This is absurd. Here’s a video where a bunch of ICR wackaloons get interviewed.
Next you’re going to tell me some people think the earth is flat.
Anyway, that made me wonder…these are all conservative Christians. Many of the recent appointees to high positions in the federal government are also conservative Christians. Has anyone asked them their position on creation and evolution in their senate hearings? I’d be curious to hear RFK jr or Trump or Noem or Bondi state what they think about an established scientific fact, like the age of the Earth or whether humans coexisted with dinosaurs.
I suspect we’d get some waffling about “some people believe” with a conclusion about how the evidence isn’t conclusive. Which, while they don’t seem to realize it, is just a wordy admission that they are fools.
For true “creation” just Google bridge editing” – a tool for going beyond CRISPR. You do not even have to breathe “Ruach” into your creations to make them live, nor do any awkward hook-up with a wire to catch lightning.
Having a ‘brain depository’ is optional (after office hours, please deposit brains in the box outside the door).
Every year, at my place of employment, we have to take a little web course on discrimination, and as part of it, they cite some time the University of California at Berkeley chose not to hire some Astrophysicist, because they were a young-earth creationist. And UC Berkeley got sued to hell for that.
Personally, I think some fields are incompatible with YEC, and it shouldn’t be seen as an anti-religious angle, but more just a general-denial-of-the-whole-field sorta thing.
but, here we are…
I’m guessing next is some flat-earther to win some religious discrimination lawsuit…
Creation of Man: Thor and Ukko (the colleague from Finland) hooked up a template to a lightning rod…
It took a few tries to get things right, hence neanderthals, denisovans et cetera.
Lochaber @ 2
If your place research the geology of oil fields, you have a very valid reason to tell YECs to go to hell.
It takes a lot of fortitude and dedication to interview these babbling idiots.
The nutty fundamentalists who raised me taught us that God intentionally planted false evidence for evolution and an old earth to test our faith, to see who would believe his word over science. The Bible says that faith is the evidence of things not seen.
Meantime, these lines from a song seem appropriate:
The Lord looked down from his window in the sky
Said, “I created man, but I don’t remember why.”
On topic: just stumbled across this(via mastadon.scot) describing the relative differences between US and UK creationism take up. I was amazed to see that a significant (implied) 27% in UK are not OK with the idea we decend from other apes. Seems we (in UK) do need this stunning (IMO) BBC series afterall.
Two points:
1) As we’ve known for a long time, if the earth was flat, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
2) Beliefs are a fool’s dream. The following is a widely and commonly accepted definition of beliefs:
We embrace Knowledge, Intelligence and Wisdom as strongly as we eschew beliefs, which are feelings, notions, popular opinions or vague ideas which have no basis in fact, but in which some form of confidence is placed by some people.
I know we shouldn’t take these people seriously, but we kind of have to. They’re the ones pushing to abolish the DOE, so the red states can determine what science curricula to teach. You can bet it won’t include evolution, or any science that contradicts the Old Testament accounts.
Seen some of those type. Response I intend to try next time: “Planting false evidence is lying. Who is the king of lies supposed to be, again?”
Doc Bill @ #5 — My former journalist spouse would say a paycheck goes a long way to motivating the intrepid reporter, even for the meager pay they get.
yup, they just keep on grifting. this is one of the things that stood out in Dan Olson’s recent video on the subject, Mantracks: a True Story of Fake Fossils
@10 Recursive Rabbit
And if they’re anticipating that, then they should respond with: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. … hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? … God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;”
The Bible’s a big book of multiple choice. If you play their game, then you’ve admitted defeat before you’ve even begun.
“The Bible’s a big book of multiple choice. If you play their game, then you’ve admitted defeat before you’ve even begun.”
Not really. For a decade or two in the 1990s to early 2000s I made a hobby of disputing Christians using the Babble. I had a game where I’d find a contradictory passage (as you put it, multiple choice) for whatever they’d claim. Got boring after a while, because it’s really just cranking the handle but achieving nothing other than the satisfaction of disputation and of being right.
(Obs, it doesn’t work well for those who are either unfamiliar with the material or who lack technique at argumentation)
Right now, I suspect they are far more busy giving their billionaire buddies what’s left of our sad excuse for a welfare state and ethnic cleansing the migrants. They’ll leave ravaging science education to the state-side Jesus creeps, for the time being, especially if they can get SCOTUS to neuter or repeal Engels Vs. Vitale and Edwards v. Aguillard.
Even flat-earthers are amateurs, in the age of QAnon.
I don’t think RFK Jr. came to his particular crackpot views by way of conservative Christianity, though, and of course Trump remains an autotheist.
@ 16
I always figured that Bobby Brainworm got his crackpot silliness from his connections with the loopier, hippie-dippy, New Age portions of the environmental movement.
“I had a game where I’d find a contradictory passage (as you put it, multiple choice) for whatever they’d claim.”
All the debating makes you wonder whether the creationists actually read the Bible from beginning to end or do they read just verses and passages that suit them. And by the sound of it, the answer is obviously the latter.
Nemo @16
RFKs arrogance makes him close autotheism in my open.
In my opinion
Owosso Harpist@18:
Well, yes. The concept is called ‘proof-texting’ or ‘concordance-ism’… from the old ‘concordances’ that you used to have before electronic records were everywhere and when you were trying to search out something in old records you’d rely on a book where all of the major words of whatever you were searching were listed in alphabetical order along with actual references to the locations in the original.
I’ve had to work with concordances when searching through old newspaper records for references to a particular name. (Genealogical research at a small town library.) The concordances were printed on old fanfold computer line printer paper, and the original newspapers being referenced were all on microfiche. It’s not fun.
But when evangelicalism really became a thing in the 19th century U.S., this was the method used to ‘study’ the Bible: create a concordance, look up all mentions of a particular word, and study only those parts of it.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2018/01/24/concordance-ism-not-friend/
Re: freeline @ #6…
That’s a flat out admission that their god lies.
If I may go a bit meta, like in the vein of ye olde gnuses, well…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution#21st_century
(Yes, this is a USA-based blog — but creationism is bigger than the USA)
whheydt: “Re: freeline @ #6…
That’s a flat out admission that their god lies.”
Hey. Care for me to play God’s Advocate?
Here: Nope. It is no such an admission.
(Here I am, if you care to dispute my straight-out denial of your claim)
Re: John Morales @ #24…
If, as the originally cited “nutty fundamentalists” are correct in their beliefs that evidence of an old Earth were planted to “test faith”, then they certainly believe that–when it comes to rocks–their god lies. The logical inference of that belief would be that the Bible is not trustworthy.
Feel free to play “God’s Advocate”. You will be just advocating for an entity of which existence is not in evidence.
Thanks.
Now you equivocate, whheydt.
There is a vast difference between “That’s a flat out admission that their god lies.” and “The logical inference of that belief would be that the Bible is not trustworthy.”.
See, I am a self-proclaimed disciple of truth machine.
As per the BubbleBot:
In the context of the canonization process within the Roman Catholic Church, validation was the meta-purpose of the devil’s advocate role. Specifically:
The Church instituted the office of advocatus diaboli to prevent erroneous or premature sainthood declarations.
This person’s responsibility was to critically evaluate the candidate’s life and miracles, identifying inconsistencies, exaggerations, or possible fabrications.
By opposing the canonization, the devil’s advocate ensured that the evidence for sanctity was robust, credible, and defensible.
The adversarial structure was designed to strengthen the legitimacy of those ultimately canonized—only those who withstood scrutiny passed through.
Hence, the role functioned within a procedural dialectic where doubt was necessary to ensure truth, reinforcing institutional trust in the outcome.
Ah, right. Forgot the point.
God is not lying, God is testing.
Re: John Morales @ #27…
They believe that the god they believe in is “testing their faith”, but doing so by creating fake rocks. Which means–in their belief, if they were to follow the logic to its conclusion–their god lying. That is, what you can discover by examining the rocks is deliberately (by act of their god) a deception. Pretty piss poor god if it has to resort to such tactics.
Personally, I don’t care either way, since the existence of the putative god hasn’t been demonstrated. If someone did manage to definitely demonstrate the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god, I would refuse to worship that entity on the grounds that any such entity that permits the continued existence of diseases with no cure and not any real treatment when (under omnipotence) said entity could eliminate such diseases or–at the very least–provide the clues to modern medical researchers with way to cure or effectively treat such diseases, is a cruel and vicious entity and only worthy of contempt.
“They believe that the god they believe in is “testing their faith”, but doing so by creating fake rocks. Which means–in their belief, if they were to follow the logic to its conclusion–their god lying. That is, what you can discover by examining the rocks is deliberately (by act of their god) a deception. Pretty piss poor god if it has to resort to such tactics.”
No. A lie is a false promise.
You believe that they believe that. Different thing to them believing that.
Here: https://biblehub.com/topical/t/the_nature_of_divine_testing.htm
“Pretty piss poor god if it has to resort to such tactics.”
How so? And what makes you think it has to do that?
“Personally, I don’t care either way, since the existence of the putative god hasn’t been demonstrated.”
You evidently care enough to offer your opinion about it and to rail against it, so your words ring hollow.
That is, you obviously do care. Your denial rings hollow.
“If someone did manage to definitely demonstrate the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god, I would [blah]”
There you go. No matter the evidence, you admit you’d still refuse to acknowledge God.
(Also, when did worship come into it? I never ever mentioned worship!)
@ 18.Owosso Harpist
Yeah, do you really need to ask? Ceratyinly there’s some verses they pay attention to and so many more esp the contradictory ones – to the other verses in the Bible or their ideology that don’t seem to register with them and get easily & totally ignored..
@21. jenorafeuer : “when you were trying to search out something in old records you’d rely on a book where all of the major words of whatever you were searching were listed in alphabetical order along with actual references to the locations in the original.”
Thought that was the glossary / appendix?
StevoR, no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_concordance
@SteveR:
Not quite; glossary is a rather smaller thing, just listing the major words and often meanings.
A full concordance is a massive undertaking, and will often end up larger than the original set of documents. The one that I used at the library to look up old newspaper articles in the microfiche library was built like this:
– Take the text of the original documents
– Scan through them all word by word
– For every word that isn’t a common word like ‘the’, create a line that starts with that word, contains the next few words after that for context, and add the references for where to find that particular copy of that word
– After you’ve gone through everything word by word, sort the output into alphabetical order.
(Obviously it’s faster to do an insertion sort as you create the lines.)
This sort of thing was all over the place in libraries back in the 1970s/1980s (and especially smaller libraries well into the 1990s), in the days when big iron computers existed to do most of the messy work of this (after the original data entry) but before it became easier to just have a bunch of actual computers sitting there to do the searching directly for you. The idea is you look for a word that you know you’re looking for, check the next few words on the line to get a sense of the context, then look up the reference number on the microfilm to go find the actual full set of words around it.
The problem with concordance searching is that the results are all based on choosing the right word to look for to start with; it will only ever show you results that use exactly that word, there’s no cross-referencing for synonyms like you could get in a glossary. In the specific case of something like a Bible concordance, that’s complicated even further by the fact that you’re reading a translated document and the translator’s decisions will strongly affect what you find… not to mention that the sorts of people who make Bible concordances (especially the “Words of Jesus in red” sorts) usually have their own political biases and may feel like they should leave out a few particular references to avoid ‘confusing’ the reader.
@2 “the University of California at Berkeley chose not to hire some Astrophysicist, because they were a young-earth creationist. And UC Berkeley got sued to hell for that.”
Can you provide any more details of this case? My lawyer spouse was unable to find any such action, and she is curious about the issues. Thanks!
At least one creationist doesn’t mind using the term “lie” rather than “test”:
https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/lie-updated/
I am not sure who he is claiming is telling the lie — God, or Satan?
If he’s claiming it’s Satan, then the followup question would be: Who created Satan, and gave him all of his power, and his remit to lie to humans? Just because God is using Satan to tell the lie doesn’t absolve God of responsibility.
This has a lot of cases, but not one involving UC Berkeley.
https://ncse.ngo/creationism-and-law-0
The only one I found about an astronomer vs a university is
C. Martin Gaskell v. University of Kentucky
Yes, hello. We are most definitely still out here. That’s because we trust the science. I assume that your question is a bit tongue in cheek, just trying to provoke a response? Cuz even famous, lead Atheist Richard Dawkins as part of the team placing Atheist slogans on busses in London only venture: “There’s Probably No God, Now, stop worrying and enjoy your life”. Personally, I like the humility although knowing Dawkins that was probably inspired by other team members.
Origin of the Species was published in 1859 and two years later Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. It wasn’t until 1924 that the first serious, modern ideas were promulgated by Alexander Oparin with is primordial soup idea, now disproven. So its literally been 100 years since Oparin and no workable theory of abiogenesis has been found. There really should be no discussion of evolution without having worked out the life from non-life problem. Not withstanding that Neo_Darwinism has failed to be an effective story for the evolution of life even given that we can’t get to the first cell scientifically. As Michael Denton, Ph.D. wrote in
His book, “The Disappointing Promise of Molecular Biology”.: “Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap.
We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive….”
But its worse that for Materialists. There is no area of scientific endeavor where increaaes in scientific knowledge has strengthened Materialism. Up to 96% of the invisible stuff of this universe is still missing, dark matter and energy. The discovery of the DNA molecule which exists in all living things is a vast storehouse of knowledge and information. Information comes from Intelligence. The anthropic principle shows that the universe is fine-tuned for life. The Materialist response is String theory which proposes infinite, invisible universes. Who has the fairy tales now? Recently anthropologists have discovered that so-called relatives of “modern man” or supposed pre-men, Cro-Magnon, Denisovan, Neanderthal all had kids together indicating that they are all the same species. And Dinosaur red blood cells and DNA have been found in recent years as other scientists calculate that DNA might last as long a 1,000,000 years, far short of 65,000,000. I can’t wait the further advances of science in these areas. Romans 1 “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” God bless.
@35 Yes, my wife is very familiar with all of those cases, but the only one of relevance is the Gaskell v University of Kentucky — she is unaware of any case or suit involving UC Berkeley.
#36: Christians don’t get to talk about humility. You also don’t get to claim that you when the entire basis of your position is a denial of science in favor of mythology.
Spontaneous generation is not the same as abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is an active area of scientific research, it has not been . Michael Denton is a tired old fraud: molecular biology has confirmed the reality of evolution.
There is no significant break between the living and non-living world. Everything going on in the cell is carried out by purely chemical, physical processes — vitalism is dead. Try catching up.
I’m not a physicist, but nothing about dark matter brings evolution into question. The fine-tuning argument is a dead end for you. Genetic evidence shows that those different species (they are distinct species, even if they can interbreed) are related to modern humans…and that existed over 50,000 years ago, which blows the creationist time-line to hell.
There is no scientific calculation that shows DNA can only persist for a million years.
Your comment is a string of typical creationist canards, all of which have been falsified. Gish galloping on to my blog and closing with a Bible verse is entirely unpersuasive. Do better.
444chris @36:
My goodness, you creationists are an impatient lot. How many years were there between Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity?
So, we shouldn’t discuss cosmology until we have worked out the origin-of-the-universe problem? What an odd attitude.
It may be centuries still before we have a deeper understanding of dark matter, dark energy, the origin of our universe, etc. So it goes, Meanwhile, you lot keep nattering on while contributing nothing of substance.
They also think volume compensates for their lack of quality. They barge in, puke up a dozen stupid points, in an effort to overwhelm us with noise. Just once it would be nice if a creationist would come in with a single point that they were prepared to discuss in depth, but they won’t, because they know we’d demolish them thoroughly.
As long as I’m fantasizing, it would also be nice if they were able to recognize when they were wrong.
@36. You write “…Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation.” Nope. As a number of historians of science have pointed out, Pasteur’s experimental ‘disproof’ of spontaneous generation of life actually failed. These days we recognize that the limits of experimental technology made it impossible for Pasteur to create, for example, a perfect vacuum, and his use of ‘goose-necked’ flasks in mountains was a poor substitute. The basic problems with his experimental techniques were described in the neat little book by Collins and Pinch “The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science.”
The more interesting question was why did Pasteur prevail in the debate over spontaneous generation when his experiments failed? My old friend the late Bruno Latour offered an interesting perspective in his 1984 book “The Pasteurization of France,” in which, if I can simplify a bit, Pasteur’s theories of microbiology were more compatible with a number of more general intellectual movements, including pushes for improved hygiene in France, and so were embraced by both the scientific community and the the populace.
Désolé pour la leçon d’histoire.
@36
Got anything new? These are the same old creationist canards that have been debunked a thousand times.
NB: #36 was was stuck in the moderation queue until the 20th, when PZ let it through and responded. #37 originally followed #35, my comment (I didn’t respond to what is now #37 because I don’t actually know anything about a putative case against UC Berkeley; I was actually hoping that my #35 would prompt #2 to check their memory/notes about what they’d seen/heard)
It could be that 444chris thought/thinks that their comment was blocked or spam-binned, and will thus not return. Nevertheless!
It’s true that cells will not spontaneously arise in stable sterilized broth at roughly room temperature. Yet modern abiogenesis hypotheses are trying to consider many different possibilities involving chemical environments very different from broth at room temperature. They have not all been ruled out.
That’s nonsense. Life has evolved, and continues to evolve. This would be true regardless of where the first cell came from.
There cannot be a discontinuity when life works by interacting with non-life chemically. Metabolism and growth and development are all chemical processes of life with non-life.
Every increase in scientific knowledge has demonstrated, repeatedly and strongly, that everything that we can interact with on an everyday level is material (or physical, or natural, I don’t think the terminology is that critical). Or more clearly, science has show that everything that we interact with (and much of that which we don’t, like the universe at large) is the result of self-interacting material processes.
What do you think the “immaterial” or “non-material”, or whatever terminology you prefer, even means as a coherent concept? What else is out there that has to be taken into account?
Is that what you think is “immaterial”? Dark matter and dark energy are immaterial?
Are you really quite certain that you know what information means? Lots of creationists get confused on this point.
Is the large percentage of junk DNA also information?
I don’t think you understand what any of those terms mean, or how they relate to actual cosmological arguments.
.
I don’t think you understand what “species” means, either. But as with the cosmological concepts, it’s complicated. The word “species” is not always easy to understand, and even biologists argue over the possible definitions.
Why do you keep talking about things you obviously don’t understand? Look, no non-avian dinosaur DNA has been found. You’re probably thinking of Mary Schweitzer’s work — and that of other researchers — in finding soft tissue in non-avian dinosaurs that date to the Cretaceous. But Schweitzer, while a Christian, is not a YEC: She has never ever ever claimed that her findings have any problem for radiometric dating of the Cretaceous (and other periods, of course). Her claims have been that chemical reactions can change the tissues so that it is chemically stable, and otherwise preserved from decay.
Whatever it is you think you’re arguing — and it’s really not clear what you are in fact arguing — Schweitzer’s work does not support it.
As a minor note, the end of the Cretaceous was originally thought to be about 65mya, but more recent radiometric dating has put it at 66mya. “More recent” being over a decade ago.
Huh. I didn’t know this before (other writings didn’t mention her life history):
Mary Schweitzer is a former YEC.
https://www.science.org/content/article/i-don-t-care-what-they-say-about-me-paleontologist-stares-down-critics-her-hunt
I may have make a qualification/partial retraction:
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/4/815/5762999
Evidence of proteins, chromosomes and chemical markers of DNA in exceptionally preserved dinosaur cartilage
Abs:
Note that even if the findings are correct, it isn’t DNA in the sense of something that can be sequenced, but chemical remnants of DNA.
@31. John Morales & 32. jenorafeuer :
Ah. Okay. Istand corrected, thanks.
The lead author of the paper @#46 ( Alida M. Bailleul ) wrote a review article that reminded me of something I had first seen on old Pharyngula.
Fossilized cell nuclei are not that rare: Review of the histological evidence in the Phanerozoic. Earth-Science Reviews, v 216, 2021, 103599
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103599
(bolding mine)
Blasts from the past!
https://web.archive.org/web/20060927194729if_/https://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/parapandorina_and_megasphaera/
https://web.archive.org/web/20110805151908if_/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/taphonomy_of_fossilized_embryo.php