Science, dogmas, and AiG Creation Museum statement of faith

This is a discussion about creationism and science. Creationism is often excluded from science, and creationists often attribute this to the faults of science, such as the dogma that supernatural conclusions cannot be considered (Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism).I agree with creationists that supernatural claims can have their time in the scientific courts. However, if we are going to talk about dogmas and science, then we can all agree that the two principles do not belong together. Dogmas have no place in science. And, on that note, creationism seems to have a lot to answer for.Dogmas are only a thing of the Catholic church, right? Well, sort of. With Catholicism, dogmas are decided by the central hierarchical authority. With the development of the Protestant Reformation, there was no longer a central hierarchical authority governing Christianity. But the Protestants carried over many of the Catholic dogmas as core beliefs--especially the inerrancy of the Catholic scriptures (though not all of the books). The central reason that Protestants hold the belief that the modern Bible is infallible is that it is a tradition of the Christian church, albeit an evolving tradition. The Protestant New Testament was compiled by Athanasius in 367 AD, and the modern Bible as we know it did not exist until shortly after the Protestant Reformation, when Protestants settled on the Protocanonical books of the Old Testament and Athanasius' books of the New Testament, discarding some Catholic additions. Of course, Protestants know that church traditions do not make for truth, but this is primarily a point of faith, not necessarily a conclusion that easily follows from facts and logic. It could very well be true that the Bible is infallible, but it doesn't seem to be a conclusion that can be made by the application of reason alone. Such points of faith of any ideology can be included under the term, "dogmas."So what happens when dogmas and scientific conclusions seem to conflict? The stereotype is that scientists dismiss the religion in favor of science, and that religious people change the science to fit the religious conclusions. The stereotype, though abrasive, seems to be true. To illustrate, here is a sign at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum. On the left, there is a stack of books with the heading, "The philosopher Ren Descartes said, 'I think, therefore I am,'" and the footer, "HUMAN REASON."On the right, there is a scroll with the heading, "God said, 'I AM THAT I AM,'" and the footer, "GOD'S WORD."The left side is a reasonable argument. The right side seems to be nothing more than a tautology--that is: repeating the conclusion. And yet the implication is that the image on the right surpasses the image on the left in authority. This principle strikes me as embarrassing to display on a large sign, but AiG does not seem to feel that embarrassment.After viewing the image of that sign, I remembered something that reminded me that it should not be surprise. I remembered the last item in The AiG Statement of Faith."By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."To paraphrase, no seeming evidence is valid if it contradicts the Bible. To creationists, maybe this is understandable. To people like me, it seems appalling. Imagine what your reaction would be if this statement published on the NCSE (pro-evo think tank) website:"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts The Origin of Species or The Descent of Man."No such statement exists, and the explanation they are likely to give is that it would be a huge embarrassment and contrary to the highest scientific ideals. This link goes to the NCSE About page, where no "Statement of Faith" of any sort can be found. A retort to this point might be, "Well, some things are not said, but it can be seen as their operating policy." Maybe that is true. I have seen the NCSE mangle the facts in favor of their conclusions. It is unfortunate, but it is not unusual, and, at the same time, I believe it is to be appreciated that they don't openly uphold a scientific vice as a virtue. In other words, they do not celebrate dogmas.The prominent creationist organizations do just that. The AiG statement of faith means that the scientific conclusion must change, not the dogma, when a pair of such ideas conflict. And AiG seems to have no qualms about advertising this point. To them, it is a moral responsibility, not anything to be ashamed about. And AiG is not unique with this behavior--every website for large creationist organizations seems to have a "Statement of Faith" that declares their absolute commitment to the Bible (ICR, CSE, Reasons.org). But dogmas and science do not go together, and it is for that reason I personally believe that creationism does not have a place in science.Edited by ApostateAbe, : reduction of aggressiveness and additions of materialEdited by ApostateAbe, : title change

You are absolutely right. I didn't mean to be snarky, but I was, and I cleaned up the topic to reduce the snark. I included more of the creationist perspective and more humility, in addition to more relevant facts. I think the discussions are best without the primitive attacks, and anything else is a step backward.

I like my own title better, but I think your version of the title is almost as good and it cuts to the most relevant point. I changed it.EDIT: I also sent you an email containing an older version of the thread.Edited by ApostateAbe, : No reason given.

Sure, Lithodid-Man. Creationists often talk about Haeckel's embryo sketches, and they claim that the sketches are used in modern textbooks. The NCSE denies this claim (Icon 4: Haeckel's Embryos). Here is a paragraph from the NCSE page, and I put the relevant statement in bold.

quote:

---

What textbooks say

​

For any textbook to show Haeckel's drawings themselves as unqualified statements of developmental anatomy or to advocate "recapitulation" in a Haeckelian sense would be inexcusable, but none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells appear to do so. Wells gleefully excoriates Futuyma for using Haeckel's drawings, but apparently in his fit of righteous indignation, he forgot to read the text, in which the drawings are discussed in a historical context stating why Haeckel is wrong and Futuyma has an entire chapter devoted to development and evolution. Guttman uses them in an explicitly historical context as well. Wells states that books use "Haeckel's drawings, or redrawn versions of them" (Wells 2000:255), but this is not true. Figure 10 shows Haeckel's drawings compared to the drawings in the textbooks reviewed by Wells. It can be clearly seen that a majority of the drawings are not "redrawn." Some textbooks show more accurate drawings; some use photos; only Starr and Taggart (and Raven and Johnson in their development chapter along with accurate drawings and photos) use what could be considered embryos "redrawn" from Haeckel. No textbook discusses embryology in any way that could be considered strongly "recapitulationist." In most textbooks, embryology is presented in just one or two paragraphs, making it hard to discuss all the complexities of development. At a high school level, the aim of the book is to convey some basic concepts of biology, not to confuse students with the complexity of a subject.

---

The idea that more modern textbooks do not contain Haeckel's sketches is a popular claim in evo circles. It was repeated in the film, Flock of Dodos. But it turns out that the creationists are right on this point, and the NCSE made a mistake. I went to the local community college library to look at a bunch of biology textbooks, I found around thirteen of them, and three of them had the embryo sketches. They were not historical discussions, as in the Futuyma textbook. They were presenting the image as evidence for the theory of evolution. At least one of them even supported Haeckel's theory of embryonic recapitulation, and all of the textbooks were published well after the theory was repudiated. The Discovery Institute published an online article to prove their point, with full scanned images of textbook pages (Discovery.org.The image was contained in my own high school biology textbook. It was the Miller & Levine "Elephant book." The authors caught flack for this, largely because of the creationists, so they corrected it, and they put a page online explaining the correction (millerandlevine.com). The probable reason for this mistake was to save money, and the Haeckel image is free to use.Creationists typically have a difficult time proving their legitimate point, in large part because many of them see Haeckel's theory whenever the topic of evolution and embryos come up.The lessons are 1) that creationists are not always wrong, and 2) always be skeptical about information coming from a source with a social agenda.

McGrim, I think debate can serve the purpose of understanding people like me, and understanding people like me serves an essential evangelistic purpose. If you can get a feel for what motivates me, then you can know I can be drawn into your way of thinking. You don't have to avoid debate. But I do suggest that you avoid debating those who take it too personally, who can't help but heap large helpings of condemnation and condescension into their speech. Are you with me that points of faith should have no elevated place in science?

Rrhain, it is not about whether Haeckel was right, wrong, or something in between, and it isn't about the point that the NCSE was trying to make. The NCSE explicitly denied a claim from Wells that was very clear, and it turns out that the statement from Wells was completely true. Here is the statement from the NCSE again:"Wells states that books use "Haeckel's drawings, or redrawn versions of them" (Wells 2000:255), but this is not true."I have seen both Haeckel's original drawings and redrawn versions of them in several textbooks, given as evidence for the theory of evolution. And the Discovery Institute has shown scanned images, again proving that specific claim from Wells. Ergo, the NCSE was wrong, misleading the reader. That is all there is to it. If the NCSE meant something slightly different, then the NCSE should have said something slightly different.

McGrim, I expect that you will be banned from this forum soon, so you can join me on the CARM forum. I post in the Atheist, Apologetics and and Evo boards of that forum.

rhain, I provided a link to the page on Discovery Institute, and you are free to look at the titles and the images of the scanned pages, and you are free to verify the contents at your local college or university library. I will not provide for you the titles of the textbooks that I saw at the library, because it was years ago for me, and I did not save the data, nor will I go to another college library again, sorry. The data at the Discovery Institute website should serve the same purpose for you. I didn't investigate the examples given by Wells. It could very well be that his examples are faulty, though I doubt it, because there seems to be an abundance of published relevant textbooks that would prove his point. But that matters only a little bit. I tested only the specific claim made by the NCSE, in isolation, and I found it to be faulty.

Rhain, you ask, "Is comparative embryology a fraud?" And I answer, "Absolutely not." It is actually conclusive evidence for common descent, and this is what I have believed for years. I haven't met anyone who talked to me the way you are talking to me right now ever since I was 16, which was ten years ago, debating this stuff the whole time (I switched sides when I was 18). You seem to be taking me for someone I am not. To prove myself, here is a thread I posted on the forum four years ago: Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode II... TailsThe first image down is me using comparative embryology to prove evolution. I have since updated the same argument, and I recently posted a new thread: How creationism explains babies with tailsThe second image is an MRI of an embryo with a tail, to prove my point about common ancestry with tailed organisms.Haeckel's theory is wrong, but the laws of von Baer concerning embryos and common descent are very well accepted among the relevant scientists, and for good reason.Your point about that page from the textbook not containing Haeckel's sketches is resolved by these two points:1) The statement of Wells via NCSE is: "Wells states that books use 'Haeckel's drawings, or redrawn versions of them' (Wells 2000:255), but this is not true." The bolded portion is relevant in that the page from the textbook you cited has embryos that are redrawn versions of Haeckel's sketches, as are seemingly most of the modern textbooks guilty of the error. I am sorry I did not make this point clear.2) The caption of the image is the text that explains the purpose of the image, not the main text. The caption reads:FIGURE 60.18
Embryonic development of vertebrates. Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other, even though the individuals are from different classes (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). All vertebrates start out with an enlarged head regian, gill slits, and a tail regardless of whether these characters are retained in the adults.This information may or may not be perfectly true (it actually isn't, but more on that later), but the main error is that it is an explanatory caption for an image that does not factually represent the principle described. The image is inaccurate for the accompanying explanation. The main text that you quoted does not cite Figure 60.18, and a normal reader would not be aware that the image is connected with Haeckel, nor would he or she be aware that the image is inaccurate.If you think maybe the images are not close enough to Haeckel's drawings to claim derivation (I agree they are different in at least a minor respect), or if you think maybe the selected images of progression are scientifically accurate, then I invite you to read this page from this textbook, Developmental Biology, and view the images of the true embryos. Changes in morphology can take place at any time in an organism's development, and the images in the Raven & Johnson book are radically different from the true embryos.I am not who you think I am, but my own person should have never been an issue, regardless of any doubt or belief about my intentions or what I believe. I suggest that you focus on the arguments themselves, not on the person delivering them. I never made your beliefs or your motives or your intentions an issue in this, and I personally think it would benefit you to treat your opponents with respect, as though they are on your side, including and especially the true creationists.

Rhain, yes, the caption of the image is the text that explains the purpose of the image, not necessarily the main text. The main text has bearing if the image is cited, as in "...Haeckel proposed that the morphology of early embryos from many phyla appear similar (Figure 60.18), but this hypothesis was shown to be inaccurate." But Figure 60.18 was not cited. I have read plenty of textbooks, and I have taken a course on technical writing. To me, it is just common knowledge, and you are talking to me like I am the one who just said something foul? I am not sure how to go about proving this point to you, except maybe to have you ask your college's tech writing instructor. Print out the page and have him or her interpret it.You asked, "but please do tell how this:... Is 'radically different.' Be specific."Sure, Rhain, but I would prefer to use the image from Developmental Biology, not an image from a creationist, though both may work. 1) Fish. Raven & Johnson's fish embryo has a head that is considerably wider than the torso. The actual embryo head is continuous with the torso, much like an adult fish, and it has a spherical bulge protruding from its midsection.
2) Salamander. The Raven & Johnson's amphibian does not have a serious bulge sticking out of its entire length, but the actual "Amphibian" embryo does.
3) Chicken. The actual embryo has visible limbs, is tightly curled, has a non-pointy tail, has incongruous features about the neck and shoulders, and has a spheroid on its tail. The Raven & Johnson chicken embryo has none of these things.The degrees of such differences may be largely subjective, and I know that you said that "His drawing isn't that far off," and you posted an image illustrating largely the same actual embryos, but my opinion is different, and the relevant expert opinion seems to be that the early embryos really are radically different from each other. From the Developmental Biology page:

quote:

---

But Haeckel's drawings are wrong. Photographing actual embryos at these stages, Richardson and colleagues show that Haeckel's drawings are oversimplified to the point of obscuring important differences between classes of vertebrates. The Richardson et al. paper does not dispute that there is a highly conserved embryonic stage among the vertebrate classes. Indeed, at the late tailbud stage, vertebrate embryos of most all classes possess "somites, neural tube, optic anlagen, notochord, and pharyngeal pouches." However, these authors do criticise the notion that this stage is nearly identical in all species and that differences between the classes can be resolved only after subsequent development. Rather, they discover significant differences between groups. Size is one distinctive marker. The scorpion fish embryo is 700 microns long at the tailbud stage, while the mudpuppy salamander measures some 9 millimeters. Heterochrony is another problem. In some species of direct developing frogs, and in monotreme mammals, limb buds are already present at the tailbud stage, whereas in other species, these are not seen until significantly later. Birds are characterized by their prominent mesencephalon. Whereas most amniote embryos have a heart by this stage, the zebrafish does not. (Teleosts such as zebrafish are even the exception to the rule mentioned above. They eventually possess a notochord, somites, pharyngeal pouches, etc., but they do not have the pharyngeal pouches until after the tailbud stage). Some of these differences are depicted in Figures 2 and 3.

---

It should not be expected that early embryos from diverse clades display strong commonalities, because that expectation does not follow from the laws of von Baer, nor does it follow from the evidence, at least not without imagination. But it does follow from the theory of Haeckel. Raven & Johnson discounted Haeckel in the main text, but their image and caption, in an attempt to prove common descent, implicitly accepted a faulty premise from Haeckel, and it considerably misled the reader about comparative embryology.Rhain, it is getting more frustrating arguing with you on this, and I may soon quit. You have argued with creationists for too long, and you are projecting their habits onto me. Please don't do this.

mike, I don't think it will pay to argue this point further, regardless of who is right and who is wrong. This isn't even the appropriate thread to do that. I invite you to my other thread, How creationism explains babies with tails. I pledge to give to you my fullest attention and critical thinking to any and all objections that you have to my arguments.

Gotcha. There are some productive arguments to get into, and there are some not so productive arguments, and you can only distinguish between them after you get into them, and then you know when to bail.