Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 8:57 AM
29 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, Faith, kjsimons, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric, vimesey (8 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,010 Year: 12,046/19,786 Month: 1,827/2,641 Week: 336/708 Day: 30/81 Hour: 10/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3552
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 116 of 304 (419939)
09-05-2007 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Polystrate Fossils
Do you believe that evidence of rapid depositation invalidates modern geology? Could you please explain why you would believe that?

I do hope that you will start that thread on polystrate fossils. That claim is so pervasive in the creationist literature and at the same time is one of their most poorly documented claims. I do hope that you will cite specific polystrate fossils along with their references, including scientific sources that also examine those fossils. That way, we will be able to examine the evidence.

BTW, in 20 years I have only seen one creationist offer an actual citation for a polystrate fossil claim. That creationist cited Steve Austin of the ICR who in his Catastrophes in Earth History quotes from this article: Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures, American Journal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869.

When I looked that article up in the library, I found that Austin had selectively pulled out that quotation out of contex such that (as I try to remember back about 18 years) it mentioned the geological evidence of rapid depositation but ignored the article's explanation that that rapid depositation was due to local flooding and it furthermore explained how geologists tell the difference between rapid and slow depositation.

Edited by dwise1, : changed the title


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 3:52 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3552
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 285 of 304 (440314)
12-12-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by bluegenes
12-12-2007 2:26 PM


Re: Integrity
Scientists are expected to present evidence for what they teach to children as (always tentative) "truths".

Actually, for the large part it's not the scientists who produce the materials used to teach children, at least children in the primary and secondary school systems (ie, K to 12th grade). Most of those textbooks are written by professional textbook writers, not by scientists. As a result, not only is the content determined by the publisher -- who is strongly influenced by pressure groups, such as creationists, and by considerations of what will sell in the larger states where the school boards are themselves pressured by special interest groups such as creationists. Add on to that the writers' own misconceptions about science and evolution.

For example, in the mid-1980's William J. Bennetta (later of "The Textbook League") was involved with the California State Board of Education's purchase of a new high school biology textbook. He enlisted the help of a group of scientists to review the candidate textbooks. They found all of those books to be filled with misconceptions, factual errors, and just plain wrong statements. Even though none of those books were acceptable, they did choose the least unacceptable of them and presented a list of corrections that needed to be made before it could be minimally acceptable. The publisher made a few of the corrections and then the Board accepted it without informing Bennetta and the scientists, essentially acting behind their backs. As a result, students were being taught wrong "information".

What Lucy was complaining about was that the press reports their version of a scientist's new findings before any peer review has taken place. Actually, what I've seen is that the press doesn't normally learn of these discoveries until the scientist has published it, meaning that the peer review process has indeed taken place.

However, the real concern should be the misinformation contained in the textbooks that the students are learning from and that the teacher (who is not always trained in science; eg, biology teacher John Peloza was schooled in PhysEd and my son's biology teacher in middle school was the home ec teacher) is depending on. Textbooks that are written without input from the scientists.


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by bluegenes, posted 12-12-2007 2:26 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by bluegenes, posted 12-12-2007 4:30 PM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3552
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 287 of 304 (440383)
12-12-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by bluegenes
12-12-2007 4:30 PM


Re: Integrity
Yeah, Lucy was pointing to the press' coverage of scientific discoveries and had interpreted it as deliberate brainwashing by the scientists. It was the press that she was pointing to and yet was blaming the scientists for it. I know from having seen coverage of military (eg, ships returning to port) and Scouting events that the press routinely gets little facts wrong. The sensationalistic nature of the coverage is the press' embellishment and/or misunderstanding of a scientist's statements. Frankly, I welcome the new custom of the news service providing web links to source materials so that one can dig deeper than the sensational article.

I haven't read enough from Lucy to have a feel for her yet. There are certain stock things that jump out from most creationists' posts, but I hadn't caught any yet. Though I haven't been paying much attention either.

I'm sure that she had jumbled together Piltdown and Nebraska men. Piltdown did involve deliberate fraud in how the specimens had been filed down and treated to look old. Nebraska (as I recall the story) was an actual find by a Dr. Osborn. When the peccary in question was alive, the tooth had been rotated in its socket which caused unusual wear patterns that made it look rather like an anthropoid tooth. There was a lot of disagreement about the tooth's classification during Nebraska Man's short life span. About a year later at the same dig, the same Dr. Osborn found evidence of the tooth's true nature and then published his findings and Nebraska Man was no more. Except a magazine illustrator (in England, I think) had drawn a "reconstruction" of what Nebraska Man was supposed to have looked like. It is that illustration that the creationists continue to trot out.

Now to check my memory. From the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man:

quote:
Nebraska Man was the name applied by the popular press to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world" and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Though not a deliberate hoax, the classification proved to be a mistake.

It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922 on the basis of a tooth found in Nebraska by rancher and geologist Harold Cook in 1917. An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amedee Forestier, who modelled the drawing on the proportions of "Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man", for the Illustrated News of London. Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".

Further field work on the site in 1925 revealed that the tooth was falsely identified. Other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape, but to an extinct genus of Peccary called Prosthennops and its identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.

Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted after ten years of its discovery, creationists are using this episode as an example of the scientific errors that they say undermine the credibility of palaeontology and hominid evolution.



Not bad. A bit more time had passed before the follow-up dig. Looks like I don't need to take any gecko balboa after all.

PS
A more complete treatment of Nebraska Man can be found in the Creation/Evolution article, "The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html. This and a similar article in Science '80-something (the name changed every year) were what I had read on the subject.

Edited by dwise1, : PS


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by bluegenes, posted 12-12-2007 4:30 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019