Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Really? I can find dinosaur fossils and human fossils in the same layer?Isn't that the difference between fantasy and reality -- in reality you CAN'T find whatever you want in the evidence?JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Well, "assumption" is not really the right word. "Inductive inference" would be better. But they are going from what they have observed, the constancy of the speed of light, the gravitational constant, etc, whenever they look, to concluding the existence of universal laws that extend beyond the evidence. Their reason for doing so cannot, then, be observational, it must be that they have a principle, a preference, for doing so, which we might call the Axiom of Uniformitarianism, or the Principle of Actualism, or perhaps the Expectation of Boringness.And they do. Indeed, this principle is the most fundamental principle of science, arguably the only principle of science: that what in our experience appears to be universal must be taken as universal unless and until we find evidence that it isn't.To defend the principle, it is only necessary to see how it plays out. First, we need it for prediction --- for example, when we predict a solar eclipse, we "assume" that gravity, conservation of angular momentum, etc, will work in the future like they do now.Second, consequently, we need it for all engineering. If we want (for example) to launch a satellite on a rocket, then in designing the rocket we "assume" that the laws of motion and gravity will still be the same, that the laws of thermodynamics will be the same, etc, when we press the button.Third, similarly, we need it to get through our daily life. Imagine I'm hungry, and I have a sandwich. I am about to eat it, when suddenly it comes into my head to doubt uniformitarianism. "Hmm", I think to myself, "bread never has exploded when bitten into, but is that a basis for "assuming" that it won't?" And by iterating this reasoning for other foods I starve to death out of fear of having my head blown off.Fourthly, we need uniformitarianism to interpret the present. Suppose someone points to an obviously empty field, and asks if there's a elephant in it. In saying "no", you "assume" that the elephant is like other elephants, and not invisible, that the laws of optics are the same in that field as they always has been, that God is not doing a miracle to hide the elephant from your eyes, etc. It is true that someone else could make the opposite assumptions, and believe in the elephant. But you would be following the scientific method, and they would not.Fifthly, then, we come to its application to the past. Consider the question of whether I was eaten by a tiger yesterday. In saying "no", you "assume" that I am an ordinary man, the tiger (if there was a tiger) was an ordinary tiger, that yesterday was an ordinary day, and that God who of his good pleasure raised Lazarus from the grave did not see fit to raise me from the tiger. Again, as with the example of the elephant, someone could make different assumptions and believe that I was eaten by a tiger yesterday. But once more they would have stepped outside the scientific method.You see, it is always possible for someone, by picking the right (i.e. wrong) assumptions to believe anything: of the future, that tomorrow it will rain beer and donuts; of the present, that there is a elephant, or a dragon, in an visibly empty field; of the past, that yesterday I was eaten by a tiger, or grew wings and flew to the moon.I can think of a few criticisms of people who would do so. First is that by adopting this method, they do in fact give themselves license to believe anything at all. Now, if you need to give yourself that license in order to believe something in particular, that's a sign of desperation.Second, we might charge them with hypocrisy. For, as we have observed, people do use uniformitarianism for all practical ends. Someone who denounces uniformitarianism when it interferes with his pet special belief will nonetheless leave a tall building by taking the elevator and walking out the door, rather than jumping off the roof. Then he'll happily drive home in a car engineered by uniformitarian principles, he'll decide whether each intersection is clear by assuming that no car is invisible, he'll eat a sandwich without fear of it blowing his head off, and if someone's peed on the rug when he gets home he'll blame the dog and not the invisible dragon.Third, yes, in the last analysis they can selectively abandon uniformitarianism. It's a free country, we can't stop 'em. But we can observe that it is the central principle of science, of the whole of science, the single unifying principle that makes science science, and that if we adhere to it and they don't, they we're doing science, and they're giving themselves license to daydream according to their whims and prejudices. So "creation science" that ignores, indeed denounces, the principle of uniformitarianism is no more science than "Dr-A-really-was-eaten-by-a-tiger-yesterday science" would be science. They can believe what they like, but we can point out that their belief is a baseless fantasy made possible by ignoring the most basic principle of science.Well, I've gone on a bit. I hope this clarifies things.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If that's the case, I certainly don't understand what uniformitarianism actually is (an option that is entirely possible).The creation/flood stories I was raised with absolutely *require* that natural laws be altered. I mean, look at the RATE project where in an attempt claim victory over modern dating methods they say that decay rates have changed by like a billionx and then "hope" they can someday solve the obvious issues of heat and radiation in their "theory".When you have an all powerful god, why would you need to depend on the consistency of natural law and process?JB

If an all-powerful god actually acted upon that power, science wouldn't work.

The flood sorted things so humans and dinosaurs ended up in different layers. Ask Faith.

LOL -- Ok, I get what you were saying.JB

I think of uniformitarianism as constancy in the array of physical laws at work in the universe. They're the same everywhere throughout the universe and throughout all time.The trick is determining what are the physical laws. Matter and energy always produce gravity, and the Nile always floods every year (pre-Aswan Dam everywhere along its course, now only in Sudan), but gravity is a physical law and the annual Nile flood is not (and anyway, the Nile doesn't always flood).We know that food doesn't explode, and farmers store their grain in elevators year after year under the assumption that grain doesn't explode, but sometimes it does. But an exploding grain elevator is neither a miracle nor a physical law.What we do know is that when the Nile floods or when a grain elevator explodes that both are following the physical laws of the universe. Which, from all the evidence we have, are the same everywhere across all time.--Percy

But we also know - now - that some physical phenomena that appear fixed also change; the obvious example is the earth's magnetic field which reverses apparently randomly every few hundred thousand years. I don't think we can be totally uniformitarian about such things.

And that's where I need to be able to clearly articulate to my audience the difference between an assumption based on evidence (I assume the road will be slick this morning because it's coated with a layer of ice and the Cf of ice is less than that of dry pavement) and an assumption based on pure faith (I assume that the decay rates of isotope must dance about in all directions and always in my favor because ... because ... because that would prove my pet polonium halo YEC theory correct.)Thanks
JB

I find your point perfectly correct, and add that when I look at scientific method, is *doesn't* assume uniformity (in the sense that YEC projects the word). Science (as I understand it) merely has confidence that IF the earth's magnetic field has changed, we will find evidence of that and that IF the speed of light has changed, we will find evidence of that and that until that evidence is found, we will continue to explore based on the best evidence we have.I think this really comes down to the many different meanings of the word "assume" and how it's applied in this case.Thanks
JB

YES.I'm coming to see that the YEC crowd is good not only at 'quote mining', but what I'll call 'word mining'. They've been told for a hundred years (and any dictionary will confirm) that the word "theory" in the scientific sense is not a synonym for 'guess'. It's been demonstrated to them that one can use the word "faith" without meaning "acceptance without evidence" and that when humans "assume" something, action based on that assumption can be taken blindly but can also be taken with excellent supporting evidence.It reminds me of what a member of my family said the other day. "You have faith just like I do. You drive down the road and cross bridges that you have never been over before, don't know who built and simply have faith with zero evidence that it won't collapse."After a brief explanation of the quality controlled process of building bridges, from ASTM steel certifications and welding certifications and engineering certifications and permit processes and state inspections and ... and ... and ..., I said "but let's leave that alone for a moment and get back to the basic difference between the faith I have in that bridge building process and the faith you have in your god.""If a quarter of a mile before we drive over the bridge you look to the right and you see a sign that says "God did not create the world 6000 years ago. Call 800-555-1234 for more information." Will it shake your "faith" a whit?" Of course not, they agreed. They wouldn't give it a second thought.I continued:"Well, if a quarter of a mile before the bridge crossing I see a sign that says "Bridge severely damaged by storm. Use at your own risk. Call 800-555-1234 for more information." Do you think the "faith" I have in that bridge is going to cause me to shrug it off without a thought? Hell no, I'm most likely going to come to stop, get out of the car and take a look to see just how damaged it is before I decide my next action.""Your faith and my faith are NOTHING alike." Well written and helpful. ThanksJB

Yes, absolutely!It's worth mentioning that uniformitarianism originally did service in the context of geology, where it was understood that the same processes at work today upon the Earth had been operating throughout the Earth's entire past and were responsible for shaping the planet. These processes, not fundamental physical laws but underlain by them, had over and over again pushed up and then eroded mountains, caused marine incursions and retreats, and added to and subtracted from continents. As Hutton said, "No vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end."--Percy

In science, assumptions are based on conclusions. We "assume" that an icy road will be slippery because we have tested it.

Erased. Wrote it before I saw your last comment.Edited by Pressie, : Unnecessary

So, in reading article after article on carbon dating, I came up with this tidbit from a 1982 NCSE article and it seemed to contradict my understanding. I'd like some help if possible figuring out where my understanding has fallen down (or if the article is just incorrect).The quote in question is from this link:Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | National Center for Science EducationAnd here's the quote. I have green highlighted the part I am questioning.

quote:

---

Question: Creationists such as Cook (1966) claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C-14 in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying. If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C-14 the atmosphere had. If we extrapolate as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C-14 in it at all. If they are right, this means all C-14 ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. How do you reply?

​

Answer: Yes, Cook is right that C-14 is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C-14 has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines.

---

The reason this caught my eye is my familiarity with the following 'bomb carbon' chart. If as the chart shows (and I've seen many charts confirming this) C14 levels were still falling dramatically in 1982 after artificially high levels from open air bomb tests, how could C14 be forming faster than it was decaying. I haven't been able to find a graph that continues this reporting to the current day (2005 is the latest I've found and it was still falling at that time) to know what it's doing today.What's up? I would normally consider NCSE a reliable science source.JB