Continuing, on Darwin Day, from Part I about the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham about whether Creationism should be taught in science classrooms.

Ken Ham’s Creationism is a religious belief that humans were placed on the Earth in their current form by Ken Ham’s interpretation of a Christian God about 6,000 years ago.

At the end of Part I, I wrote that I would review the science that supports Creationism here.

Here is the valid science to support Creationism.

Nothing. 😳

In stead of science, we get excuses for ignoring valid science. We get misrepresentations of mathematics used to make evolution seem impossible.

Preachers will tell you that evolution is a form of atheism, but that is a lie.

Most religious people are not Creationists, so are most religious people lying about what they believe?

Even Pat Robertson rejects Ken Han’s Creationism.
 

“We have skeletons of dinosaurs that go back 65 million years,” Robertson said. “To say it all dates back to 6,000 years is just nonsense, and I think [it’s] time we come off of that stuff, and say this isn’t possible.”

“Let’s be real; let’s not make a joke of ourselves,” he said.^[1]

Pew Researh Center poll.^[2]
 

Are Creationist preachers being honest about what others believe?

Do Creationist preachers make a lot of unsupportable assumptions?
 

One of the scientists Ken Ham used as an example of Creationism and science being compatible is Andrew Fabich, Ph.D., who had to learn evolution to get his PhD, but rejects evolution and teaches for a Creationist school. He claims that the LTEE (Long Term Evolution Experiment – evolution demonstrated in the laboratory) is just an example of a simple gene being turned on and not an example of evolution.

Real scientists immediately saw the nonsense in the claim of Andrew Fabich, Ph.D. that this was just turning on a switch and not evolution, but this Creation scientist is still making the same debunked claim. Does misunderstanding become understanding when it is repeated enough? No.
 

Of course, if it were so easy as a single, simple mutation, then we would have seen that capability evolve in many or all of the populations. But after almost 60,000 generations to date, only one population has evolved that ability.^[3]

If 12 computers required over 60,000 clicks of a mouse before just one computer would produce an effect they were designed to produce, would anyone call that an Intelligent Design?

Andrew Fabich, Ph.D. is supposed to be an example of a Creationist being able to be successful as a scientist. A similar example would be that Michael Phelps was caught smoking from a bong and he won more Olympic gold medals than anyone else. Bong hits and Olympic gold are compatible!

Unlike Creationists, Michael Phelps has apologized for his bad judgment.^[4]
 

The most famous Creationist scientist is Michael Behe, Ph.D. He was an expert witness at the trial that examined whether Intelligent Design is science.

The case for the Creationists ID (Intelligent Design) proponents was to try to show that ID is science and not religion.
 

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that’s correct.^[5]

Astrology is not science, but astrology is the same kind of science as Creationism Intelligent Design.

That is from the best scientist they could find to present their case. ID is as good as astrology.
 

–

Footnotes:

–

^[1] Pat Robertson rejects ‘young earth’ creationism. ‘Nonsense,’ he says. (+video)
By Harry Bruinius, Staff writer
February 6, 2014
Christian Science Monitor
Article

–

^[2] Public’s Views on Human Evolution
Pew Research Center
December 30, 2013
Article.

Free Full Text in PDF format from Pew Research Center.

–

^[3] Zachary Blount on “Ham on Nye” Debate, Follow-up #3
February 7, 2014
Zachary Blount
Telliamed Revisited
Article

–

^[4] Phelps: Photo with marijuana pipe real
Updated: February 2, 2009, 7:40 AM ET
Associated Press
ESPN
Article

–

^[5] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District – Trial transcript: Day 11 (October 18), PM Session, Part 1
Talk Origins
Transcript

.

Skip to 13:00 for the beginning of the debate.
 

Is it impossible to be a scientist and a Young Earth Creationist? No, but good science did not come from the Lysenkoists^[1] of the Soviet Union, who also opposed evolution. Lysenkoists were still successful scientists – in the Soviet Union.

Ken Ham (multimillionaire CEO of a corporation that exists to sell Creationism with the home field advantage of a Creationist-packed crowd at the Creation museum) suggests that the ability of a few Creationists to become successful scientists is proof that you do not need to understand evolution to be a successful scientist.

This is misleading, which is a common Ken Ham tactic. It is much more difficult to become a successful scientist with a major misunderstanding of science. A tall person to become a gymnast, or a jockey, but that is not proof that being tall is not an obstacle to success in both fields.

There are doctors who are claim that AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is not caused by HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus),^[2] historians who claim that the Holocaust is a myth,^[3] and pediatricians who claim that vaccines are the root of all evil,^[4] but these flaws in their understanding are obstacles that they have to overcome. Some will make their misunderstanding their source of income.

These conspiracy theorists claim to know the truth, while the rest of us are deceived. They claim to be misunderstood geniuses, just like Galileo.

However, Galileo’s opposition was from a political faction within the Catholic Church. This faction claimed that Aristotle’s ideas were not to be challenged, even though Galileo could demonstrate that Aristotle was wrong about some things, he could not demonstrate this for everything.

According to Ken Ham, Galileo was wrong, since the experimental conditions could not be produced to demonstrate that Galileo was right.

Galileo could not watch objects falling in a vacuum, but that did not mean that the rate of acceleration due to gravity was different for feathers and hammers.

Just because we cannot watch evolution happening quickly, does not mean that evolution is not happening, no matter how much Ken Ham wishes it were true.
 

The Catholic Church learned a lot about science in the hundreds of years since locking up Galileo. The Catholic Church accepts that evolution is real.

The Catholic Church has not eliminated Genesis from the Bible, but still rejects Ken Ham’s literal misinterpretation of Genesis.
 

Stuart Burgess, PhD states (at 30:55) –
 

I find that many of my colleagues in academia are sympathetic to the Creationist viewpoint, including biologists, however they are often afraid to speak out because of the criticisms they would get from the media and atheist lobby.

Maybe the biologists are just being polite to the Creationist. Maybe they are just sick of repeatedly trying to explain to an engineer (someone who is expected to see design in things) that not everything is designed.

Some of us will patronize (or ignore) a misguided colleague, rather than trying to reason with the obtuse, when we could be accomplishing something useful.

Where does this myth that scientists fear criticism by the media or the atheist lobby come from?

If scientists are more worried about the media than about evidence, then they are really just politicians.
 

Ken Ham claims that the laws of nature, laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature are evidence of Creationism.

Do nature and logic work differently in places that are not Christian?

Ken Ham asked where the laws of nature, laws of logic, and uniformity of nature came from?

Logic and uniformity?
 

Ken Ham is a literalist, but does not understand that a literal interpretation of the Bible does not support logic and uniformity.

Why argue with logic that is so illogical?
 

At 34:00, Ken Ham states –
 

When I was at the Goddard Space Center, I met Creationists and evolutionists who were both working on the Hubble Telescope. They agreed on how to build the Hubble Telescope. You know what they disagreed on? Well, they disagreed on how to interpret the data the telescope obtained in regard to the age of the universe.

What does evolution have to do with the age of the universe?

The age of the universe is determined by other fields of science.

However, Ken Ham’s science book does not define the length of a day and is not specific about what is intended by the word begat. This literalism seems to be an obstacle to understanding any meaning of generation.

The term Founding Fathers will baffle these literalists, if they approach it the same way they approach the Bible.
 

At 47:00 Ken Ham claims that the Bible does not support any view of different races, such as might be used to support slavery, or a chosen people.

OK, Ken Ham did not mention that a literal interpretation of the Bible actually does support slavery of other races and does spend a lot of time on the chosen people, but this is Ken Ham, so he is only literal when it suits him. 😳
 

I am less than an hour in, but this is more than enough to show that Ken Ham does not understand science.
 

The evidence just for human evolution is extensive (1,950 papers – over 100 papers each year since 2006) and well reviewed by scientists.
 

PubMed search for “human evolution.”
 

The evidence for Creation science is insignificant (only 19 papers) – and most of these papers are critical of this oxymoron.
 

PubMed search for “creation science.”
 

Evolution is a branch of science.

Creation science is a form of religion.

The debate is between religious people who understand science and religious people who do not understand science.

–

Footnotes:

–

^[1] Lysenkoism
Wikipedia
Article

–

^[2] Denial, conspiracies, and misconceptions
HIV/AIDS
Wikipedia
Article

–

^[3] Holocaust denial
Wikipedia
Article

–

^[4] Vaccine controversies
Wikipedia
Article

.

Tuesday, February 4, 2014, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, debates a Ken Ham, a multimillionaire Creationist who makes his money selling Creationism as an alternative to science. This will be at the Creation Museum, which is a religious museum, not a science museum.
 

Should we teach only science in science classrooms?
 

Below is an example of Ken Ham using the appearance of science, but no real science, to push his products.

The link leads to a store to sell Ken Ham’ God products.
 

Image credit.
 

There is no scientific controversy about whether evolution is true. Scientists understand science and evolution is science. Evolution is not controversial among scientists. Evolution is not even controversial among scientists who are religious.

The controversy only exists among the various religious interpretations of Creation.

Each Biblical literalist (Creationist) seems to claim that his particular interpretations of the Bible is exactly the one God intended, no matter how many other interpretations of the Bible it contradicts. This includes the interpretations of Biblical scholars familiar with the origins of the Bible and interpretation of other literalists. There are about half a dozen different factions of Creationism.

The different flavors of Creationism may depend on what parts of the Bible the Creationists attempt to account for.

Some Creationists accept what they call microevolution, but claim that there is some magical barrier that prevents an accumulation of their microevolutionary changes from producing a change in species, while it accepts an evolutionary change of a smaller degree.

Other Creationists accept a change in species, but reject the possibility of a change in genus.

Some Creationists accept a change in genus and species, but reject a change in family.
 

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.^[1]

There is no scientific controversy about whether evolution is true, only about the fine points of how evolution works, but that is true of any scientific theory.

Should we reject germ theory because Jesus told his followers not to wash their hands?
 

1 About this time some Pharisees and teachers of the Law of Moses came from Jerusalem. They asked Jesus, 2 “Why don’t your disciples obey what our ancestors taught us to do? They don’t even wash their hands[a] before they eat.”

. . . .

10 Jesus called the crowd together and said, “Pay attention and try to understand what I mean. 11 The food that you put into your mouth doesn’t make you unclean and unfit to worship God. The bad words that come out of your mouth are what make you unclean.”^[2]

Germ theory makes it clear that some of the things that we put into our mouths (germs) can make us sick.

Should we demand that some religious alternative to germ theory be taught in science classrooms, because the Bible contradicts germ theory?

I don’t expect many Christians to advocate for that. I think the reason is that it is easier to demonstrate that germ theory is real than it is to demonstrate that evolution is real.
 

Pew Researh Center poll.^[3]
 

Does science depend on worship of a God, or on worship of a literal Bible?

Which religious Creationism would be acceptable?
 

Thoughts about whether evolution is the best explanation for life on earth are also closely tied to individual religious beliefs and practices. Across many religious traditions, the more highly committed tend to be less likely to believe in evolution.^[4]

What about scientists?

What is the percentage of scientists who reject evolution?
 

Pew Researh Center poll.^[5]
 

2%.
 

Where is the claimed science behind Creation science?

I will look at Creation science in Part II.

–

Footnotes:

–

^[1] Genesis 1:24-25
Bible – Old Testament
American Standard Version (ASV)
Bible verse from BibleGateway

–

^[2] Matthew 15:1-2 and 10-11
Bible – New Testament
(Contemporary English Version)
Bible verse from BibleGateway

–

^[3] Public’s Views on Human Evolution
Pew Research Center
December 30, 2013
Article.

Free Full Text in PDF format from Pew Research Center.

–

^[4] U.S.Religious Landscape Survey. Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant.
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life / U.S. Religious Landscape Survey
June 2008
Sec1:96
Free Full Text in PDF format from Pew Research Center.

–

^[5] Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media – Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a Decade Ago
Pew Research Center
July 9, 2009
Article.

Free Full Text in PDF format from Pew Research Center.

.

In response to We cater to the most stupid people out of fear of . . . whatever Can’t say, clowns will eat me writes –
 

So why not criticism of Darwinism? Evolution? Etc? How about criticism of carbon dating since that’s somewhat often tied to the others….?

Unlike Creationism (or its disguise as Intelligent Design), science involves a lot of criticism of research. Good science requires criticism. There is no scientific controversy over whether evolution is real, only over the fine points of how evolution works.

The only controversy is a religious controversy between religious sects according to different interpretations of the Bible.

Which religious interpretation would we teach? Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, acceptance of micro-evolution and denial of macro-evolution, other animals evolved, but not humans, or some other interpretation designed to please preachers and ignore as much science as the preachers think they can get away with?

These are not science.
 

Do scientists go to houses of worship and try to preach to the congregations about science?

Some religious people have the arrogance of ignorance to demand to preach their religious interpretation to public school students in science classrooms.

It would only be fair for this to be seen as an invitation for scientists to come in to the houses of worship and educate the congregation about how to test the truth of what is written in the Holy Books.
 

Image credit.
 

Read On the Origin of Species (1859).

First Edition free download from gutenberg.org.
 

Read through the many pages at Talk Origins that explain in detail the answers to questions about evolution.

The Talk Origins page on carbon dating is here.
 

Just by looking at the night sky we can look millions of years back in time. We are looking at light that has traveled for that long to get to our eyes, but not just to get to our eyes. Of course, the galaxy does not exist to please our eyes. Thinking that would be another example of arrogance.

We are infinitesimal and insignificant in the universe. If life had been designed, the design was so poor that it has been an overwhelming example of failure. We are among the small percentage of species that have not yet become extinct on Earth. The monstrosities that we see are not examples of any intelligent design, or even of a drunken engineer. They are examples of the random mutations that provide incremental and cumulative changes that sometimes are the beginnings of a species better adapted to the current environment.

Charles Darwin did not know anything about DNA, because DNA was not even discovered until a decade after he explained evolution. DNA confirms and clarifies evolution. We even share DNA with bacteria, which were barely known, and even less understood, at the time Darwin explained evolution.

What we have learned since 1859 has been consistent with evolution. There have been some modifications to evolution, but evolution has been repeatedly confirmed by experiments and by new discoveries in biology. Gregor Mendel did not publish his paper on inheritance until 1866 and it is unlikely that Darwin had any familiarity with Mendel’s work.

Charles Darwin’s work in biology is as revolutionary as Isaac Newton’s work in physics.

Both have had their work modified and repeatedly confirmed.
 

Organs can be transplanted from primates to humans because we share almost all of our DNA. At the level of DNA, the differences among humans, pigs, and bacteria are very small. This is consistent with evolving from a common ancestor, but only makes sense except in the case of a trickster designer.

We can transplant organs from pigs into humans. Pigs look nothing like humans, but we are much more closely related than our appearances would suggest.

If a real scientist were to demonstrate a major obstacle to evolution, that scientist would become famous.

Look at Einstein. With relativity, he changed theories of gravity, light, and time. These were not well received by everyone, but they have been consistently confirmed. Einstein is considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time.

In science, being smart enough to find the flaws in an accepted theory is the way to fame and fortune.

Science has no need for dogma, since science is a process for learning.

In science the goal is truth.

.

[youtube]PI19y5Nsy1s[/youtube]
 

Some evolution denialists (Creationists) will cite the following by Charles Darwin as evidence that evolution is impossible –
 

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

Did Darwin state that evolution is not true?

It is true that Darwin wrote the sentence I quoted.

It is dishonest to claim that this some sort of refutation of evolution.

This is a quote from a book that explains the way that evolution works.

It is unreasonable for a sensible person to read the passage above and not ask, for more information. Here is the the full paragraph –
 

ORGANS OF EXTREME PERFECTION AND COMPLICATION.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

Darwin continues with more detail and with several examples.

That out of context quote is an example of the misrepresentation that is common with denialists.

Denialists will take a quote out of context to suggest that the person meant the opposite of what they really meant.

Logic is used to support evolution and other science.

Logical fallacies are used to deny evolution and other science.

Which do you choose?

–

The Project Gutenberg EBook of On the Origin of Species
by Charles Darwin
1st Edition
1859
Free Full Text at Gutenberg.org

.