Rebutting the Creationists at the Evolution Exhibit

Just for fun, I thought I would take the creationist criticisms from the "At evolution exhibit" article (see earlier post) and rebut them one at a time.

1. "these students ... believe God created the Earth in a week, some 6,000 years ago."

The geology of the earth clearly shows that it is billions, not thousands of years old.  Archaeological evidence shows that not only were there modern humans, but organized civilizations thriving before 4004 BCE.  The law of superposition states that older sedimentary layers underlie younger.  Fossils within the layers show that hundreds of feet of sedimentary layers containing evidence of life preceded the first evidence of humans.  If Genesis were true, all life-forms that occur in the fossil record, including humans, would be in the bottom layer.

2. "210 million years, that's arbitrary. They put that time to make up for what they don't know,"

The above quote refers to the age of the Morganucodon rat, considered our first mammalian ancestor.  This date is not in doubt.  In addition to relative dating methods like superposition (if A is deeper than B, A is older than B), and biochronology where associated fossils in a layer are compared to biological forms that are known to precede or follow them, absolute dating methods like thermoluminescence and radiometric dating may be used.  Thermoluminecence dating requires the sample to be heated until it releases electrons in the form of light that can be measured indicating the last time the sample was heated.  Radiometric dating involves the analysis of radioactive decay of elements in the sample.  Decay occurs at a steady rate converting a radioactive element always to its non-radioactive counterpart element making it easy to measure the ratio and determine age.  Some radioactive elements do not fully decay for billions of years.  By the way, the advent of mass spectrometry has made it possible in recent years to get even greater accuracy with smaller samples.

3. "There is no scientific, biological genetic way that this, this rat, could become you,"

There is no scientifically proven way other than evolution.  If this creationist student had actually read the exhibit, I suspect he would know the scientific, biological genetic way.

4. "In order to be the best creationist, you have to be the best evolutionist you can be," said Marcus Ross, who teaches paleontology and says of Adam and Eve: "I feel they were real people, they were the first people."

Evolutionist?  I do not think this word means what he thinks this word means.  As I said before, there is no geological or paleontological evidence for biblical creation.  If the evidence were there, scientists with other religious backgrounds would reach the same conclusion as creationists.  That just isn't happening.

Also, if Adam and Eve were the first people, they would be more than 10 times as old as the creationists' earth and they would have lived in Africa, not central Asia where Eden is usually placed.

5.  "Creationism and evolutionism have different ways of explaining the evidence. The creationist way recognizes the importance of Biblical records," said Ross.

OK.  The goal of the scientific method is to filter out preconceptions and biases and reach conclusions based purely on the objective evidence -- all the evidence.  The biblical records fall under the categories of preconceptions and biases.  Creationists glom onto the bits of evidence that appears to support their interpretation of  the book of Genesis and discard anything that doesn't fit.  For example, creationists frequently say there is evidence of Noah's flood because sedimentary rocks cover the earth.  However, they disregard the fact that the sedimentary layers, as they appear on Earth, could not have been deposited in a single flood event or even in only 6 to 10,000 years.  Nor can they explain why fossils separated into different, consistent layers or why a flood would kill more marine species than terrestrial species.

6. "He says carbon-dating techniques that have been used to suggest the Earth is in fact billions of years old are simply not reliable. "

First of all radiometric dating with isotopes other than carbon date the Earth to about 4.5 billion years old.  Carbon 14 dating has been the whipping boy of creationists for a long time, but is actually very reliable.  It is however good to only about 60,000 years due to its rate of radioactive decay.  Creationists have always been happy to accept C14 dates that appear to corroborate bible stories, but they insist that it doesn't work past 6000 years ago.  Coincidentally, 6000 years is about the half-life of C14, but the decay of one half-life doesn't end its usefulness.  Creationist have also claimed the C14 would be useless after 12,000 years because you'd have 6000 for a half-life  plus 6000 for the other half.  Nope.  Half of the C14 decays, then half of the remaing C14 decays, then half of that decays, etc., until the remaining sample is too small to measure; at about 60,000 years.

Creationist literature also likes to list reasons that C14 cannot be dated accurately.  A little research by the reader will make it clear that the listed problems are taken directly from scientific papers that explain the methods by which a scientist can eliminate or compensate for the problems.

By the way, the age of the earth is corroborated by astronomical observations.  Visible stars have been measured at more than 4.5 billion light-years distance.  A light-year being the distance light travels in a year, any light we see from that source has been traveling for at least 4.5 billion years.  If the stars had been created the same week as Adam and Eve, 6 to 10,000 years ago, there could be no visible stars of more than 10,000 light-years away.

7. "He doesn't reject one prominent theory that dinosaurs were wiped out by a massive asteroid that collided into Earth, but suggests the collision coincided with the Biblical flood."

Although the asteroid theory isn't universally accepted within the paleontology community, the presence of a world-wide layer rich in iridium that coincides with the end of the Cretaceous and beginning of the Tertiary Period (hence the name C-T boundry layer) is universally acknowledged.  The problem for the creationist teacher is that everyone agrees this occurred 65 million years ago and that much of the C-T layer material was deposited on dry land.  So, it's clear that the creationist doesn't really believe the asteroid theory at all; he just agrees that an asteroid hitting the earth is a good way to explain mass extinction, but, unfortunately it doesn't explain the survival of Noah.

Creationists Go to Smithsonian and Learn Nothing

I just read a truly awful article in the Yahoo News entitled; "At evolution exhibit, creationists are unswayed". The article wasn't awful because creationists were unswayed, that's to be expected. It was awful because the author, Virginie Montet, was incredibly ignorant about evolution and wrote as if evolution and creationism were equally scientifically valid.

The article is about a group of biology students and instructors from Liberty University in Tenn. who traveled to the (presumably Smithsonian) Natural History Museum in Wash DC to view an exhibit on evolution and came away from it thinking that the national museum of the United States (and all other legitimate natural history museums in the world) were wrong because they differed with the teachings of a podunk fundy xian school in Tennessee. The creationists quoted in the article regurgitated the usual ID claptrap, including the odious, misleading assertion that they use the same evidence to reach different conclusions, to support their views.

The folks from Liberty U can't help the way they are. The instructors are paid to deliver fundamentalist dogma and students, or their parents, choose the school specifically because they are guaranteed to be insulated from all those inconvenient facts that might tempt them to choose reality over religion. I don't, however, understand how they can ever learn any science. Science is about assessing ALL the available evidence to reach the best conclusion. These guys treat scientific evidence like the bible in that they think they can pull a statement or 2 out of context and use it to support their position and disregard everything else. If the students don't understand the most fundamental thing about scientific method, they can't possibly be any better at physics and chemistry than they are at biology and geology, yet at least one of these kids is planning to be a doctor (stay the hell away from my pancreas).

As I say, the students can't help it, as for the writer of the article, getting the facts straight is only her job! She refers to creationism as a theory, as if it had the same scientific weight as the theory of evolution. There should be a rule that no person can write about evolution until they can recite the definition of "scientific theory".

The writer goes on to say "But Darwin's explanation for why giraffes have long necks -- that they evolved over time so they could reach higher foliage -- ...failed to sway them." This is not Darwin's explanation for anything, nor does it represent any aspect of Darwinian evolution. This is the most commonly used example of Lamarck's "inheritance of aquired characteristics" where Lamarck got evolution wrong; animals don't evolve characteristics to fulfill a desire for something. Darwin's explanation would be more like -- a random genetic mutation caused part of a proto-giraffe population to have a longer neck. The longer necks allowed the animals to exploit a niche, higher foliage, where there was less competition and, as a result, reproduce so the long-neck-mutated-gene was carried into later generations -- or something like that.

I have mixed emotions about other parts of the article. Virginie Montet writes for AFP, a world news service based in France, so people all over the world will read about these creationist collegiates, that 44 to 46% of Americans believe the world is 6 to 10,000 years old, and that the Smithsonian Institute is apparently so lame that it can't present enough evidence to change the minds of the ignorant.

At the end of article Marcus Ross, who teaches at Liberty U, was quoted as saying, "The attitude is when you are a creationist you are ignorant of the facts." That's not quite true for me. I believe they are willfully ignorant; that is, they actively avoid and disregard any facts that don't fit their preconceptions, rather that analyzing all available data before reaching a conclusion.

Devalued Voters Summit

Big fat bummer! I missed the Values Voters Summit in DC this weekend. It sounds like it was quite a wingding with all the best and brightest of the Real Americans. Just check out the awesome subjects for the breakout sessions:
•SPEECHLESS - SILENCING THE CHRISTIANS
•THUGOCRACY - FIGHTING THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY
•DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD
•ACTIVISM AND CONSERVATISM: FIT TO A TEA (PARTY)
•THE THREAT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
•OBAMACARE: RATIONING YOUR LIFE AWAY
•MARRIAGE: WHY IT'S WORTH DEFENDING AND HOW REDEFINING IT THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
•THE NEW MASCULINITY
•WAIT NO MORE: FINDING FAMILIES FOR WAITING KIDS
•TURNING THE TIDE IN YOUR GENERATION

So how do you suppose the summit went? Well, if the schedule was followed, everyone got together and congratulated themselves for being such upstanding, moral, Xian patriots and guardians of American culture. Then a bunch of conservative politicians reiterated the self-congratulation. At every opportunity, some Xian ceremony or religious lip-service was added just in case someone forgot that all Real Americans are evangelical Xians, then they talked about fixing the ruination of all that is good in the world that has occurred in the last 8 months. Before going home, they all did more Xian ceremonies to insure that god knows what he's supposed to be doing.

Judging by the synopses of the above topics, and knowing the track record of some of the speakers, these folks spent the weekend convincing each other that whatever they believe is the unalterable truth and the will of god, and anyone who disagrees, or any idea created by her/him, is the spawn of satan and must be completely crushed lest the world should come to a horrible end before the next teabag meeting.

In short, these folks get together, reinforce their self-centered belief that they're the ideal examples of the true American Xian and then proceed to demonstrate that anything good or moral in the bible is beyond their knowledge. They vilify and demonize those outside their group with bigotry, distortions, and bold faced lies. They demand their civil rights, which they interpret as the right to impose their views on everyone else any time they want and the right to suppress or destroy even the most benign opposition. They then discuss their methods of achieving their goals including what amounts to destroying the constitution and overthrowing the legitimately elected government. These are our great Xian patriots.

The most repugnant thing about this summit is the way conservative politicians cater to these people and even aid and abet their delusional agenda. The world will always have crackpots that live in a fantasy world, but there is no good reason to encourage belief in a 6000 year old world, the world ending in the next few years, CO2 not effecting the atmosphere, the president being the antichrist (from a foreign country) or any other anti-reality, anti-American nonsense. It's time for people to step forward and point out that delusional, treasonous behavior is not acceptable in our government representatives. We don't tolerate victims of alien abduction, Atlantians, or reincarnations of Jesus in office, so supporters of the Flintstones as history, or Satan in the oval office should be treated the same.

Doing the Homework

I've been thinking back on a lot of the conversations, or maybe they're arguments, I've had with creationists and one thing stands out. I've read their bible and I've read some of the books written by Xian apologists, but it is clear that most, maybe all, of the creationists with whom I've conversed have never read anything that actually explains evolution, not even a Wikipedia article.

They all think they know what they're arguing against, but I seem to spend a lot of time explaining that the ideas they oppose are not really part of evolutionary theory and the ones who think they are most knowledgeable on the subject have only read the books that argue against evolution so they're just more adamant about their misconceptions. Basically, they are like someone who thinks he's an expert on a book because he's read a few reviews.

I was going to say something about how I wouldn't base my opinions on a critique of an idea without researching the actual idea, but that may be a big part of why I argue in support of evolution, and education in general, and they don't.

What I plan to do, and suggest others who support reality based concepts may also want to try, is start insisting that before a person can argue evolution, they must read at least one real book on the subject. If it's someone I trust I'll even loan them a book by Dawkins, Gould or the like. I also think I'll recommend, especially to those who have read some the apologist junk, that they read On the Origin of the Species just so they can see how often it is misrepresented. Everything by Darwin is available on line, so they have no excuse for not reading it unless they're Amish.

I don't know how well this strategy will work; maybe some people will end up reading some real science or maybe I'll just stifle communication, but it seems to me that we need to be more insistent that those who oppose evolution demonstrate that they've at least done a little homework on the subject they argue against. What do you think?

Supporters of Palin Unite, If You Can Read the Map

I had a real WTF moment yesterday when I noticed an article that said, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll, 43% of Americans were at least somewhat likely to vote for Sarah Palin for President in 2012 and of that group 19% were very likely to vote for her. I thought it must be some kind of a joke; 19% of American voters couldn't possibly be that stupid. On reflection though, I realized that I shouldn't be surprised at all.



First, Palin is opposed to abortions and I've said before that pro-lifers would vote for Satan if he ran on a pro-life platform. Too many voters have only that one criterion for choosing a candidate, and all other information is either ignored or deemed irrelevant.



Second, she's a fundamentalist xian and fundies think only other fundies should be in office because a fundy would never lie, cheat, steal, fornicate or any of the other sinful things that fundy politicians keep getting caught doing in office. Furthermore Palin would understand that the founding fathers wanted everyone in the US to be xian and have xian teachings and ceremonies in all public venues.



Third, she's a young earth creationist and therefore knows that transitional fossils and Charles Darwin are mentioned nowhere in the bible. Furthermore she knows that all the millions of fossils and libraries full of scientific studies in universities and museums all over the world only represent a vague opinion that is part of a secular plot to undermine xianity. Besides, church ministers with bachelors' of theology degrees from xian colleges are far better educated in earth science than the intellectual elite with their hoity-toity PHd's in biology, geology, archaeology, astronomy, physics, chemistry and their ilk.



Fourth, she's not part of the intellectual elite that think they're so much smarter and better educated than the real Americans who made it all the way through high school and know that if that college stuff were really important there would be reality shows about it on TV. Palin is one of the people, and folks would feel like they could drink a beer with her. She understands that the most important requisite to the US Presidency is being down to earth. People will say of her, "She's just like me. I don't know if Africa is a country or a continent either and I don't think that information is important for someone involved in international politics."



Fifth, she supports the real Americans that are forgotten by most presidential candidates; the ones who scream racial epithets and death threats against the current president at her rallies, the ones who advocate secession from the US, the militant xian radicals who want to impose xianity on all Americans by force of arms, and all the other people who think that anyone who disagrees with their views is not a real American and should be driven out of the country or otherwise disposed of so that only real American ignorance, bigotry, xenophobia, hatred and violence can be found from sea to shining sea.