Without evidence of benefit, an intervention should not be presumed to be beneficial or safe.

- Rogue Medic

The Age of the Earth – Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VIII

 

The anti-science comments of Marco Rubio are being defended as not affecting economics, as if economic impact determines the validity of science.
 

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians[1]

 

There is some truth to that.

The only controversy over the age of the Earth is among theologians.

This is a controversy of religious ideology. This is not a controversy of science.

To present this as a scientific controversy is a lie.
 

Standing in front of the flag and telling lies is dishonoring the flag.
 

There are religious sects which claim that the Earth was formed 6,016 years ago.[2]

Based on the available historical information in 1654, this calculation seemed reasonable. It is no longer reasonable to ignore all of the evidence that contradicts these calculations.
 

and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.[1]

 

The prudent response of someone who doesn’t have a clue about science should be to limit his response to I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.

However, Marco Rubio is pandering to those voters who oppose science, so his response is a variation of the arrogant – I can choose my own reality. If I want to believe that the Earth is flat, or that vaccines cause autism, or that storks bring babies, I can ignore whatever evidence does not support my claim.

Marco Rubio is probably not qualified to comment on any of those. He may be smart enough to know that he doesn’t know enough about some of these topics, but he makes it clear that he is not smart enough to know just how little he knows about the age of the Earth.

This is a large part of what science is about – recognizing and eliminating potential bias.

We are all biased, but good science requires that we go to extremes to avoid having our biases interfere with research.

IST-3 was one horrible example of biased research having incompetent excuses made for the biases that should have been eliminated.[3] It isn’t science. The earlier tPA research is also biased. No patent should be given tPA based on such biased research.
 

At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.[1]

 

Theory or scientific theory?[4]

Misrepresenting the definition of scientific theory as just a theory is a fraud used by many who oppose science.

There is only one scientific theory out there – the Earth is billions of years old.

Where is there any scientific theory that the Earth is less than 4 billion years old?

There are a lot of unscientific theories proposed by preachers, but they have no scientific validity. It is only ignorance or deceit that allows Marco Rubio to suggest that these clams are in any way the equivalent of good science.

We should not have teachers making these absurd claims that reality is not real.
 

I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says.[1]

 

The government should not be telling parents what to tell their children, but there is not any requirement that parents teach their children about reality. Marco Rubio is making a completely irrelevant statement, unless he is telling us that he has plans to have the government impose some such law on parents.
 

Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.[1]

 

There is no mystery.

Billions of years.

About 4 1/2 billion years.

The only mystery is why people keep listening to people claiming that religious controversies are scientific controversies.

Where is there any scientific evidence that the Earth is less than 4 billion years old?

We need to stop letting people lie to us.

No evidence means no valid claim.

 

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part I

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part II

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part III

Shooting the messenger isn’t going to change the science – Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part IV

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part V

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VI

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VII

The Age of the Earth – Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VIII

Footnotes:

[1] All Eyez on Him
The junior senator from Florida had a heck of an election year: Short-listed for VP. Wrote a memoir of his Cuban heritage. Gave a tough, moving convention speech—maybe the best of its kind since Obama’s. Michael Hainey talks to Marco Rubio about growing up in the shadow of Castro, his love of Tupac, and whether he’s going to have an even better 2016
By Michael Hainey
December 2012
Page 2
Article

[2] James Ussher
Wikipedia
Article

James Ussher (sometimes spelled Usher, 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar, who most famously published a chronology that purported to establish the time and date of the creation as the night preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC, according to the proleptic Julian calendar.

[3] Is a clot-busting drug safe for 6 hours after stroke symptom onset – or only for an hour and a half? – Part II
Wed, 14 Nov 2012
Rogue Medic
Article

[4] Introduction
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences
Second Edition (1999)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
Page 2
On line version of book

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a “theory, not as a fact” confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

.

Comments

  1. Marco Rubio, no seas comemierda!

  2. Was surprised to find this type of comment on and EMS Blog- what does this have anything to do with EMS? Anyway…

    May I say that you are in fact guilty of the very things that you accuse “pastors” of doing, BIAS. You claim that there is only one scientific theory- the earth is billions of years old and accuse anybody who disagrees with you that they “ignore whatever evidence does not support my claim”. hmmmm- perhaps it is you who is ignoring evidence?

    The truth is this… either God created the universe and everything in it or it just happened by accident. Dare I say that “scientists” cannot accept that God created anything so they are biased tward evolution. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with your billions of years theory and have plenty of science to back their claims up- I’ll bet you haven’t read any of their articles (either because you didn’t know where to look or worse, you already disagree with the results so you ignore them)

    Maybe before you go off on a topic not related to EMS you should get educated on BOTH sides of the “controversy”- Why not start at answersingenesis.com and click on the get answers button and read some of the scientific articles posted there- Then you can form a not bias opinion

    • Anonymous,

      Was surprised to find this type of comment on and EMS Blog- what does this have anything to do with EMS? Anyway…

      Creationists, alternative medicine pushers, anti-vaccinationists, and other conspiracy theorists provide an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the many mistakes people make when they do not understand science.

      May I say that you are in fact guilty of the very things that you accuse “pastors” of doing, BIAS. You claim that there is only one scientific theory- the earth is billions of years old and accuse anybody who disagrees with you that they “ignore whatever evidence does not support my claim”. hmmmm- perhaps it is you who is ignoring evidence?

      Show me some evidence that is not based on trying to make observations match a predetermined belief.

      Science does not start with an answer and try to confirm that one answer, ignoring all other answers. Creation science is purely about looking for ways to confirm the interpretation of the Bible that the Creation scientist believes. That isn’t science.

      When Copernicus figured out the way that the heliocentric solar system worked, he forced the orbits of the planets into the form of circles, rather than ellipses, because he could not accept that any less perfect shape was possible. He was demonstrating how his bias was misleading him.

      When scientists working for the cigarette companies kept coming up with evidence to support their claim that cigarettes do not cause cancer, they were demonstrating how their biases were misleading them.

      When scientists working for Answers In Genesis come up with evidence to support their claim that the Bible is a scientific document, they are demonstrating how their biases were misleading them.

      Science is not starting with a belief and searching for was to reinforce the belief.

      That is dogma.

      While some scientists can be dogmatic, this is unscientific.

      If a scientist insists on a dogmatic belief, he (or she) should be vigorously opposed, because that is not the way we learn through science.

      The truth is this… either God created the universe and everything in it or it just happened by accident.

      Why do you only consider two possibilities?

      Why do you reject the possibility of other origins of the universe?

      Why such a strong bias?

      What is the basis for this dogma?

      Dare I say that “scientists” cannot accept that God created anything so they are biased tward evolution.

      You can write whatever you like, but that does not make it true.

      How do you explain the religious people who understand evolution, but do not believe in your illogical and inconsistent interpretation of the Bible?

      In what way does a belief in a God, who is not capable of using evolution to create the diversity of life on the planet, consistent with omnipotence and omniscience?

      How do you explain the scientists, who are Christian and understand evolution, but do not believe in your illogical and inconsistent interpretation of the Bible?

      Why do you believe in such a wimpy God – a God who can only do what human preachers tell him he can do?

      There are plenty of scientists who disagree with your billions of years theory and have plenty of science to back their claims up- I’ll bet you haven’t read any of their articles (either because you didn’t know where to look or worse, you already disagree with the results so you ignore them)

      I know where to find science. The scientists you refer to work for a corporation that promotes one dogma –

      Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively.

      Promoting dogma is not science, no matter how much you tell people it is science.

      Maybe before you go off on a topic not related to EMS you should get educated on BOTH sides of the “controversy”- Why not start at answersingenesis.com and click on the get answers button and read some of the scientific articles posted there- Then you can form a not bias opinion

      Writing about the ways people abuse science is part of what I write about.

      Do you also want to defend Jenny McCarthy? Her claims have a scientific basis of the same quality as your claims.

      Do you also want to defend the people who claim that President Bush was behind 9/11? Their claims have a scientific basis of the same quality as your claims.

      Do you also want to defend the people who claim that homeopathy, Reiki, and other alternative medicine work? Their claims have a scientific basis of the same quality as your claims.

      The lawyers who defend the Mafia also claim that their clients are the victims of bias. Maybe you believe these lawyers. The basis for their claims have a basis in evidence of the same quality as your claims.

      Get some original research published in a peer-reviewed journal that confirms your interpretation of Genesis. Show how this research demonstrates that your interpretation of the Bible is the only explanation for whatever. This paper needs to control for biases, just as real science does.

      I’ll wait.

      Biology, geology, astronomy, and other branches of science independently come up with evidence that the Earth is over 4 billion years old.

      You believe a particular interpretation of the Bible that is contradicted by the scientists who work in these diverse fields.

      Your conspiracy theory does not work.

      Even Pat Robertson admits that Young Earth Creationism is nonsense.

      Only Creationists claim that this controversy is a controversy of science.

      Everyone else realizes that this is just a controversy among different people with different interpretations of the Bible.

      From the Wall Street Journal – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324469304578141673721798486.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

      Rubio and the Age-of-Earth Question
      The rejection of evolution is not a core Christian belief. Better to focus on salvation, not creation.

      As a Christian and career scientist, I see the episode as an opportunity for both Republicans and evangelicals to establish a more coherent policy on evolution, creation and science, for two reasons.

      First, the age of the Earth and the rejection of evolution aren’t core Christian beliefs.

      The second reason that Republicans, including evangelicals, need to come up with a more coherent stance regarding the “age of the Earth” question—which journalists will always be happy to ask—is that there is simply no controversy in the scientific world about the age of the Earth or evolution. Evidence points to a 4.5-billion-year-old planet.

      The evolution debate is not a scientific controversy, but a theological controversy about a non-central Christian doctrine.

      This is not a scientific controversy.

      This is a theological controversy.

      This is not even about any central Christian doctrine.

      .

  3. I personally do not want to enter into any type of debate over the age of the earth. My intention in replying to your post was not to necessarily disagree with your belief of how old the earth is- it was merely to point out that there is some research (I know you dont call it science) tward the young earth belief…

    I also agree with you that this is not a central Christian doctrine… ask 100 different churches and even within the congregation you will find different beliefs- I personally have not been to a church that teaches young earth as doctrine (but of course there are churches that do).

    I DO believe that there is at least some validity to at least some of their reasearch- but there are problems in both the young earth and old earth. There are assumptions made by both sides in determining age of the earth— One of the biggest problems I see with the young earth science is size of the universe. Even young earthers agree that methods used to calculate distances to galexies and stars is accurate. If the universe is so young then how can I see light from a galexy that is billions of light years away- they have no answer for that.

    So I am not a solid young earther as I may have portrayed earlier. There is evidence for both old and young earth. Since none of us were actually there- we only have our limited knowledge to make the best guess we can. As we learn more and technology improves, 100 years from now there may be a totally different theory???

    • Anonymous,

      I personally do not want to enter into any type of debate over the age of the earth. My intention in replying to your post was not to necessarily disagree with your belief of how old the earth is- it was merely to point out that there is some research (I know you dont call it science) tward the young earth belief…

      If it isn’t science, that is because it doesn’t follow the methods of science.

      Science has standards and we should not lower those standards to allow for more mediocrity in science.

      Science is not easy.

      Science is not there to make the mediocre feel good about themselves.

      I also agree with you that this is not a central Christian doctrine… ask 100 different churches and even within the congregation you will find different beliefs- I personally have not been to a church that teaches young earth as doctrine (but of course there are churches that do).

      And while I am sure there are millions of people just ecstatic at the possibility of having me start a theology blog, my point is that this is just theology.

      I don’t do theology.

      I do ridicule people who abuse science and logic. Homeopathy and other alternative medicine pushers, anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists, 9/11 big conspiracy theorists, moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists, Holocaust denialists, et cetera.

      I DO believe that there is at least some validity to at least some of their reasearch-

      Then they should be able to get it published in some science journal.

      but there are problems in both the young earth and old earth. There are assumptions made by both sides in determining age of the earth— One of the biggest problems I see with the young earth science is size of the universe. Even young earthers agree that methods used to calculate distances to galexies and stars is accurate. If the universe is so young then how can I see light from a galexy that is billions of light years away- they have no answer for that.

      Some claim a young Earth, but an old universe – as if that is any more compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

      So I am not a solid young earther as I may have portrayed earlier. There is evidence for both old and young earth. Since none of us were actually there- we only have our limited knowledge to make the best guess we can.

      The technology for dating the Earth is pretty clear. There does not appear to be any change in radioactive decay over long periods of time.

      It is possible that there is some factor that would change the rate of decay, but where is the evidence for any such factor.

      It is possible that a trickster God changes the rate of decay, but if that is the case, we certainly cannot trust anything told to us by such a clearly deceptive creature.

      Any valid changes in the dating of the age of the Earth will come to us from scientists, but we should not expect them to be a large change. Large compared to 6,000 years, but not large compared to the actual age of the Earth.

      As we learn more and technology improves, 100 years from now there may be a totally different theory???

      Totally different?

      Probably not.

      Different in some ways?

      Yes.

      The real revolutions in science have been when scientists have been building assumptions on weak, or bad, evidence.

      These assumptions become dogma. when someone comes along with a bit more curiosity about the assumptions, they are tested and fail. I do not see any evidence that any such change is coming in 100 years, or 1,000 years in calculations of the age of the Earth, or in evolution.

      If someone does come up with some such evidence, and it turns out to be valid, we will learn about its validity from scientists, not from preachers or pseudoscientists pushing an agenda for a special interest group.

      .

  4. Illustrative text showing indisputably that creationism is a sole considerable factor for existence of the earth and human race; http://www.jariiivanainen.net/theageoftheearth.html

Speak Your Mind