Belief in Evolution No Longer a Metric for Science Literacy at NSB-NSF. YAY!

_{Salvador Cordova

April 12, 2010

Darwinism, Education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

There are many biologists and philosophers of science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain aspects of the theory of evolution

John Bruer
National Science Board, National Science Foundation
Lead Reviewer
What Happened to Evolution at NSB

Way to go National Science Foundation. Say it again!, “There are many biologists and philosophers of science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain aspects of the theory of evolution.”

The NCSE of course whines over these developments:

A section describing survey results about the American public’s beliefs about evolution and the Big Bang was removed from the 2010 edition of Science and Engineering Indicators. According to a post on the AAAS’s Science Insider blog (April 8, 2010) and a subsequent report in Science (April 9, 2010; subscription required), although survey results about evolution and the Big Bang have regularly appeared in the National Science Board’s Science and Engineering Indicators, its biennial compilation of global data about science, engineering, and technology, they were absent from the 2010 edition.

NCSE’s Joshua Rosenau decried the decision, saying, “Discussing American science literacy without mentioning evolution is intellectual malpractice ….”

What Happened to Evolution at the NSB

the response

Officials at the National Science Board defended the decision. Louis Lanzerrotti, chair of the board’s Science and Engineering Indicators committee, told Science that the questions were “flawed indicators of science knowledge because the responses conflated knowledge and beliefs.” George Bishop, a political scientist at the University of Cincinnati who is familiar with the difficulties of polling about evolution, regarded that position as defensible, explaining, “Because of biblical traditions in American culture, that question is really a measure of belief, not knowledge.”

HT: www.NCSEweb.org

Comments

Clive, Thank you for taking care of Hans. I just read some of his comments in the spam buffer and they smack of bigotry. While looking in the spam buffer, I saw posts by Dr. Paul Giem. He is a respected Medical Doctor and ID proponent. I'm bringing it to your attention in case there has been a misunderstanding or mistake. Salscordova_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Hey Sal, This video looks interesting: Cosmic Fingerprints / Answers in Job: Biblical Teaching on Creation http://vimeo.com/6001101 It seems from the title "Answers In Job", that Dr. Ross is taking a dig at his YEC antagonists over at the "Answers in Genesis" ministry.bornagain77_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Well Sal, though for some minor technical flaws with the Big Bang model, which have arisen from materialistic premises in the first place I believe, I firmly believe the model to best describe the overall evidence we now have for the formation of the universe, from what could be termed the "Let there be light" moment forward. If there be any other model that more accurately describes the evidence, it would surely have to be almost the twin to the Big Bang model in most respects; I just don't see any major revisions coming in foundational evidence, nor thought, as to completely invalidate it. of interest I loaded this video a few weeks ago: Einstein & The Belgian Priest; Georges Lamaître - The "Father" of the Big Bang - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4279662bornagain77_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

“The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science.” – William Lane Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org.....mp;id=6115
You don't need the big bang to suppose the universe had a beginning. It proceeds from thermodynamics and the obvious fact stars don't burn forever. ID doesn't fundamentally rest on the truthfulness of the Big Bang, it does have a stake in the hypothesis that the universe had a beginning, but the Big Bang isn't the only conceivable cosmology that has a beginning. Salscordova_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Sal, Berlinski's objections seem to be centered mainly on inaccurate measurements of the expansion rate of the universe, Yet recently this has been confirmed/measured to stunning degree: You might take note of the comments at the 5:47 minute mark in the following video: Hugh Ross PhD. - Scientific Evidence For Dark Energy - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347218 Nak stated: "The way Dr Ethan Seigel explains things, inflation, the big bang, and the subsequent expansion of the universe have wiped out any information about what was there previously. But it is consistent with an eternal, ever expanding universe with the same physics as we have today." Now that quote, Sal, is a perfect example of circular reasoning taking precedence over the evidence. Hugh Ross PhD. - Evidence For The Transcendent Origin Of The Universe - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347185 Formal Proof For The Transcendent Origin Of the Universe - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4170233 "The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science." - William Lane Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115 Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete - Borde-Guth-Vilenkin - 2003 Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176 "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past."(Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.htmlbornagain77_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Sal, fair enough, though I don't find the mathematical anomaly of Dark Matter to be all that circular of reasoning, for it is indeed a real, unexplained, anomaly. Maybe the name "Dark Matter" itself is circular reasoning, but not the mystery that it entails. The Mathematical Anomaly Of Dark Matter – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4133609 But as to your preferred answer for Dark Matter, plasma, I find your answer tends to be of materialistic origin, whereas the problem of exotic Dark Matter is clearly at what could be termed a baser, more set apart, level than plasma, or of any known "material" of the universe, is capable of explaining: Here; seeing is believing: Hubble Finds Ring of Dark Matter – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4133618 Though I don't know all the ins and outs of the mystery yet, just from the Hubble video, my bet is on Dark Matter being a dimensionless "information" constant.bornagain77_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

scordova, The Sciencebog Starts With A Bang has been running a series since March on the Big Bang which is very informative. The way Dr Ethan Seigel explains things, inflation, the big bang, and the subsequent expansion of the universe have wiped out any information about what was there previously. But it is consistent with an eternal, ever expanding universe with the same physics as we have today. I think this is basically the budding universe theory of Andre Linde. What is interesting about this in terms of the discussions that typically take place here on UD, this theory doesn't assume that the laws of physics change as new universes expand into being. The laws are what they are, and the only difference is how much mass/energy is in each universe.Nakashima_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Dark Energy 72.1% Exotic Dark Matter 23.3% Ordinary Dark Matter 4.35% Ordinary Bright Matter (Stars) 0.27% Planets 0.0001%
That is what is in question. There may not be large amounts of Dark Matter at all, it's existence is defended with circular reasoning. Berlinski at Discovery Institute: Was There a Big Bang Salscordova_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Sal; Here is a recent podcast from ENV that is of related interest: When It's Wise to Question the Scientific Consensus? - Jay Richards http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2010-04-05T14_52_14-07_00bornagain77_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Sal, I believe plasma will be limited in its scope of explanatory power. Though very interesting and indeed plasma does offer a promising avenue to unravel many mysteries as to how matter/energy interacts with itself, the fact is that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are of a baser level mystery that is below the level of charged particles. It is a much more severe problem than plasma can explain: Dark Energy 72.1% Exotic Dark Matter 23.3% Ordinary Dark Matter 4.35% Ordinary Bright Matter (Stars) 0.27% Planets 0.0001% REPORT OF THE DARK ENERGY TASK FORCE The abstract of the September 2006 Report of the Dark Energy Task Force says: “Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our (materialistic) theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.” http://jdem.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/Decadal_Survey-Dark_Energy_Task_Force_report.pdf Hubble Finds Ring of Dark Matter - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4133618 The Mathematical Anomaly Of Dark Matter - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4133609 Hugh Ross PhD. - Scientific Evidence For Dark Energy - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347218 In fact when investigating the anthropic principle I found that such universal constants as Dark energy are presenting themselves to be, I found that there is no material basis to these transcendent constants. i.e. no constants are reducible to a purely material basis but instead the material particles exist because the transcendent information constants dictate that they do. For instance What is weird for the photon qubit for instance is that it is defined mathematically as infinite information in its wave/particle state (Armond Duwell), yet once the photon is actually created from infinite information, another universal transcendent information constant comes into play and tells every photon in the universe that it shall no surpass the speed of light. Yet there is no material reason why every photon must go exactly that speed limit in a vacuum. To clearly point out what I am talking about Granville Sewelle talks about the fact the transcendent Schroedinger equation, which clearly has no material basis, is telling the most foundational level of the "material universe" exactly how to behave. Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012 These universal constants, found in the Anthropic principle, such as Dark Energy and Dark Matter, all turn out to be what could be called transcendent information constants that tell the energy/matter exactly what to be and do. And, much like the emphasis of your video with plasma, until the scientific community starts to treat transcendent information as its own unique entity, separate from matter and energy, the solution to the enigma of where Dark Matter and Dark Energy come from will remain beyond their grasp.bornagain77_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

@spot: "What else besides the well-formed convictions of the scientific community could be used as a standard for scientific literacy?" This statement misses the point of controversy: no one in this article seems to disagree with the idea that in order to be considered scientifically literate, people should know something about the current widely-accepted scientific theories. The controversy is whether they must also agree with them. In other words, the answer to your question is that knowledge about the "well-formed convictions of the scientific community" can be used as a standard of scientific literacy, and we would all be happy. @Adel DiBagno,
lars, Here is the context of your quote: ...Almost half of these teachers agreed
Thanks for the clarification. It still seems a little ambiguous, but I'm sure your interpretation is the right one. Larslars_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Ba77, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374# I don't agree with all of the video, but it has some good points. I recall my prof at GMU, trefil who said:
The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists. Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe, p. 55.
Electricity, not gravity might be a better solution for assembly. Gravity maintains the galactic and stellar systems, but electricity may have been the assembly mechanism. When we admit the possibility that electricity was the assembly mechanism and gravity the maintenance mechanism, then a lot of paradoxes could be resolved. Right now the mainstream view is gravity does everything, both assembly and maintenance, but there is no reason to rule out the role of electricity in assembly! Skip the the first 12 minutes of the video, it's worthless. The characterization of Einstein was off base. The rest is good, especially the shots of the filamentary nebula that look exactly like the result of electric currents. Trefil was perplexed by "Galactic Strings". If Birkland currents were responsible for assembly, then Galactic Strings would naturally come out. Gravity is not a good mechanism to create such filamentary structures, but electricity is. Hence, I suspect that's why Kafatos and others support the Plasma Cosmologies. They look right. The is not yet enough research, but I think Plasma models will prevail over Dark Matter. If you watched the Privileged Planet, you'll see the huge galactic structures looking like filaments. That is a deep problem for cosmologists who only invoke gravity as an assembly mechanism. Salscordova_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Hans, I have far better things to do than to try to reason with someone who would rather win a point in a argument, no matter what they have to do, than to sincerely seek and try to find the truth of the matter. thus good bye.bornagain77_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Sal, do you have a link that explains the plasma model?bornagain77_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

cont Hans: I find it extremely interesting that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its "uncertain" 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that I exist? Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. This is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence they seem to be having a extremely difficult time "unifying" mathematically (Einstein, Penrose). The Physics Of The Large And Small: What Is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: This, (the unification of General Relativity and the laws of Quantum Mechanics), would also have practical advantages in the application of quantum ideas to subjects like biology - in which one does not have the clean distinction between a quantum system and its classical measuring apparatus that our present formalism requires. In my opinion, moreover, this revolution is needed if we are ever to make significant headway towards a genuine scientific understanding of the mysterious but very fundamental phenomena of conscious mentality. http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf Yet, this "unification" between what is in essence the "infinite world of Quantum Mechanics" and the "finite world of the space-time of General Relativity" seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993426/ The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 - William Dembski Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf Philippians 2: 5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature." St. Augustine Thus, much contrary to the mediocrity of earth, and of humans, brought about by the heliocentric discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus, the findings of modern science are very comforting to Theistic postulations in general, and even lends strong support of plausibility to the main tenet of Christianity which holds Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth." Of related interest, this following article is interesting for it draws attention to the fact that humans "just so happen" to be near the logarithmic center of the universe, between Planck's length and the cosmic horizon of the cosmic background radiation (10^-33 cm and 10^28 cm respectively) . The View from the Centre of the Universe by Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel R. Primack Excerpt: The size of a human being is near the centre of all possible sizes. http://www.popularscience.co.uk/features/feat24.htm As well, I find the fact this seemingly insignificant earth is found to revolve around the much more massive sun to be reflective of our true spiritual condition. In regards to God's "kingdom of light", are we not to keep in mind our lives are to be guided by the much higher purpose which is tied to our future in God's "kingdom of light"? Are we not to avoid placing too much emphasis on what this world has to offer, since it is so much more insignificant than what heaven has to offer? Louie Giglio - How Great Is Our God - Part 2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfNiZrt5FjU Psalm 8: 3-4 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained; What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? on top of all this Hans, it is now found to be extremely likely "at least from a materialistic point of view, that earth is indeed the only place in the universe that is capable of supporting carbon based life (Ross, Gonzalez, Brownlee, Ward) Privileged Planet; Rare Earth)bornagain77_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Hans, as Gil clearly pointed out, there are no edges to space in that: The universe is a four-dimensional hypersphere, with every point on its three-dimensional “surface” (curved through the fourth dimension of time) at the center of all around it, just as every point on the two-dimensional surface of a normal sphere (curved through a third spacial dimension) is at the center of all around it. This has all been clearly understood ever since Einstein introduced special and general relativity nearly a century ago. When I refer to boundaries of space/time, I am referring to the creation event of the Big Bang which saw the sudden appearance of space-time, energy-matter. as well as to the current "boundary of space-time witnessed in the continual expansion/creation of space/time as we travel into the future. In further note space is found to be "flat",,, Evidence For Flat Universe – Boomerang Project http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/boomerang-flat.html Which is a fact which refutes the materialistic postulation of the "recycling" universe and the steady state universe. Refutation Of Oscillating Universe – Michael Strauss PhD. – video: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323673 http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/images1/omegamomegal3.gif Hans, as well it seems you may be stuck on a falsified materialistic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, in your reference to "statistical" interpretation, even though every variant of the "hidden variable" argument, upon which all materialistic explanations for quantum wave collapse ultimately rest, is now, after years of battle dating back to Einstein, Bohr and going through Bell and Aspect, refuted: Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm as well, In response to Pelagius, to the assertion that all spots in the universe are central, I maintain that 4-D space-time is grossly insufficient to maintain such 3-D symmetry from radically different points of observation in the universe, given that the mass of the universe is now known to be limited to approx. 10^79 atoms. The distortion visited on the problem, for trying to maintain 3-D symmetry with limited material resource, from different points of observation, is to great. Yet since, the hidden variable argument now lies in tatters, I am free to consider the possibility of universal wave collapse to a conscious observer. Thus I find the main fact in what gives the earth its centrality, from our point of observation, is found in the fact that conscious observers are here to do the observing in the first place. i.e. "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner It is in this avenue of investigation that I find this strange congruence of facts:bornagain77_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Hans,
scordova, If those people are, as you say, scientifically literate then the question is why do they believe in YEC? Is it because of the scientific evidence? Or something else?
First off, as far as the topic of "literate" vs. "illiterate" this is subject to too much interpretation. What we can measure and properly poll is KNOWLEDGE of the subject matter.
Is it because of the scientific evidence? Or something else?
Combination of empirical evidence and belief in the literal reading of Genesis as a viable hypothesis of history. Sanford made a very good case for recent emergence of humans. It does not necessarily imply Old Universe, but it's a start. Walter Brown gave his views at www.CreationScience.com Whatever their reasons, in the scheme of things, it is a lesser issue than whether they are right or wrong. I would say, as a matter of ethics, it would be improper to label MIT PhD's and Ivy League professors as "illiterate" merely because their views are offensive to some. Even if they are wrong, they deserve better than to be denigrated publicly in that way.scordova_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Sal, Don't forget Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI and a YEC.tribune7_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

scordova, If those people are, as you say, scientifically literate then the question is why do they believe in YEC? Is it because of the scientific evidence? Or something else? Can *you* name an atheist who believes in a 6000 year old earth?Hans Fritzsche_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Ba77, The Big Bang was a great benefit to the ID movement because it refuted the notion of an eternal universe. It put strong constraints on the resource avaiable to chance to assemble biological systems. The Big Bang had theistic implications as noted by Jastrow. The most important issue is that the Big Bang suggested the universe had a beginning. If the Big Bang is wrong, it does not necessarily imply the Universe is Eternal. There could be other origins models that suggest the universe had a beginning. This should be readily apparent from the laws of thermodynamics. It is unlikely the stars burned forever, thus this strongly suggests the universe had a beginning. If the Big Bang is wrong, it had somethings that were right, the most important thing being that the universe had a beginning, and those could be part of a new cosmological model. I'm personally partial to the Plasma model. Salscordova_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

I don’t imagine that there is a single person who believes in a 6000 year old earth and who could reasonably be said to be scientifically literate. Or am I wrong there?
There is a small minority. I'm sympathetic to Young Universe, but not conviced. (I had accepted the mainstream before). Names that come to mind: John Sanford, PhD at Cornell, probably a far more accomplished scientist than Richard Dawkins. At one time all Genetically Modified Organisms were on the planet were the result of his Gene Gun process. Walter Brown Air force Academy professor of Engineering and Physics. Received his PhD at MIT in Mechanical Engineering in but 2 years! John Baumgardner, PhD published in prestigious scientific journal Nature, Ivy League Grad Jonathan Sarfati, PhD, published also in Nature Marcus Ross, PhD, featured in New York times. A mainstream physics? Look up John Harnett, PhD associate professor at a secular university. He is co-author with Moshe Carmeli who held the Albert Einstein Professor of Physics post in Israel before he passed away.scordova_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

William
I guess it depends on what you mean by “scientifically literate”. Do you mean “in agreement with consensus conclusions”?
Is that what scientifically literate means to you? As has already been pointed out science develops by people breaking out of consensus positions. So no, that's not how I define it.
I think that the term “scientifically literate”, like whether or not one is a “real scientist”, is mostly just a means of trying to establish or undermine credibility.
Do you hold that the YEC view is credible? That's one way of assessing scientific literacy if you ask me. The age of the earth comes from mutiple lines of evidence. By all means work to determine the truth of the matter, but do you really think we're going to discover the earth is 6000 years old next year? The year after? In the same way we're not going to discover that water flows uphill, we're not going to discover the earth is 6000 years old.Hans Fritzsche_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

bornagain77
Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?
The answer would appear to be "no".
Thus Hans though you may scoff that a YECer can even be considered scientifically literate, the point is that some of YECers know their basic scientific principles of trying to establish validity much better than evolutionists do!
So why do you suppose there is no belief in YEC from scientists who have no predisposition to YEC in the first place? Are there any scientists out there who started out from an Old Earth point of view then became convinced that YEC was true, all without a religious conviction driving that? Can you name a single atheist who believes in a 6000 year old earth? Thought not. And I ask again. Could you tell me how far away that definitive boundary of space/time is then? You claim it exists, but if you don't know how far away it is how can you know it exists at all? Also how far do you take the statistical interpretation of Born? Simple questions if you understand the claims you are making, but if you are just parroting points of view then I don't expect you'll be able to address them.Hans Fritzsche_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Hans Fritzsche, I guess it depends on what you mean by "scientifically literate". Do you mean "in agreement with consensus conclusions"? Or do you mean "a functioning, practical knowledge of how to conduct empirical experments and parse objective evidence logically towards a rational conclusion"? I think that the term "scientifically literate", like whether or not one is a "real scientist", is mostly just a means of trying to establish or undermine credibility.William J. Murray_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Actually Hans, In your reference to scientific literacy and YEC, I have seen many people I have deeply respected in their scientific integrity that hold to a 6000 YEC scenario, and, contrary to what you believe, they had some fairly strong points of evidence to back their assertion up!!! In fact it took a fairly strong concerted effort to refute just one objection they had raised as to the validity of their viewpoint: Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? GREG MOORE The RATE conclusions are based on a compounded set of assumptions. These assumptions are not derived from empirical data, but from the young-earth view of Earth history. Until the RATE team can demonstrate the validity of these assumptions, the study findings do little to prove the accelerated decay hypothesis. http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/DotheRATEFindingsNegateMainstreamScience Helium Diffusion in Zircon: Flaws in a Young-Earth Argument, Part 1 (of 2) http://www.reasons.org/age-earth/rate-study/helium-diffusion-zircon-flaws-young-earth-argument-part-1-2 Radiometric Dating Techniques Excerpt: The clash between young-earth and old-earth creationists can seem bewilderingly technical at times. http://www.reasons.org/age-earth/radiometric-dating-techniques ,,, Thus Hans though you may scoff that a YECer can even be considered scientifically literate, the point is that some of YECers know their basic scientific principles of trying to establish validity much better than evolutionists do!bornagain77_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

scordova
The fundamental issue is that I think it is inappropriate to measure someone’s scientific literacy with “belief” in the theory of evolution.
Perhaps something less contentious would suffice? Perhaps the age of the earth would be a relevant measure. I imagine scientific literacy is strongly correlated with belief in an earth that is 4.55 billion years old. Mutiple lines of evidence point to that fact across mutiple disciplines. It's beyond reasonable dispute. I don't imagine that there is a single person who believes in a 6000 year old earth and who could reasonably be said to be scientifically literate. Or am I wrong there?Hans Fritzsche_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Sal, Here is a recent cool video from ENV that is somewhat related to the Big Bang issue: Roger Penrose on Cosmic Fine-Tuning: "Incredible Precision in the Organization of the Initial Universe" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/roger_penrose_on_cosmic_finetu.html The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf How special was the big bang? - Roger Penrose Excerpt: This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 - 1989) http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/ i.e. initial entropy which plays directly into evolution since: "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more." Gilbert Newton Lewis Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution - Thomas Kindell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4168488 further note: The Future of the Universe Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things.(heat death of the universe) --- Not a happy ending. http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/future/future.html Romans 8:18-21 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. of further interest: Refutation Of Oscillating Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323673 Evidence For Flat Universe - Boomerang Project http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/boomerang-flat.html http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/images1/omegamomegal3.gifbornagain77_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

"Evolution is an example of just such a well-formed conviction shared by a majority of the scientific and philosophical community. What else besides the well-formed convictions of the scientific community could be used as a standard for scientific literacy?" Well then you should be able to defend is well-formed conviction. I understand you are a biologist and it should be easy for someone with those working credentials to do this. Why do you not take a crack at it and be the first one on the planet to do so. Certainly none of the evolutionary biologists we have been exposed to have been able to do so. And if you cannot do so, then what does that say about the beliefs of biologists and their well-formed convictions?jerry_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

spot, consensus may be all fine and well, but as has been pointed out before, when someone is reduced to arguing solely from consensus because he can provide no evidence to withstand scrutiny, then the consensus is wrong and even severely detrimental in the case of Global Warming alarmists who want to shut down industry. Consensus science, the first refuge of scoundrels "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. "And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did not move. So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, 'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.'" http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwise_known_as_kevin_/2008/04/consensus-scien.htmlbornagain77_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Spot, Thank you for your comment. The fundamental issue is that I think it is inappropriate to measure someone's scientific literacy with "belief" in the theory of evolution. Lack of belief does not necessarily imply lack of knowledge. If they want to publish stats in the future, perhaps the questionaire should be modified. I want people be knowledgeable about what the theory of evolution says. Whether they believe it is up to them. But belief in a theory should not be equated with knowledge of a theory. Salscordova_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply