play book nonsense.
eric · 8 July 2016
RJ said:
Eric's comment is very strawmanny. It starts with a quote, and then in the last paragraph, dismisses a parody extremist construal of same quote.
Nope. I'll be more direct then. The statement "Iâve never understood the logic behind anybody who subscribes to the idea of faith in some areas while insisting on scientific rigor in others" is silly because it is easy and obvious to understand subscribing to faith in some areas while insisting on scientific rigor in others: it happens whenever you don't have sufficient time or data to develop a scientifically rigorous position but you need to make a decision.
I guess you can argue that one need not ever access specifically-Christian or specifically-religious faith to make such decisions. That's obviously true too, because atheists make decisions without it. But we all 'take things on faith' in the vernacular sense, all the time, and the reason for doing so is easily understood.
Firstly, many or most court cases do not depend solely on oral testimony. Secondly, even when they do, there are principles of plausibility followed in (purported) common sense, by juries, and in admissibility, in law.
You understand that to refute my point that the courts sometimes use nonscientific processes, you have to show that they never use them, right? You haven't done that. You can't, because its untrue. Moreover, I'd argue that methodologically the court system does not follow the rules of science, even if they use some of the same empirical reasoning in specific cases. Science doesn't make decisions on the mass of the Higgs boson by putting 12 people in the room and doing a hand count of what they think it is.
We have good (evidence-based) reasons to see them as better than random guessing.
So now the standard for "making decisions with scientific rigor" include evidence-based reasons better than random guessing? Stone age flat earth theology would fit that bill; its not like believing the surface you live on is flat is based on no evidence whatsoever.
RJ · 8 July 2016
So strawmanny it isn't worth it to argue. Did not assert many things you attribute to me, sorry.
The difference between religious faith and the 'faith' we have that certain commonly experienced things will continue as before is stark. You might even say that confusing the two is a classic equivocation used by religious apologists.
However, I sense my interlocutor is more interested in being right than listening. Carry on.
harold · 8 July 2016
RJ said:
So strawmanny it isn't worth it to argue. Did not assert many things you attribute to me, sorry.
The difference between religious faith and the 'faith' we have that certain commonly experienced things will continue as before is stark. You might even say that confusing the two is a classic equivocation used by religious apologists.
However, I sense my interlocutor is more interested in being right than listening. Carry on.
I don't agree that Eric's response to you shows these characteristics.
Creationism is scientifically wrong. It makes scientific statements that can be investigated by the methods of science and shown to be wrong. It's not scientifically wrong because it's religious, it's scientifically wrong and it's religious.
"Jesus saves" cannot be investigated scientifically. We can make philosophical and theological arguments for or against a belief that Jesus saves. I'm not personally religious and don't personally believe in individual souls or a continuation of individual consciousness in an afterlife.
However, when I got my scientific education, there was never any reason to discuss whether or not Jesus saves in any science class whatsoever (neuroscience can study the physiologic basis of the belief that Jesus saves but cannot explore whether or not Jesus saves). Some top students did think that Jesus saves, but that was irrelevant; when dealing with science they performed extremely well.
W. H. Heydt said:
toddard said:
"I think religion and science can coexist if they donât tread on each otherâs turf where itâs not appropriate."
That's Stephen J. Gould's "Non-pverlapping Magisteria" (NOMA) idea. It seems to me that it suffers from a major fault. As scientists learn more and more about the world, science "grabs off" more and more territory. The religion side fights to hang on to what they have. As a result the "Magisteria" start overlapping and things get ugly.
I think Stephen J. Gould was right then, is right now, and will always be right, about this matter. You are describing the "god of the gaps" approach of some religious people, and I completely agree with your analysis of its limitations.
Without meaning to trivialize religion, though, anyone can always say they hold some religious belief that can't be investigated by science. Pastafarianism is a model religion that is constructed in such a way that it cannot be refuted by science.
Science can study matters related to religion, such as parts of the brain associated with religious beliefs, and so on, but they can ultimately be separate subjects.
I find it to seem very defensive and insecure when non-religious people try to say that religious people can't do or study science correctly. Of course many of them can and do. Science completely refutes numerous incorrect, religion-motivated claims about things that science can study, but Gould is also correct. I suspect excessively ideological atheists of being secretly afraid that some religion, probably latter day American Protestant Fundamentalism, may be correct (something I have no fear of whatsoever). Methinks they doth protest too much. Science can only deal with religious claims that are in the form of something that can be investigated by science. It's almost reverse creationism. Creationists demand that their religion be supported by science, they can't just admit that they are pre-suppositionalists. Some atheists seem to demand that atheism be supported by science, they can't just admit that, while atheism certainly doesn't conflict with science, there are things that science as a methodology simply cannot directly investigate.
The Dali Lama has stated that wherever Tibetan Buddhism is in conflict with science, Tibetan Buddhism must change. Therefore there is at least one example of a real religion that cannot, by definition, be in direct conflict with science.
It does not benefit science or scientists to have science dragged into ideological and philosophical disputes about religion. Creationists are the usual ones to do this.
Michael Fugate · 8 July 2016
Can you imagine if you put Ravi, Ray, Robert and Floyd in a room together to debate what Christianity is? Do you think they could agree on much? And if they did agree on some things, the differences would still drive each to accuse the others of heresy?
We know there are Christians all along the spectrum from accepting current biology, geology, astronomy to rejecting it all. We know who is more correct on the science, but the theology, not so much.
Michael Fugate · 8 July 2016
harold said:
I think Stephen J. Gould was right then, is right now, and will always be right, about this matter. You are describing the "god of the gaps" approach of some religious people, and I completely agree with your analysis of its limitations.
Without meaning to trivialize religion, though, anyone can always say they hold some religious belief that can't be investigated by science. Pastafarianism is a model religion that is constructed in such a way that it cannot be refuted by science.
Science can study matters related to religion, such as parts of the brain associated with religious beliefs, and so on, but they can ultimately be separate subjects.
I find it to seem very defensive and insecure when non-religious people try to say that religious people can't do or study science correctly. Of course many of them can and do. Science completely refutes numerous incorrect, religion-motivated claims about things that science can study, but Gould is also correct. I suspect excessively ideological atheists of being secretly afraid that some religion, probably latter day American Protestant Fundamentalism, may be correct (something I have no fear of whatsoever). Methinks they doth protest too much. Science can only deal with religious claims that are in the form of something that can be investigated by science. It's almost reverse creationism. Creationists demand that their religion be supported by science, they can't just admit that they are pre-suppositionalists. Some atheists seem to demand that atheism be supported by science, they can't just admit that, while atheism certainly doesn't conflict with science, there are things that science as a methodology simply cannot directly investigate.
The Dali Lama has stated that wherever Tibetan Buddhism is in conflict with science, Tibetan Buddhism must change. Therefore there is at least one example of a real religion that cannot, by definition, be in direct conflict with science.
It does not benefit science or scientists to have science dragged into ideological and philosophical disputes about religion. Creationists are the usual ones to do this.
What a load crap.
This has nothing to do with religious people practicing science, but with people claiming religion generates knowledge. What part of the knowledge spectrum does religion occupy? There plenty things that are not science that generate knowledge, but religion is not one of them. Gould's pronouncement gives religion too much respect; if we want to understand anything about the human experience, religion is in no way qualified to do so. I have no beef with people practicing religions, but they would be better off studying philosophy, history, literature and the like if they want to learn the best way to live.
W. H. Heydt · 8 July 2016
Robert Byers said:
Amen then. If its illegal to teach the truth/falseness of religions in universities then censorship of creationism in subjects on origins is the state saying either creationism is wrong or they can't teach the truth .
If the former then the state is breaking the law. If the latter then its an absurdity of the education agenda.
Censorship in classes dealing with truth in subjects is state command that what is censored is not true.
I don't see how one can get around this.!!
I suppose that it's understandable that you get so much wrong about the US Constitutional and legal requirements and restrictions. I dare say that Canadian schools don't make much mention of how the US system works.
harold · 8 July 2016
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
Amen then. If its illegal to teach the truth/falseness of religions in universities then censorship of creationism in subjects on origins is the state saying either creationism is wrong or they can't teach the truth .
If the former then the state is breaking the law. If the latter then its an absurdity of the education agenda.
Censorship in classes dealing with truth in subjects is state command that what is censored is not true.
I don't see how one can get around this.!!
I suppose that it's understandable that you get so much wrong about the US Constitutional and legal requirements and restrictions. I dare say that Canadian schools don't make much mention of how the US system works.
I get that you're joking, but I'll point out that Robert Byers takes the same view of "censorship" and "the constitution" as American religious right creationists.
If they aren't allowed to persecute someone else, that's them being persecuted.
If they aren't paid to express their views, that's them being censored.
If they aren't allowed to harm their employer's business by offending the customers, that's them being censored.
If they say something and someone else responds, that's them being censored.
No-one else is conceived as having any rights whatsoever.
The way they interpret "the constitution" is that they have the right to say anything, anywhere, anytime, with no consequences. On the other hand everyone else has the right to walk on eggshells, desperately avoiding anything that could offend their delicate sensitivities.
That's how their minds work, on both sides of the border.
Tim Helble · 8 July 2016
For those who might be interested, here's a review of the actual book by Greg Laden: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/05/26/grand_canyon_monument_to_ancient_earth_science_vs_creationism_book/
I noticed that Robert Byers stated: "The authors are saying silly things. Too much to itemize... It seems now it was created suddenly by a lake overflow some centuries after the flood. this tying in with regular researchers ideas. I did think it was from the flood but actually probably a smaller body of water created in a few hours or days later." We cover the lake overflow hypothesis in-depth in chapter 16 of the book. It appears Mr. Byers hasn't read it yet.
phhht · 8 July 2016
phhht said:
So, Robert Byers, I say your religious beliefs are false.
All you have to do to refute me is to provide a single solitary shred of testable evidence for the reality of your gods.
But neither you nor anyone else can do that.
Why, Robert Byers, should I not conclude that you suffer from a kind of delusional disorder that causes you to believe in things that are not real?
You cannot answer, Robert Byers? Are your religious convictions so indefensible that you dare not even try?
W. H. Heydt · 8 July 2016
Tim Helble said:It appears Mr. Byers hasn't read it yet.
And it's extraordinarily unlikely that he ever will. Won't stop him from "criticizing" it, though.
Matt Young · 8 July 2016
I noticed that Robert Byers stated: âThe authors are saying silly things. Too much to itemize⦠It seems now it was created suddenly by a lake overflow some centuries after the flood. this tying in with regular researchers ideas. I did think it was from the flood but actually probably a smaller body of water created in a few hours or days later.â We cover the lake overflow hypothesis in-depth in chapter 16 of the book. It appears Mr. Byers hasnât read it yet.
Our apologies for Mr. Byers. He is one of our more or less regular trolls, and we let him comment from time to time, even though he rarely makes sense and usually cannot write a coherent sentence. Typically, I let 1 or 2 of his comments stand, then send the rest off to what we call the Bathroom Wall. Nevertheless, it is salutary to occasionally refute "critics" like Mr. Byers so that fence-sitters and others can see what nonsense they write. The chance that he will read your book is nil; I doubt that he reads anything other than sources that feed his monumental ignorance.
Scott F · 8 July 2016
Personally, as long as Byers and his respondents stay mostly on topic, I often find the comments instructive, as in, "How best to respond to a creationist." While he's difficult to read at times, at least he's more polite than the others. He seldom gets into ad hominem arguments, for example. And he's far more amusing than FL. Though, he's certainly as repetitive as any of them, and his unique brand of YEC may not be representative of the clade as a whole.
Robert Byers · 8 July 2016
Tim Helble said:
For those who might be interested, here's a review of the actual book by Greg Laden: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/05/26/grand_canyon_monument_to_ancient_earth_science_vs_creationism_book/
I noticed that Robert Byers stated: "The authors are saying silly things. Too much to itemize... It seems now it was created suddenly by a lake overflow some centuries after the flood. this tying in with regular researchers ideas. I did think it was from the flood but actually probably a smaller body of water created in a few hours or days later." We cover the lake overflow hypothesis in-depth in chapter 16 of the book. It appears Mr. Byers hasn't read it yet.
I didn't read it but have read a great deal on the GC. I meant by the silly things the attacks on yEC. not the ideas about geology.
Thats different.
The lake overflow is not from creationists I believe but others.
I would read the book if I come across it of coarse. i like geomorphology a great deal.
As I said i thought the GC was a last act of the great flood. But it is actually not impressive enough. The other idea made more sense. The important thing is the mechanism and the GC easily looking like a sudden creation.
Not the slow idea.in fact everywhere fast acting flooding waters is used to explain the geography. Especially from melting ice events in the North.
phhht · 9 July 2016
Robert Byers said:
I didn't read it but have read a great deal on the GC. I meant by the silly things the attacks on yEC. not the ideas about geology.
Thats different.
The lake overflow is not from creationists I believe but others.
I would read the book if I come across it of coarse. i like geomorphology a great deal.
As I said i thought the GC was a last act of the great flood. But it is actually not impressive enough. The other idea made more sense. The important thing is the mechanism and the GC easily looking like a sudden creation.
Not the slow idea.in fact everywhere fast acting flooding waters is used to explain the geography. Especially from melting ice events in the North.
I think people who profess ridiculously wrong beliefs have earned ridicule. Robert Byers, for example.
Henry J · 9 July 2016
I guess rock science can be hard, especially for people who take their beliefs for granite.
W. H. Heydt · 9 July 2016
Henry J said:
I guess rock science can be hard, especially for people who take their beliefs for granite.
For some...it's just a pile schist.
harold · 10 July 2016
Scott F said:
Personally, as long as Byers and his respondents stay mostly on topic, I often find the comments instructive, as in, "How best to respond to a creationist." While he's difficult to read at times, at least he's more polite than the others. He seldom gets into ad hominem arguments, for example. And he's far more amusing than FL. Though, he's certainly as repetitive as any of them, and his unique brand of YEC may not be representative of the clade as a whole.
It's my sincere opinion that Robert Byers is the best creationism has to offer, and I'm not kidding, nor offering a strong compliment to Robert Byers. He certainly needs an editor for grammar and spelling. Having said that, he can control his temper, he stays on topic, and on rare occasions he makes an effort (on really rare occasions, a successful effort) to understand what he is arguing against. And he presents alternate explanations rather than just attacking evolution. I hope no-one thinks I'm being too kind here; this is mainly a negative reflection on other creationists. Robert Byers is an ideologue with strong Dunning Kruger issues who cannot be persuaded by reason.
Tim Helble said:
For those who might be interested, here's a review of the actual book by Greg Laden: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/05/26/grand_canyon_monument_to_ancient_earth_science_vs_creationism_book/
I noticed that Robert Byers stated: "The authors are saying silly things. Too much to itemize... It seems now it was created suddenly by a lake overflow some centuries after the flood. this tying in with regular researchers ideas. I did think it was from the flood but actually probably a smaller body of water created in a few hours or days later." We cover the lake overflow hypothesis in-depth in chapter 16 of the book. It appears Mr. Byers hasn't read it yet.
Get used to it. I appreciate what you've done. The book will be useful - mainly for adolescents. Adolescents raised in a science denial atmosphere often show a tendency to look at the evidence for themselves. There may be some persuadable creationists in some other age groups.
As for most adult creationists, they are going to attack the book without reading it, of course. In fact, they're going to hate it far more than they would hate a book advocating atheism. They have made a self-serving ideological decision to define "true" Christianity as selective science-denying Biblical literalism and to define themselves as special, superior, and deserving of extra power. Merely by accepting the scientific age of the Earth, you are a rival Christian casting doubt on important parts of their ideology, and they aren't going to like that. I'm sorry if this sounds a bit pessimistic. The book will, as I noted, be quite valuable for those who can still be persuaded. Just be aware that many can't. And Byers is one of the most courteous among that group.
verne_julius1 · 10 July 2016
What explains the Grand Canyon?
Surely something does!
Forgive my ignorance.
Where is the 'dump' of all the eroded material?
Henry J · 10 July 2016
Delta.
verne_julius1 · 10 July 2016
Henry J said:
Delta.
Would that be in the Gulf of Baja?
Also there would be no reason to believe that all the material eroded is not all somewhere.
To prove that you would have to do great extensive Geological study submarine core sample drilling in the mouth of the River Colorado(a).
Anyway, I find the Grand Canyon too puzzling.
harold · 10 July 2016
verne_julius1 said:
Henry J said:
Delta.
Would that be in the Gulf of Baja?
Also there would be no reason to believe that all the material eroded is not all somewhere.
To prove that you would have to do great extensive Geological study submarine core sample drilling in the mouth of the River Colorado(a).
Anyway, I find the Grand Canyon too puzzling.
You seem to assume that it eroded into its present form very quickly, thus creating a vast amount of silt.
However, even very "rapid" erosion would be very slow by human standards. The volume eroded per year was not vast relative to the volume of water involved. The problem you are stuck on does not exist.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 July 2016
verne_julius1 said:
Henry J said:
Delta.
Would that be in the Gulf of Baja?
Also there would be no reason to believe that all the material eroded is not all somewhere.
To prove that you would have to do great extensive Geological study submarine core sample drilling in the mouth of the River Colorado(a).
Anyway, I find the Grand Canyon too puzzling.
Talkorigins has a bit on it
Seems a lot easier to distribute the sediments over millions of years rather than over one year, or at most a few years, of a global flood. For instance, there's time for limestones and dolostones to dissolve over deep time (reefs in the oceans have some of the calcium and carbonate eroded from the Grand Canyon), while there's nothing that would normally eat up vast amounts of carbonates over the timespan of a relatively short flood.
Glen Davidson
Dr GS Hurd · 10 July 2016
I wrote a review for Amazon soon after the book was released. Those of you who know me, at least by reputation, know that I am not easily impressed. I gave the book full marks.
Quoting from that review, "The first thing readers will notice is that this is a beautifully illustrated book. The efforts of Tim Helble and graphic designers Bronze Black and Susan Coman are proven on nearly every page. The second thing you will notice is that this book is an excellent short introduction to geology. This is true even ignoring the special focus on countering widely believed falsehoods about the Grand Canyon."
Dr GS Hurd · 10 July 2016
While I am being nice, (probably the cold medicine) I'll mention two other good books written by geologists who are also Christians;
Young, Davis A., Ralf F. Stearley 2008 "The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth" Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press
Roberts, Michael 2008 "Evangelicals and Science" Greenwood Press
Both are contributions to an attempt to reach Young Earth Creationists with dose of reality that does not insist they abandon their faith in gods, or salvation.
harold · 11 July 2016
Both are contributions to an attempt to reach Young Earth Creationists with dose of reality that does not insist they abandon their faith in gods, or salvation.
As I noted above, that won't work on committed adult creationists. If they were willing to become science-accepting Christians, why didn't they do it a long time ago? Evidence does not matter to them. And they have made their particular brand of faith contingent on science denial. You don't have to abandon a love of baseball to change from being a Red Sox fan to being a Yankees fan, but you do have to abandon being a Red Sox fan, and take up with a hated rival, and that doesn't happen very often.
When they say that accurate science is "atheist", they are both playing word games to trick the public, but also implying to those who get the code that those who practice other brands of Christianity are equivalent to atheists.
However, this book will be useful. Adolescents raised in creationist households sometimes question their parents' science denial. And the book will be useful for Christians and some others who already don't deny science, as a friendly discussion of a fascinating scientific topic.
Robert Byers · 11 July 2016
harold said:
Scott F said:
Personally, as long as Byers and his respondents stay mostly on topic, I often find the comments instructive, as in, "How best to respond to a creationist." While he's difficult to read at times, at least he's more polite than the others. He seldom gets into ad hominem arguments, for example. And he's far more amusing than FL. Though, he's certainly as repetitive as any of them, and his unique brand of YEC may not be representative of the clade as a whole.
It's my sincere opinion that Robert Byers is the best creationism has to offer, and I'm not kidding, nor offering a strong compliment to Robert Byers. He certainly needs an editor for grammar and spelling. Having said that, he can control his temper, he stays on topic, and on rare occasions he makes an effort (on really rare occasions, a successful effort) to understand what he is arguing against. And he presents alternate explanations rather than just attacking evolution. I hope no-one thinks I'm being too kind here; this is mainly a negative reflection on other creationists. Robert Byers is an ideologue with strong Dunning Kruger issues who cannot be persuaded by reason.
Tim Helble said:
For those who might be interested, here's a review of the actual book by Greg Laden: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/05/26/grand_canyon_monument_to_ancient_earth_science_vs_creationism_book/
I noticed that Robert Byers stated: "The authors are saying silly things. Too much to itemize... It seems now it was created suddenly by a lake overflow some centuries after the flood. this tying in with regular researchers ideas. I did think it was from the flood but actually probably a smaller body of water created in a few hours or days later." We cover the lake overflow hypothesis in-depth in chapter 16 of the book. It appears Mr. Byers hasn't read it yet.
Get used to it. I appreciate what you've done. The book will be useful - mainly for adolescents. Adolescents raised in a science denial atmosphere often show a tendency to look at the evidence for themselves. There may be some persuadable creationists in some other age groups.
As for most adult creationists, they are going to attack the book without reading it, of course. In fact, they're going to hate it far more than they would hate a book advocating atheism. They have made a self-serving ideological decision to define "true" Christianity as selective science-denying Biblical literalism and to define themselves as special, superior, and deserving of extra power. Merely by accepting the scientific age of the Earth, you are a rival Christian casting doubt on important parts of their ideology, and they aren't going to like that. I'm sorry if this sounds a bit pessimistic. The book will, as I noted, be quite valuable for those who can still be persuaded. Just be aware that many can't. And Byers is one of the most courteous among that group.
A well a less then strong compliment is still a compliment. Thank you. I note your someone who is reasonable and fair mand respectful and other positive traits. You still give the jabs and slugs but thats okay. Origin issues is a contact sport.
YEC folk do weigh the evidence with the best of the,. We are convinced about foundations but if they were wrong we would be forced to agree to it on the weight of evidence.
Nobody is immune from being shown thier error unless very strange.
AMEN to evidence credibility.
RJ · 12 July 2016
There is only one kind of YEC who weighs evidence in a skilled, open-minded way. 'Former'.
DS · 12 July 2016
booby wrote:
"Nobody is immune from being shown thier error unless very strange."
And yet he has been told the difference between "your" and you're" many times. Very strange indeed.
Dave Luckett · 12 July 2016
Nobody is immune from being shown thier error unless very strange.
A classic Byersism.
Byers can't be shown his error. That is, any one of his many errors. Many have tried, in the rational but naive belief that statements that are blatantly false to fact will be seen and corrected. Byers simply ignores them. He can't be reached by evidence. Therefore, he is, by his own definition, very strange.
Or perhaps not. The syntax of his sentence is so confused that he might be saying that he is immune to being shown his error unless the error is very strange. I don't think he means that, but if it were what he meant, then he would be absolutely right. Many of his errors are very strange indeed.
prongs · 13 July 2016
W. H. Heydt said:
Henry J said:
I guess rock science can be hard, especially for people who take their beliefs for granite.
For some...it's just a pile schist.
Gneiss schist and coprolite (chew on that, RobertByers; no coprolites if Big Flood)
gnome de net · 13 July 2016
Robert Byers said:
Nobody is immune from being shown thier error unless very strange.
Well then, do you you see the difference between World War 11 (World War Eleven) and World War II (World War Two)?
TomS · 13 July 2016
prongs said:
W. H. Heydt said:
Henry J said:
I guess rock science can be hard, especially for people who take their beliefs for granite.
For some...it's just a pile schist.
Gneiss schist and coprolite (chew on that, RobertByers; no coprolites if Big Flood)
And coprolites contain bone, teeth and scales, which show that there was carnivory.
Henry J · 13 July 2016
Re "And coprolites contain bone, teeth and scales, which show that there was carnivory. "
58 Comments
Joe Felsenstein · 7 July 2016
Surveys show that fewer than half of U.S. Christians are Young Earth Creationists. When a student starts propounding YEC views in a science class, it suffices to show that their science is wrong. Spending time on whether their interpretation of Genesis is the correct reading would seem to be a waste of time. They'll figure that out (and one can always point out that, empirically, most Christians do not agree with the YEC interpretation of Torah). And of course, in a public university like ours, it is a violation of Church/State for a teacher to engage in arguments about the truth or falsity of religions.
If, like me, your objective is to defend the teaching of evolutionary biology, you welcome a book like this. If your objective is to destroy religion, then you may be very upset at a book like this.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 7 July 2016
The Flood: A great explanation for everything except the facts.
Glen Davidson
TomS · 7 July 2016
Scott F · 7 July 2016
toddard · 7 July 2016
The cognitive dissonance -- it burns! Mr. Helble states the following in the interview:
"There has to be a quantitatively realistic mechanism consistent with the laws of physics behind what you are proposing. â¦"
and
"I think religious people should accept that there are some things that you just have to take on faithâ¦"
and
"I think religion and science can coexist if they donât tread on each otherâs turf where itâs not appropriate."
It seems to me that Mr. Helble has drawn an arbitrary line separating things that should require evidence and reasoning vs. things that require only faith. It's just that his line includes a few more things in the science column than some other Christians. My question to him would be what is the method used to determine what should be accepted on faith vs. what requires evidence? Where would he put the seven plagues? The divinity and resurrection of Jesus? The virgin birth?
I've never understood the logic behind anybody who subscribes to the idea of faith in some areas while insisting on scientific rigor in others, particularly when it comes to rationalizing the many claims in the Christian Bible.
eric · 7 July 2016
eric · 7 July 2016
Michael Fugate · 7 July 2016
Ah, the "I'm so much more superior to those extremists" argument (I notice that one of the authors writes for BioLogos sigh...). This is based solely on intuition - "if you are nice, don't question core beliefs, and present only facts, then they will listen and change their minds". Everything I have read about education based on evidence is that this doesn't work. They may listen and regurgitate on an exam, but in two weeks they will be a YEC again. It is painful to change minds - if that is what we want. People who do change will likely lose their communities - even families - a price too big for many to pay. These authors are writing off YECs completely - YECs are assumed to be incorrigible - and they wouldn't dare try to change their minds. For many, the loss of faith is a much bigger consequence than acceptance of science; they know that challenging YECism and succeeding will often result in a loss of faith. Many will be unable to reconcile evolution and Christianity both being true - as a Christian who accepts evolution which is worse - someone who is a Christian and a YEC or someone who is an ex-Christian and an evolution acceptor?
Also, I have no idea what religion's "turf" is. Take a look at National Academies' Science, Evolution and Creationism - especially pp. 12-15 - and tell me how religion "knows" anything. I have read enough theology to know that "revelation" is its only unique method - of dubious validity at best. Religion certainly doesn't own ethics or any other field.
PaulBC · 7 July 2016
RJ · 7 July 2016
The case of examining context to determine whether or not there is an assault is not similar to trying to make weighty ethical decisions based on ancient texts of dubious providence. The fundamentalists and others claim to be able to discern deeply non-trivial matters from faith. Not analogical.
Eric's comment is very strawmanny. It starts with a quote, and then in the last paragraph, dismisses a parody extremist construal of same quote.
Even the examples are far less telling than is claimed. Firstly, many or most court cases do not depend solely on oral testimony. Secondly, even when they do, there are principles of plausibility followed in (purported) common sense, by juries, and in admissibility, in law.
The examples given are in fact much more similar to science than they are to any theological activity. We have good (evidence-based) reasons to see them as better than random guessing. We don't have any such reasons for any kind of theology, whether it's the racist rantings of Adjective Adjective Reformed Baptist Adjective Chuch, or the veddy veddy refined 'scholarship' of a Catholic theologian with three doctorates.
Matt Young · 7 July 2016
Joe Felsenstein · 7 July 2016
In Providence, do the tenants of a religion have to pay rent?
ashleyhr · 7 July 2016
Are CMI panicking? Will they review the new book or will they ignore its existence, I wonder?
http://creation.com/grand-canyon-uniformitarian-age-controversy
Michael Fugate · 7 July 2016
Here is a recent paper in Nature Geoscience:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2065.html
Rocks and rivers have both been around for a long time...
Henry J · 7 July 2016
AIUI, court cases usually focus on details of a particular event, whereas scientific research focuses on understanding general principles, of which specific cases are merely examples.
DS · 7 July 2016
Matt Young · 7 July 2016
Dave Luckett · 7 July 2016
I think that this is the actual line to attack young-Earth creationism - these are the wonders that the Lord has made, and he didn't need to break His own laws to make them!
I'd like to flank Ken Ham on the other side, too: "Mr Ham, can you point to the passage in scripture where the Lord explains that the Genesis stories of the Creation and the Flood are literal accounts of historical events, to be read as fact? I cannot find such a passage. Are you adding that into the scripture, sir? Is this the Word of God, or is it the word of Ken Ham? Are you a prophet, then? I had thought that the teaching was that Jesus was the last. Have you read Deuteronomy 18:20, where the Lord specifies the fate of false prophets?..." And so on.
W. H. Heydt · 7 July 2016
DS · 7 July 2016
... Purdom said dinosaurs were land animals created on Day 6 of the worldâs creation, so âthere were between 60 to 90 kinds Noah would have had to take on the ark.â
Really? Well there were thousands of species of dinosaurs. Where did they all come from? Were they alive before the magic flood? DId they speciate after the magic flood? DId they all did die out after the magic flood? How many were on the ark? Was it sixty or ninety? What did they eat on the ark? What did they eat after they got off the ark? Were they "clean"? Were there seven of each "kind" or two? If Noah had access to all of them for so long, did he learn anything about them? DId he write it down? DId he publish it anywhere? Enquiring minds want to know.
Robert Byers · 7 July 2016
So Evangelical researchers are okay if they come up with the right answers! Say it ain't so Mr Young.
A origin researcher is credible on the ability of the research and not the results surely.
Anyways.
The authors are saying silly things. Too much to itemize. Books like this actually help YEC. They cause a stir and the YEC responce is a nuclear bomb in ability and reaching audiences relative to these circles.yEC welcomes publicity. Will this book, seeming a science one, be allowed in public schools and universities etc??? or is it a religious book?
Anyways.
The new ark seems to be sailing and will have more shipmates then then this book readers.
By the way I don't, and i think some YEC thinkers, see the Grand canyon as the result of the last stages of the flood. It seems now it was created suddenly by a lake overflow some centuries after the flood. this tying in with regular researchers ideas.
I did think it was from the flood but actually probably a smaller body of water created in a few hours or days later.
Robert Byers · 7 July 2016
phhht · 7 July 2016
Rolf · 8 July 2016
The solution is of course to teach all religions. There wouldn't be time left to teach anything else in shools. Scientology would also have to be included.
DS · 8 July 2016
Notice that if a scientist is an atheist his results can be ignored because of his "bias", but if a scientist is a religious believer, his results can be ignored as well. All results are ignored for any reason, as long as they are not the desired results. That's the way science works for people like booby. Expertise doesn't matter. Experience doesn't matter. All that matters is that if someone disagrees with you, they must be wrong for some reason. The important thing is to never, ever look at the actual evidence but attack the people doing the science instead. Typical conspiracy theory play book nonsense.
eric · 8 July 2016
RJ · 8 July 2016
So strawmanny it isn't worth it to argue. Did not assert many things you attribute to me, sorry.
The difference between religious faith and the 'faith' we have that certain commonly experienced things will continue as before is stark. You might even say that confusing the two is a classic equivocation used by religious apologists.
However, I sense my interlocutor is more interested in being right than listening. Carry on.
harold · 8 July 2016
Michael Fugate · 8 July 2016
Can you imagine if you put Ravi, Ray, Robert and Floyd in a room together to debate what Christianity is?
Do you think they could agree on much? And if they did agree on some things, the differences would still drive each to accuse the others of heresy?
We know there are Christians all along the spectrum from accepting current biology, geology, astronomy to rejecting it all. We know who is more correct on the science, but the theology, not so much.
Michael Fugate · 8 July 2016
W. H. Heydt · 8 July 2016
harold · 8 July 2016
Tim Helble · 8 July 2016
For those who might be interested, here's a review of the actual book by Greg Laden: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/05/26/grand_canyon_monument_to_ancient_earth_science_vs_creationism_book/
I noticed that Robert Byers stated: "The authors are saying silly things. Too much to itemize... It seems now it was created suddenly by a lake overflow some centuries after the flood. this tying in with regular researchers ideas. I did think it was from the flood but actually probably a smaller body of water created in a few hours or days later." We cover the lake overflow hypothesis in-depth in chapter 16 of the book. It appears Mr. Byers hasn't read it yet.
phhht · 8 July 2016
W. H. Heydt · 8 July 2016
Matt Young · 8 July 2016
Scott F · 8 July 2016
Personally, as long as Byers and his respondents stay mostly on topic, I often find the comments instructive, as in, "How best to respond to a creationist." While he's difficult to read at times, at least he's more polite than the others. He seldom gets into ad hominem arguments, for example. And he's far more amusing than FL. Though, he's certainly as repetitive as any of them, and his unique brand of YEC may not be representative of the clade as a whole.
Robert Byers · 8 July 2016
phhht · 9 July 2016
Henry J · 9 July 2016
I guess rock science can be hard, especially for people who take their beliefs for granite.
W. H. Heydt · 9 July 2016
harold · 10 July 2016
verne_julius1 · 10 July 2016
What explains the Grand Canyon?
Surely something does!
Forgive my ignorance.
Where is the 'dump' of all the eroded material?
Henry J · 10 July 2016
Delta.
verne_julius1 · 10 July 2016
harold · 10 July 2016
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 July 2016
Dr GS Hurd · 10 July 2016
I wrote a review for Amazon soon after the book was released. Those of you who know me, at least by reputation, know that I am not easily impressed. I gave the book full marks.
Quoting from that review, "The first thing readers will notice is that this is a beautifully illustrated book. The efforts of Tim Helble and graphic designers Bronze Black and Susan Coman are proven on nearly every page. The second thing you will notice is that this book is an excellent short introduction to geology. This is true even ignoring the special focus on countering widely believed falsehoods about the Grand Canyon."
Dr GS Hurd · 10 July 2016
While I am being nice, (probably the cold medicine) I'll mention two other good books written by geologists who are also Christians;
Young, Davis A., Ralf F. Stearley
2008 "The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth" Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press
Roberts, Michael
2008 "Evangelicals and Science" Greenwood Press
Both are contributions to an attempt to reach Young Earth Creationists with dose of reality that does not insist they abandon their faith in gods, or salvation.
harold · 11 July 2016
Robert Byers · 11 July 2016
RJ · 12 July 2016
There is only one kind of YEC who weighs evidence in a skilled, open-minded way. 'Former'.
DS · 12 July 2016
booby wrote:
"Nobody is immune from being shown thier error unless very strange."
And yet he has been told the difference between "your" and you're" many times. Very strange indeed.
Dave Luckett · 12 July 2016
prongs · 13 July 2016
gnome de net · 13 July 2016
TomS · 13 July 2016
Henry J · 13 July 2016
Re "And coprolites contain bone, teeth and scales, which show that there was carnivory. "
Not to mention, lunch.