tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post991258728825931126..comments2024-03-14T11:50:14.761-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: Why the Age of the Earth MattersDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-51043253230849666452013-01-08T03:25:46.522-05:002013-01-08T03:25:46.522-05:00Illustrative text showing indisputably that creati...Illustrative text showing indisputably that creationism is a sole considerable factor for existence of the earth and human race; http://www.jariiivanainen.net/theageoftheearth.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-3706458413474538832012-11-25T00:20:43.760-05:002012-11-25T00:20:43.760-05:00It might make sense to ask politicians the followi...It might make sense to ask politicians the following question: "There is evidence for the existence of a natural nuclear fission reactor on Earth two billion years ago based on the nuclear waste found in rocks of that age. Do you accept such evidence and what do you think of the implications of the fact that the waste did not move with respect to the surrounding rock (in particular, the implications for nuclear waste disposal)?"Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04720409839023747889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-8680909749851112472012-11-22T01:34:39.271-05:002012-11-22T01:34:39.271-05:00They have to be aware of that evidence and those a...<i> They have to be aware of that evidence and those arguments.</i><br /><br />To clarify, I mean 'they have to be aware what that evidence is, and what the arguments are'. Not merely being aware 'there's good arguments, I hear!'Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-80374738892994019852012-11-22T01:12:13.290-05:002012-11-22T01:12:13.290-05:00So saying that you're agnostic on evolution or...<i>So saying that you're agnostic on evolution or the age of the earth from a scientific point of view isn't like saying that you are agnostic on something relatively speculative and controversial like string theory. </i><br /><br />Well, it's alike in one way: most people are simply unaware of the evidence, research, reasoning, etc that backs up the views of scientists in both fields. I've lost count of how many people I've met who A) claim to be big believers in the theory of evolution, and B) think the X-men are prime examples of Darwinism in action. To give one example.<br /><br />Really, how many who accept the age of the earth can explain why they accept that, which doesn't reduce to 'I hear that's what scientists say' or something real close to that? If someone has no more reasoning BUT that, should we really be encouraging them to be steadfast in their commitment? Granted, fantastic evidence for those views may be out there, but the existence of good evidence and arguments alone doesn't suffice to dictate what people should think, does it? They have to be aware of that evidence and those arguments.<br /><br />Or, I suppose, you could make the argument that they should just accept authority figures' claims. But I think there's an obvious danger that comes with that which will lead us back to a similar problem.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-64515941333914112452012-11-21T23:42:02.663-05:002012-11-21T23:42:02.663-05:00The Obama quote can be found here:
http://youtu.b...The Obama quote can be found here:<br /><br />http://youtu.be/5kxDfJU4z2E?t=8m59s<br /><br />and the conclusion is here:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsF0b-rSDxA&feature=relmfu<br /><br />I was kind of surprised how much he went out of his way to express respect for a young earth interpretation of the Bible (since I wouldn't tend to think that's necessary for a Democratic politician to do to cement cultural support from his side) but he does seem to suddenly catch on to what he's saying and go off on a "But I really love evolution!" tangent.<br /><br />On accepting the scientific consensus: I think one of the things that drives scientists and those interested in science batty is when people act as if there is a lot of doubt or controversy about topics on which there really isn't. So for instance: there are indeed a lot of things which are open ended and under dispute among scientists about various details relating to evolution, but that evolution does indeed take place according to the broad outlines generally discussed is not a remotely controversial point. (Same with the age of the earth being roughly 4.5 billion years and not a few thousand.) <br /><br />So saying that you're agnostic on evolution or the age of the earth from a <i>scientific</i> point of view isn't like saying that you are agnostic on something relatively speculative and controversial like string theory. <br /><br />Of course, the thing is, those who question those generally do not primarily consider those theories to be open questions due to scientific evidence, they do so due to their theological commitments. So arguably it's much more a turf war over whether to use science or theology to address questions such as the age of the earth or the way in which species develop rather than over scientific evidence.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-87563902124568744292012-11-21T14:02:09.248-05:002012-11-21T14:02:09.248-05:00From what I understand, Slate recently pointed out...From what I understand, Slate recently pointed out that Obama gave more or less the same response as Rubio back in 2008, with no such fanfare taking place. They certainly didn't interpret his words to mean that he was endorsing some particular variety of 'creation science' and maybe we should be worried he's going to pull funding from physics labs because hey, all the information they gather will probably be invalid and useless in a week anyway.<br /><br />I have a few big problems with what Knapp is saying, but here's one issue I'll mention that worries me: I get the impression that the attitude is scientists, or at least the vague 'consensus of scientists', is supposed to be treated as sacrosanct where you're supposed to agree and endorse their views, even if (maybe even 'especially if') you don't understand them and they really have no bearing on your day to day life.<br /><br />I think in most other situations, saying 'look, I haven't read into this deeply myself, so I'm unaware of the arguments and evidence, therefore I'm agnostic' would be regarded as laudable. Suddenly you get to certain scientific questions and the response becomes 'being unaware of the arguments and evidence is no excuse, here is the scientific consensus, now declare your loyalty to it!'<br /><br />Not to mention, the 'certain scientific questions' part is key. I've noticed that many people are frantic about whether a candidate believes the earth is 4 billion years old, or if darwinian evolution is true. No one seems to care whether candidates are even aware of the transition from classical to quantum physics, or know a single thing about chemistry.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-10647077590494700492012-11-20T23:25:44.649-05:002012-11-20T23:25:44.649-05:00I do have to disagree with codebeard's point:
...I do have to disagree with codebeard's point:<br /><br /><i>Rubio is entirely correct that his own personal views on the matter are unrelated to his work.<br /><br />It seems better to me to say "I'll let the scientists deal with that question" than to give his own opinion if he's not a scientist. If he had said "of course the Earth is 4 billion years old", despite having no scientific qualifications, that would be okay?</i><br /><br />Certainly, one is not required to go around learning the findings of fields one has no particular interest in so that one can reel them off on request, but I don't think that one is required to express lack of expertise on every question that stems from a field one is not an expert in. <br /><br />So, for instance, I'm not a doctor, but I don't think it would be inappropriate for me to venture an opinion that smoking increases the chances of lung cancer, or that new human organisms result from the fertilization of an egg by a sperm as a result of sexual intercourse. I'm not morally obligated to know these things, and it wouldn't make me an inferior person if I hadn't bothered to pick up or retain them, but I think it would be a little odd if, on being asked, I begged off by saying, "Well, I'm not a doctor," and then throwing around some 'on the one hand... on the other hand' thoughts.<br /><br />I don't think one needs to be any sort of expert in the field to go with the current estimate of the Earth's age, even while understanding that such things are always subject to revision should new evidence come to bear.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-10817152097099811642012-11-20T23:06:40.441-05:002012-11-20T23:06:40.441-05:00In fairness to Knapp, what I think sends him off i...In fairness to Knapp, what I think sends him off in the particular direction that he goes is a specific creation science set of claims that is fairly common among young earthers -- or at least was 5-10 years ago when I was keeping up with those debates. By this theory, things like the speed of light and radioactive decay occur at a predictable rate now, but the universe got to be the way it was via a brief period in the days right after the creation of the universe when everything happened much, much faster. Thus, light streamed across billions of light years of space in the course of a couple days, getting a continuous supply of light between us and the farthest observed objects, and then everything slowed down to the current rate, with things behaving roughly as they do now.<br /><br />From this, Knapp is going to: Wait a minute. If you're telling me that things like the speed of light and radioactive decay suddenly increase and decrease in speed, how are we to know that this won't suddenly happen again at any moment?<br /><br />Now, what he misses in this is that creation science (being a save-the-appearances exercise for a certain type of biblical interpretation) isn't actually interested in making predictions. So the claim is not "the speed of light and radioactive decomposition tend to suddenly speed up and slow down at unknown intervals" but rather that these rates acted very differently very briefly in a unique period of time (during the creation process, if you will.) Young earthers no more expect to see that sort of thing happen again than he does.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-57433029246680104082012-11-20T20:25:01.608-05:002012-11-20T20:25:01.608-05:00While I wouldn't be quite so harsh, I agree wi...While I wouldn't be quite so harsh, I agree with codebeard that Knapp exaggerates the implications. If reasonably conclusive proof were discovered that the world were only 9000 years old, the models would still work as well as they do now, because whether they are getting correct answers to present problems depends only on whether you can, in fact, use them to get correct answers for practical purposes, whatever they may say. And as codebeard notes, it's not as if scientists aren't willing to consider the possibility that light might not really be constant; it's just that theories making that assumption have turned out to be really, really good. If it turned out that the speed of light weren't actually constant, all that would change is that assuming that light is constant would now just be regarded as a really, really good approximation under a wide variety of conditions for a large number of purposes. Which is not a huge fall from grace or disaster for electronics.<br /><br />I think, though, that you've hit the nail on the head with your diagnosis of a lot of young earth creationists; there's an agnosticism about how much you can actually know about such things on the basis of our actual evidence, and one of the alternatives is in their minds directly connected with certain beliefs that are pretty important morally. So naturally (and if their assumptions were correct, actually pretty reasonably) they go with what they think has the most significant positive moral and practical consequences. Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-2929691635642447912012-11-20T18:23:54.829-05:002012-11-20T18:23:54.829-05:00I'm just some guy with a Physics major, but he...I'm just some guy with a Physics major, but here's my opinion:<br /><br />Rubio is entirely correct that his own personal views on the matter are unrelated to his work.<br /><br />It seems better to me to say "I'll let the scientists deal with that question" than to give his own opinion if he's not a scientist. If he had said "of course the Earth is 4 billion years old", despite having no scientific qualifications, that would be okay?<br /><br />Knapp is so wrong I could write a book about it, but let me just start with the basics. His argument is basically "if we are wrong about this then THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT WILL END." Of course it won't – scientists have been coming up with new cosmological models every few decades without the economy falling over.<br /><br />"Oh no if the speed of light is not constant then bad things will happen." Please Knapp, go take some pills and have a good rest. There are plenty of secular scientists who disagree about the speed of light or its constancy.<br /><br />You know what? Even if the speed of light tomorrow were half the speed it was today, the following things would be totally unaffected: The Internet, DVDs, laser surgery, and many more critical parts of the economy. Lots of things depend on the speed of light being <i>really damn fast</i> but not many things depend on it being constant.<br /><br />Knapp really gets to show his ignorance when he speaks about radioactive decay. If the Earth were only 9,000 years old (which it's not, but let's go with Knapp's hypothetical situation for a moment), then would that mean radioactive decay rates are unstable? Um, no. Which part of his head did he pull this idea from?<br /><br />Let's take a look at the actual science. Let's suppose we have a piece of wood and we want to work out how old it is:<br /><br />What we would like to know:<br />- The age of the piece of wood.<br /><br />What we actually know:<br />- The levels of different radioactive isotopes in the piece of wood right now.<br /><br />Therefore, the things we need to know are:<br />- What were the original levels of radioactive isotopes in the wood when it was formed?<br />- How have the levels changed since that time?<br /><br />For the first question, the standard model assumes:<br />* The original levels of radioactive isotopes should be the same as what we find in a freshly grown piece of wood.<br /><br />Regarding the second question, the standard model assumes that:<br />* The sample is a closed system. That is, negligible external introduction or leeching of isotopes (e.g. if it had been sitting next a hunk of Uranium for a thousand years then all bets are off.)<br />* Radioactive isotopes decay exponentially with a constant rate factor, at least because that's what we have observed for the past century.<br /><br />To be sceptical about the standard model one need only challenge one or more of the above three assumptions.<br /><br />Knapp seems to think that if there are issues with the dating model, they must be because the third assumption (rate with respect to time) is wrong and HENCE ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE.<br /><br />Of the three assumptions though, rate with respect to time is probably the one with strongest scientific support, so it's a straw man to portray a sceptic as automatically challenging this assumption.<br /><br />Scientifically, the weakest assumption in the model is that the original levels are the same as for a new piece of wood. If this part of the model is wrong, then the rate could still be perfectly stable and nuclear power plants wouldn't vaporise us all on the morrow.codebeardnoreply@blogger.com