Conversation with a modern creationist: part 2

By Lee Silver | June 5th 2008 02:03 PM | 21 comments | Track Comments

More from Lee Silver

I've written this post to address some of the issues raised in the comments to my first post on the evolution versus creationism debate.

(1) A major reason that Biblical creationism thrives in certain parts of America is because -- unlike every other highly developed country in the world -- we do not have a national science curriculum. America has a very strong tradition of "home rule" which means that state and local school boards can choose, if they wish, to exclude any discussion of evolutionary mechanisms in biology classes. (I was elected to my own local school board in Princeton, NJ, where the teaching of evolution has never been disputed.) Children who go to public schools (or Catholic schools) in western Europe and Asia learn biology (life sciences) in a complete sense, which incorporates evolutionary thinking at every level of analysis from genes to cells to whole organisms, populations, and ecosystems. These educated children have opportunities to pursue scientific careers that creationists don't even know exist. This is why the exclusion of 50% of America's children from knowing about evolution diminishes our country's competitiveness.

(2) To "do" science of any kind, you must learn what has been done previously and what the state of the field is at the present time. I am not ashamed of the fact that I needed to take three years of college courses in physics and math (16 courses in all) before I was able to understand quantum mechanics and general relativity to a degree where I could actually use these concepts to investigate unknowns. However, even with a Master's degree in physics (I switched to biophysics for my Ph.D.), I don't have the capacity to critique modern ideas like string theory -- but I am not ashamed of this either. Unfortunately for students today, you can't even begin to take in-depth courses in modern molecular biology without first completing college-level courses in physics, chemistry (organic and inorganic), and math. Then you'll need to study formal genetics, population genetics, biochemistry, cell biology etc. before you can truly understand the modern synthesis of evolution-genetics-developmental biology that is driving the biomedical enterprise. This is not an insult against anyone's beliefs or knowledge. It is simply a fact of the depth and breadth of modern science.

(3) I think the following quote from Natalie Angier (a science journalist for the New York Times) explains what good science is, and why not all scientists are good scientists: "“Scientists try—not all of them, but the good ones—to be their own worst enemy. They try to disprove their own pet theories . . . [Like everyone else, scientists] have a lot of pre-conceived notions, and [they] have to fight against them all the time. Really good scientists will do that. It's an ideal; obviously hard to reach.”

(4) One reader asked me to respond to the three questions first posed by Josh. I don't expect any creationists to be convinced by my short answers, but here they are for those with an open mind:

Statement 1: All living things on earth today can be traced back to a single cell.

The best evidence comes from comparisons of DNA sequences. Actually, your DNA and mine still retains traces of genetic information (which no longer functions) from that original cell. Go to the human genome project website to see the details. Here's a link to a gene associated with Alzheimer Disease (when mutated) that shows its homologues in 7 distant species. You can tool around the site to see any gene you like.

Statement 2: The earth is over three billion years old.

Take a look at the picture below that I took in Corsica, France. The geological strata were either placed there over hundreds of millions of years, or they were placed there by a God to trick us. Not only is there no evidence for the latter hypothesis, but if it were correct, the entire foundation of modern science would be wrong, and airplanes would fall out of the sky (unless God holds them up.) I can't disprove the God theory -- which is exactly why it is not a scientific theory.

Question from Josh (#3): Evidence for a common ancestor: see answer to statement #1.

Comments

Why couldn't you have given Josh those answers in the first place? That would have given you a much more effective common starting point. And he might have responded somthing like this: "single cell" - This is an argument for a common ancestor, not a single cell. Nothing in what you say points specifically to a single cell as the ancestor, it could well have been a complex multicelled organism placed here by the Creator (or maybe arrived on an asteroid or spaceship from outer space) that was the progenitor of those 7 distinct species - and many others besides - with that same gene. The single-celled life we have today could have evolved from a more complex ancestor (such as the immortal cancer cells from some woman who died in the 50s) just as easily as the other way around, couldn't it? "3 billion years" - I can see strata like that in snowbanks every winter. Those are clearly not very old at all. Of course, those are created by snow falling from the sky while rocks don't fall from the sky. Unless they do! Why could those strata not have been formed from rock falling from a prolonged volcanic eruption, or dust throws up by meteroic impacts? That could mean those strata were created over only a few hundred or few thousand years, not millions. "common ancestor" - ok, that's a pretty good piece of evidence. It stills points to a common creator as easily as a common ancestor, but we can't be certain. PS: your captcha sucks. I need to try like 4 times to post successfully.

Anonymous (not verified) | 06/05/08 | 14:43 PM

PS: your captcha sucks. I need to try like 4 times to post successfully.

Yep, those things are just a hassle. We're not a media company (and we are proudly the largest science site not owned by a larger media company) and spammers and advertising bots are a lot smarter than any easy captcha we can create so they end up being so fuzzy humans can barely read it.

It will get better and we appreciate your patience while we learn programming as well as we know science.

Hank Campbell | 06/05/08 | 15:15 PM

I agree the captcha does suck

Eliot (not verified) | 06/17/08 | 08:29 AM

It occurs to me that there's a new benchmark for knowledge.

[Y]ou can't even begin to take in-depth courses in modern molecular biology without first completing college-level courses in physics, chemistry (organic and inorganic), and math.

Instead of it ain't rocket science or I ain't no brain surgeon, I think I'll start saying well, it's not exactly molecular biology... Also, last I heard, estimates of Earth's age had been ramped up to about 4.6 BY, with life emerging something on the order of 3.5 BY ago. And, Anonymous (first comment):

Why could those strata not have been formed from rock falling from a prolonged volcanic eruption, or dust throws up by meteroic impacts?

An eruption (or series of impacts) of that magnitude, particularly in an earth a mere 6 to 10 thousand years old, would absolutely have been recorded by witnesses -- all of whom would have died immediately afterward. Eruptions or impacts that copious and catastrophic would have eliminated all life on Earth, without doubt; there's evidence that relatively small impacts, which have left relatively small craters and relatively thin layers of dust, have on more than one occasion nearly wiped out all life on Earth. An event that would leave strata hundreds of feet thick over a short amount of time -- something more drastic than is undergone even on Jupiter's moon Io, the most volcanically active body in the solar system -- would not only have been unprecedented, but have left quite literally nothing behind to observe the remains.

Warren (not verified) | 06/05/08 | 15:31 PM

You can also tell the difference between rock produced by a volcano and rock produced by sediment. By looking at the composition of the rock, you can gain a fairly detailed knowledge of how it was produced.

Mike

Michael White | 06/05/08 | 18:25 PM

it's a shame that we lag so far behind in the sciences,math and music, creativitive thoughts . Religion has truely done humanity a dis-service. I know a guy who is a born again christian who would ban all science, most math, anything about evolution, and install biblical worship within all schools if he could. He firmly did beleive in Jesus Christ and his return. However he recently did a research into his family roots and discovered his great grandparents were not christians buy muslims on both sides who immigrated to this country in the 40s. They somehow settled into a small souther town in the mountains and after the first generations died out became americans rather than muslims. He's fuming still upon learning of this but cannot rupute the evidence.:):):). he got his christian yarnings from a baptish church his father joined joined in the 70s

nights (not verified) | 06/05/08 | 16:57 PM

after the first generations died out became americans rather than muslims.

Why couldn't they be both?

Hank Campbell | 06/05/08 | 17:37 PM

They could not be both as he is a born again christian who did not know he had a muslim background and finds everything muslim represents to be offensive as it is. Muslims can only go to hell under their beleifs if they convert or drop out of the religion so the guy is hell bound in either direction he takes under christian and muslim beleifs. Were he in a muslim country he would be killed because of his fathers soins in becoming a christian.

nights (not verified) | 06/10/08 | 13:12 PM

First of all that is incredibly ignorant. Muslims like Jews have a right of passage that occurs when a kid is about 13-16 years of age where their either formally and freely accept Islam or they do not and if they do not their are no legal consequences. Now some societies have very authoritarian parents who will disown a child for that....but they would not be killed. Dont tase me bro

Hontas Farmer | 06/11/08 | 16:03 PM

Creationism isn't science because it does not allow even the chance of a conclusion different from its hypothesis, which furthermore is impossible to prove scientifically. I was brought up Fundamentalist Christian. A major factor in losing my beliefs was when I became unable to ignore the nature of Creationist dialectic: sooner or later (but usually sooner) a Creationist will always base an argument on a half-truth. One of their favorites is the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, which states that complexity in the Universe decreases over time. They will crow that this makes evolution impossible, while happily disregarding the part of the Law allowing increasing complexity in part of the universe, at the expense of the rest (example: growth from seed to tree, a more complex organism). Creationists either lack the basic scientific skill to see this, or they know their arguments are empty and don't care. Ignorant or dishonest, take your pick.

Anonymous (not verified) | 06/05/08 | 17:28 PM

Blah, Blah, Blah.. Your parents may have been fundamental Christians, but what is evident is you never were. Being around Christians will not make you one so what you purported to have lost was undoubtedly never in your possession in the first place. In here you are "preaching to the choir". Just as often an evolutionist will base an opinion on "no truth", purely speculation with the might, could, and possibly mantra. Your argument is always the same as it is for many in here and places like this...you love the apples to oranges comparison. Constantly pitting a Phd Scientist as being better at science than a Phd Theologian which is a no brainer. That is how the "Scopes" trial was won. How patetic and typical to hear this still being used as a reason to disallow a reasonable exchange of ideas. There has never been a firm provable and universal understanding of evolution in any of the major science studies, as the only "true" evolution is the constantly changing from dead end to dead end discoveries. Your growth from a seed to a tree analogy is poor as you also leave out an important fact within the cycle...the tree in the end will die and decay. Information is not gained and passed on because all the information that was required to result in a tree was within the seed all along. Science is not changed because the scientist is a Christian or an Atheist like yourself, only the interpretation of the results.

Perry V. (not verified) | 06/08/08 | 17:34 PM

I don't want to come off as prejudicial and biased but I really think creationists should not occupy places in good educaational institutes. Just think; a creationist, though however good at his/her studies, however a good researcher he/she is, is still narrow minded when it comes to the fine line between working for science and science against god. Terraforming, advancements in AI, cloning, are all barred by ethical questions that always come down to "Do not play God" I digress.. In short, any kind of narrow mindedness should not occupy places in institutions like Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Caltech etc. Those people with the artificial ethical threshold of holiness will be influential in the future of humanity. I, for one, don't want the 20 years of research that proves evolution through bacterial growth to be brushed aside by mere "beliefs." However, I am a bit biased when it comes to high level education because I was never successful enough to be considered for Ivy League. I merely argue that a hard working creationist should not earn the right to halt advancements in science.

Norm (not verified) | 06/06/08 | 02:44 AM

"This is why the exclusion of 50% of America's children from knowing about evolution diminishes our country's competitiveness."

I'd be willing to bet that a random sampling of homeschooled children/children that attend private religious schools would perform better on any standardized test on the subject of evolution than a random sample of public school children. They may not *believe* evolution, but I bet they know more about it than their public school counterparts. Our public schools are absolute failures. How many public school kids "graduate" but are actually illiterate?

Anonymous (not verified) | 06/08/08 | 00:15 AM

I was taught by Jesuits, and at least they recognized and acknowledged where logic ended and leaps of faith began! we're in a box and don't know what's outside the box. Weather it's gnostism from 2,000 years ago (and it was probably borrowed from much earlier), or the matrix movies, or the compelling statement that the odds are very good that we live in a human-made Virtual Reality we're limited in our ability to know. You can say that we're all from an ancestral genome, but how does that move the argument forward? You might as well say "adam and eve". At least that acknowledges the male/female components of our genome. And why is the microchondrial DNA separate, and is only passed from the female parent? And riddle me this...there's a wasp that places it's eggs inside a cockroach. As part of this process the wasp injects a virus into the cockroach. Now here's the thing: the virus DNA is encoded inside the wasp DNA! So, which came first? Did the wasp evolve the virus, or did the virus infect the wasp genome?

Anonymous (not verified) | 06/08/08 | 01:53 AM

The Emerald Cockroach Wasp That's the one you're talking about. It uses regular venom. There are no viruses involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampulex_compressa

Anonymous (not verified) | 06/08/08 | 10:22 AM

That's the one you're talking about. It uses regular venom. There are no viruses involved.

thanks for inspiring me to track this down. "Stage-dependent expression of Chelonus inanitus polydnavirus genes in the host and the parasitoid." http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:15607504

"...Proviral DNA is integrated in the wasp's genome and virus replication is restricted to the wasp's ovary...."

this took me awhile to find, and i thought the original post i read on it seemed to be in layman's terms, but i couldn't find it. And i'll never do this again during dinner time! Uggg!

Anonymous (not verified) | 06/08/08 | 22:18 PM

"Stage-dependent expression of Chelonus inanitus polydnavirus genes in the host and the parasitoid" Very interesting. Thanks.

Anonymous (not verified) | 06/10/08 | 07:23 AM

I feel for you Dr. Silver. As of late I have had a similar discussion with some people. It's not about creationism but something which makes those who belive it almost as unreasonable. They basically claim that a certain class of person does not exist. I can cite thousands of examples to the contrary. They will never ever just accept that their beliefs are wrong regardless of the evidence. I have come to accept that now. I am not going to try to convince them just keep their POV from becoming law. Don't even waste your time with fools like that one. Dont tase me bro

Hontas Farmer | 06/12/08 | 10:17 AM

This is nice and vague...just a question. Your statement "They will never ever just accept that their beliefs are wrong regardless of the evidence". Would that include even if the "evidence" were "true"? You expose a bigoted stance with this statement as "you" are convinced folks are wrong..."regardless of the evidence"...that's hardball.

Perry V. (not verified) | 06/12/08 | 21:29 PM

Sir in the case of evolution we have shown you all layers of rock, bones of extinct animals, DNA of extinct animals, Compared their DNA to the DNA of living things... All we haven't done is discover a totally different type of life on another planet yet. I don't know what to say but YOU don't seem to be reasonable on this matter. Dont tase me bro

Hontas Farmer | 06/14/08 | 20:21 PM

so far i have only seen evidence for evolutionary processes. Not the scientific dogma like "...it all started with a single cell.." How would you even be able to prove that? Most of the "proofs" are deductive/inductive logic like: a->b and b->c and c->d so therefore if a is true then d is also true. think of all the fields of knowledge you'd have to know just to follow the logic steps! And over the last few decades each step became more complex and more uncertain. heck, there's growing scientific evidence that non-DNA life exists today. Think about that! anyway i've enjoyed this topic and thanks for posting everybody...hope it keeps up!

Anonymous (not verified) | 06/14/08 | 12:11 PM

About Lee Silver

More from Lee Silver

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

Today's Top Articles

What People Are Saying

Sponsored Links

Books By Writers Here

SB Clothing And Stuff

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

About Lee Silver

More from Lee Silver

Related Articles Here on Scientific Blogging

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

Today's Top Articles

What People Are Saying

Sponsored Links

Books By Writers Here

SB Clothing And Stuff