taken from blogagainsttheocracy.blogspot.com
On Wednesday April 4th, Anderson Cooper hosted a discussion between Robert Boston of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council. The discussion was on what should be taught in our science classes. Yoest argued for the inclusion of intelligent design and other religiously motivated ideas, Boston argued against.
Before I go any further I’ll let you know my position. Intelligent Design and Creationism have no place in the classroom. They are religious beliefs and if the religious want to believe them, they’re welcome to do so, outside of the science class. There is no real controversy about this either. There is no scientific basis to support this either Intelligent Design or Creationism. Those who would argue otherwise are doing so because of religious bias.
Now to the discussion and how Robert Boston became my hero, here is the discussion in its entirety (any bolding is my emphasis):
COOPER: Well, the battle over what children should be taught in school has been raging for nearly a century now. The question is, is there room for compromise?
Joining us to talk about it is Robert Boston of the Americans United For Separation of Church and State, and Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council.
Appreciate both of you being with us.
Robert, let me start with you.
Polls show that nearly half the American believes that people didn’t evolve from lower life-forms, but were created, in our present form, by God. If so many people think that, shouldn’t we at least be discussing it in a science class?
ROBERT BOSTON, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Well, I think we need to look really not at what polls show, but what the scientific evidence shows.
We wouldn’t want to teach something in the public schools that was factually incorrect, simply because some people believed it was so. So, we really have to look at the science. If you look at the scientific community, you don’t see this great disparity in polls. You see most of the scientists backing the theory of evolution.
Kevin: Thank you, thank you, thank you! The opinion of those without a shred of scientific knowledge is not the least bit relevant to what should be taught in science class.
COOPER: Charmaine, what about that? Why should a science class be forced to — to teach something which mainstream science says is simply not true?
CHARMAINE YOEST, VICE PRESIDENT FOR COMMUNICATIONS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, you know, mainstream science, throughout history, has been challenged by questions. And that’s how we make advances in science, is being open to all different perspectives.
And that’s all that we’re calling for, is saying that, you know, have we gotten to a place in our culture where science has such an orthodoxy around Darwinian theory that we can’t even question it, that we can’t even look at some of the gaps in the theory, and ask, how can we do better and how can answer some of these questions?
That’s all we’re asking for, is an openness of dialogue and looking at all of the research.
COOPER: Robert, President Bush has suggested that this theory of intelligent design should be taught in public school classrooms. The idea is that kids should be able to make up their own minds; they should get different points of view.
Robert, what is wrong with that?
BOSTON: I disagree.
I think that there is a mechanism in science that allows for these views to be aired through peer-review journals. And the intelligent-design advocates…
YOEST: Well, sure.
BOSTON: … have not been able to public any research that indicates…
YOEST: That’s just not true.
BOSTON: … their point of view.
Kevin: Bingo!
Let me finish, Charmaine.
And one of the important things we need to remember, too, is that some of the ideas that groups would like to bring into our schools have been completely discredited, for example, the idea that the Earth is 10,000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Scientifically, that’s untenable.
Yet, that is what the creationists believe. And that is what, ultimately, I think they would like to bring into our classrooms.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Charmaine, I mean, do you — do you believe that dinosaurs walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? And, if so, is that the — the basis of your argument?
YOEST: What we are looking at here is saying, there are legitimate scientific questions on the table. And it is not true that — that there is a complete cohesiveness among scientists.
So, we’re really, really seeing an amazing censorship of anything that questions Darwinism. And you see this kind of thing where, immediately, the minute you question Darwinism, people like Rob come up and say, oh, no, you’re going to talk about God.
Well, you know, I think our children have more robust intelligence and — and questioning to be able to cope with looking at all the different theories that are out there. I think it’s — I just have to ask, what is he so scared of?
COOPER: Robert, do you believe this is really about — a debate about science, or is it a debate about religion?
BOSTON: Of course it’s about religion.
And notice how she did not answer your question about the age of the Earth and dinosaurs and humans coexisting. I would guess that, if you took a survey of the members of the Family Research Council, you would find, overwhelmingly, they believe that the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old, that dinosaurs died because they were too big to fit on Noah’s Ark, or that they existed alongside human beings, other pseudoscientific ideas that has been debunked time and time again.
Kevin: The part above, and the rest of this interview, is beautiful. Yoest refuses to answer the question. Why? Does she really believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old? Did Jesus ride a donkey or a T-Rex into Jerusalem?
YOEST: Hey — hey, Rob…
BOSTON: Why would we want to bring this into the classroom, when there’s absolutely no scientific evidence?
(CROSSTALK)
BOSTON: Charmaine, answer the question, yes or no. Age of the Earth?
(CROSSTALK)
YOEST: You are trying to confuse the issue of conflating…
BOSTON: Age of the Earth, answer the question.
(CROSSTALK)
YOEST: I am trying to answer the question.
BOSTON: How old is it?
YOEST: I’m trying to answer the question.
BOSTON: How old is it, Charmaine?
(CROSSTALK)
YOEST: I can’t get a word in — that you’re trying to conflate creationism with intelligent design.
BOSTON: That’s because you want…
YOEST: I’m saying that you should look at…
BOSTON: … you want creationism in the classroom. Answer the question.
YOEST: I didn’t say — I didn’t say that.
BOSTON: Ten thousand years or six billion?
YOEST: The only thing I have talked about is intelligent design.
BOSTON: Why are you afraid to answer the question?
YOEST: Why are you afraid of the fact that 90 percent of the American people do believe in God?
BOSTON: I know exactly what you want to do. You want to teach your book of Genesis as if it’s some kind of literal, scientific truth, instead of maybe possibly metaphor or lots of other history. You want to bring it into science. It’s not going to fly.
COOPER: Do you want your children — Charmaine, do you want your children to be exposed to a belief which the scientific community has disproven? I’m not saying that they have disproven all of this. But, in certain cases, I mean, some things clearly…
YOEST: Sure.
COOPER: … have been disproven.
YOEST: Sure.
COOPER: Things which have been clearly scientifically disproven, do you still want them taught?
YOEST: Well, absolutely. That would — that would come in, in a history of science, in a philosophy of science.
That’s why I’m saying, there’s different kinds of classes. So, we’re talking about kind of a broad array of things. Your kids need to know what opinions are out there and — and — and see what the evidence is, consider the evidence.
Kevin: Translation, kids need to be taught stupid wrong stuff because some people believe it’s true. For instance, I believe that 1 + 1 = 11 based on my controversial theory of conservation of numbers. We have two 1’s on one side of the equation therefore we must have two 1’s on the other side. Up until now the math orthodoxy has suppressed my theories and refused to teach them in schools.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: So, for other subjects in a science class that people disagree on, but that have been disproven, the kids should be taught those as well?
YOEST: Sure.
COOPER: They should — they should — they should know that there are other people who disagree on… YOEST: Absolutely.
COOPER: … just about every scientific issue?
YOEST: I’m not afraid of my kids knowing about any controversy that is out there, as long as you put the evidence on the table and consider what — what the debate is. That’s what education is all about, is having a vigorous debate.
COOPER: Charmaine Yoest, appreciate it, and Robert Boston as well.
BOSTON: Thank you.
COOPER: Fascinating discussion.
Kevin: I’m frightened that my scientifically enlightened children will someday have to go to Yoest’s scientifically retarded children for government funding or something.
Hat Tip to Pharyngula
My Thinking Corner 
Beautiful. Simply beautiful. Robert Boston must be some kind of incarnate god.
“Did Jesus ride a donkey or a T-Rex into Jerusalem? Yes or no: age of the Earth? Answer the question. How old is it? How old is it, Charmaine? Answer the question! Ten thousand years or six billion! WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?!”
The unfortunate reality would be that so many Americans actually believe the earth is just under ten thousand years old. Reality be damned!
By: Rae on April 7, 2007
at 2:03 pm
Actually the jesus rinding the t-rex comment was mine, I f’ed up the block quotes (now fixed). The thing is I’m not so concerned with rampant ignorance in this country, the vast majority of Americans cant make heads or tails of Calculous either. The difference is no one has tried to introduce bible based math into our schools (yet?).
By: Kevin on April 7, 2007
at 6:39 pm
[…] the Culture WarsJamonation (Canada)GoDrexDizzy Dezzi (at Katrinacrat)Prose and ThornChris TessoneKevin RobinsonOnline Journal (.pdf)UraniaLa SirenaNo Blood for HubrisphilaletheiaScience NotesThe One with […]
By: Stump Lane | Clever, Hilarious, Informative » Blog Against Theocracy: Jefferson’s Wall on April 16, 2007
at 9:27 am
[…] Read this post on Kevin Robinson’s blog […]
By: On the Crest of the Wave on April 21, 2007
at 5:19 pm
Kevin, I can see that you approached this subject with a clearly open mind, at least as open as Robert Boston’s anyway. If there is ‘absolutely no evidence’ as Robbo’ puts it, then that is with regard to evolution. Evolution is a fairy story based on the premise that given huge amounts of time, chance random mutations and selection, that somehow the frog becomes the prince. The fossil record is a graveyard not just for animals but evolution as well. Where are all those missing links we have longed for? Why do fossils occur in the wrong layers [too early we call them stratigraphic leaks; too late, ‘reworked specimens’]? Polystratic fossils. Radio-isotope halo’s within solid rock. As for mutation, name one that has ever been beneficial to man? I could go on..
Creation is the only science that makes sense and if so, then the creator needs to be acknowledged and perhaps that is where you and Robbo’ stumble. You and Robbo’ have faith in evolution, and, just like his arguments above, a faith that is all rhetoric and no substance.
By: Steve on May 9, 2007
at 8:35 am
Steve, the frog doesn’t become the price, the frog and the price both have a common ancestor. That is evolution. As for missing links, we’re learning more about our past everyday. This is because science at it’s best recognizes that we DON’T have all the answers and must continually adjust our view of the world to the facts as they are unearthed.
This is something that creationists like yourself don’t seem to grasp. It’s not enough to say “Hah! This cherrie picked data point doesn’t exactly fit your theory, therefore your entire framework is wrong and mine is right!” The passage of millions of years has rendered some of the evidence difficult to interpret. However, the overwhelming weight of evidence points to an old earth and an evolutionary process that spanned billions of years. Until, you can come forward with comprable evidence, there is simply no way to take your “science” seriously.
Now if you want to believe that the hand of the allmighty was nudging things here and there in order to get a desired end results from that evolutionary process, then be my guest. But that’s not an expression of science, it’s an expression of faith. To pretend otherwise cheapens both. If you want to believe that the Earth is only 6 – 10,000 years old, then I’m sorry to say that I have no respect for your views and would never allow them to be presented to my children as scientific “fact”.
By: Kevin on May 9, 2007
at 9:12 am
Hi Kevin
Why would God use evolution: after all it is such an ugly means of creating life. The ingredients are death, sickness, suffering, survival of the fittest. When God finished each day creating he described it as good. When he got to man he described it as very good. Whether God took 6 minutes, 6 days or 6 billion years is entirely up to him. The fact is that the one and only eye witness to this event states that it took him 6 days and the only reason was as an example to us. To work 6 days and on the 7th rest.
You state that science still has much to learn. That all the evidence isn’t there yet. So why do you discount the creationist viewpoint that it took 6 days. You can’t prove that it didn’t as you don’t have all the facts yet.
What is this ‘overwhelming weight of evidence’? Again your argument lacks substance, it is still rhetoric. If we have a common ancestor where is the evidence? A true science would have found the evidence and then come up with the theory. With evolution, the theory was promoted before any evidence was found. The ‘missing links’ in the fossil record are still missing. This is a fact. Why not challenge me with some facts? You know, real science. Respect the facts, not the view.
By: Steve on May 16, 2007
at 10:36 am
Steve,
God doesn’t seem to have a problem with death, sickness, suffering and the survival of the fittest in the course of everyday life. So I would hope it would be in the service of some higher goal. Otherwise it’s just arbitrary and cruel.
As for the lack of evidence, I call BS. There is a ton of evidence for anyone willing to look for it. Are you? If I included links and pointed out good reference material, would you follow up?
Until I get your answer, I don’t want to hear any more “missing links” crap. Not only is there an extensive fossil record on human evolution that is being added to on a daily basis. There is a tremendous amount of research available on the mechanisms that make evolution possible. Again, I’ll show you links and recommended reading, because I believe the best thing to wish upon an opponent is enlightenment. But I won’t waste my efforts if you’re not going to do a little work yourself.
While we’re on the topic, what evidence do you have for creationism that doesn’t involve what you read in the bible? Is there anything, anything at all, that would corroborate the biblical account of creation? Because to the best of my knowledge there are no facts that support your believes, there is no science behind creationism. However, if you can point to something specific (i.e. an actual study, don’t send me a link to the Discovery Institutes web site) that you feel is compelling, by all means send me a link. I’ll read it.
By: Kevin on May 16, 2007
at 1:16 pm
Hi Kevin,
I was hoping that in that ton of evidence you could just challenge me with one fact but if you want to direct me to a study or web link I’ll be happy to rise to the challenge.
The only reason I mention the ‘missing links’ is because if you were to seriously consider examining evolution then clearly you would expect to find evidence in the fossil record. The fact that there is none should cause concern. And indeed it has, hence theories like punctuated equilibrium, a theory not born of evidence or observation but a desperate attempt to explain this lack.
But you are right, there is plenty of other evidence out there. It’s funny that you should mention the evidence for human evolution because the field of paleoanthropology is regarded by many scientists as no science at all. Grandiose claims are made on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence. The history of human evolution is one riddled with error [Nebraska Man] and, in the case of the Piltdown Man, deceit [a fraud that survived scientific scrutiny for over 40 years by the way]. The most famous find of recent times, ‘Lucy’, was a partial skeleton of a creature around 3 feet in height, with features indicating that it was clearly a tree dwelling, ape-like creature that did not walk upright.
I don’t mind doing the work as you put it but as you are so sure that evolution is true, then you should be able to challenge me yourself. Why not let’s try chucking just one or two facts at each other at a time?
Just to finish, I believe God does have a problem with death, sickness, disease etc in everyday life, and it concerned him so much that he was willing to be the solution. And he is still the solution today.
I hope that we pursue this debate at least for a while, after all, one of us is living a lie. We can’t both be right.
By: Steve on May 17, 2007
at 6:27 pm
Steve, I’ll put together something a little more thorough in a bit. In the meantime I would like to call attention to your mischaracterization of Punctuated Equilibrium. That is the theory that evolution happens in jumps and starts rather than as a gradual progression. It is one of many competing ideas surrounding the relative speed of evolutionary change. It wasn’t proposed to explain the lack of data but rather to explain the pattern within the data which didn’t strictly conform to a gradualist view of evolution.
In English, the theory attempts to explain why evolutionary changes happen suddenly and dramatically in a geologic time scale. It is by no means universally accepted and one of the criticisms is that something which happens “suddenly” in a geological time scale can still take hundreds of thousands of years.
By: Kevin on May 21, 2007
at 11:53 am
OK, I’m back. Let’s start with Lucy, our 3.2 million year old friend. I’m curious where you find that she doesn’t exhibit the characteristics of walking upright. The construction of her hips and knee are consistent with walking upright. So we’ll call that fact one: The available fossil evidence suggests that an ancestor of humans lived 3 – 4 million years ago and walked upright. Here’s a link to some data on Australopithecus afarensis. Please note, in addition to Lucy, scientists have discovered remains of over 300 individuals.
Second Fact: There is no “missing link”. The search for the missing link was something which occupied scientists in the early 1900’s back when the study of human evolution was in its infancy. Then the idea was that there would be one “transitional fossil” between apes and humans. What we now know, is that the fossil record indicates a steady progression towards modern humans (and one would hope, eventually beyond). In that sense, all species are “transitional” including modern humans.
The fossil record is extensive, especially for our more recent hominids such as Homo Erectus. Science is still working to complete the picture but the general trend is clear. Early humans evolved to walk upright. At the same time, their brains expanded. This process continued to the rise of modern man and our subsequent colonization of the world.
Lastly: The two hoaxes which you point out, “Piltdown Man” and “Nebraska Man” were exposed through the scientific process. Far from calling into question the work of science, these examples illustrate its strength. Misconceptions, errors, lack of information and outright fraud can and have lead to these mistakes. The rigorous review, called for by the scientific method, ensures that mistakes are exposed and discredited. People believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth for thousands of years before that was proven false. That doesn’t discredit the continued study of Astronomy.
So what of your facts? What can you point to that would promote your worldview outside of the bible? Can we verify them through study and analysis or not?
Added links didn’t imbed above for some reason
Smithsonian on Australopithecus afarensis http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/afar.html
wikipedia on Lucy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29
By: Kevin on May 21, 2007
at 1:42 pm
Hi Kevin,
That’s quite a bit to digest in one go but let’s start with your first statement about punctuated equilibrium. The longstanding charge against evolution is that it is founded on circular reasoning, evolution proves evolution. This is a classic example. Again we are talking about real science. Here we have the opposite but a clear example of what I’m on about. Having looked for evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record, paleoanthroplogists have come up empty handed. No one has seen punctuated equilibrium, it isn’t something that can be measured or replicated in the lab, there is no known mechanism as to how it occurs except in the usual fairytale evolutionary way, ‘given enough time, chance…’ etc. Out of silence comes the answer, out of the assumption that evolution is true, that there must be a solution, comes punctuated equilibrium.
By: Steve on May 23, 2007
at 12:40 pm
Hi Kevin,
That’s quite a bit to digest in one go but let’s start with your first statement about punctuated equilibrium. The longstanding charge against evolution is that it is founded on circular reasoning, ‘evolution proves evolution’. This is a classic example. Again we are talking about real science. Here we have the opposite, but a clear example of what I’m on about. Having looked for evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record, paleoanthroplogists have come up empty handed. No one has seen punctuated equilibrium, it isn’t something that can be measured or replicated in the lab, there is no known mechanism as to how it occurs except in the usual fairytale evolutionary way, ‘given enough time, chance…’ etc. Out of silence comes the answer, out of the assumption that evolution is true, that there must be a solution, comes punctuated equilibrium.
We’ll get to Lucy in a moment. The fact that there are no missing links because they are all around us, we are the missing links in action so to speak, is yet another example of this circular reasoning. Once again we are told there is no evidence because we wouldn’t expect to find any. So how do we know we evolved then? Because evolution proves evolution.
As a side issue, the dating of rock layers [no, not done by radiometric dating] is performed using index fossils. As an example, we have an index fossil we’ll call ‘fossil x’, which is found only in the Jurassic layer. Fossil x is 65 million years old. How do we know? Because it is found in the Jurassic layer. So how do we know that the Jurassic layer is 65 million years old, because we find ‘fossil x’ in it. Do you feel another circle coming on?
Lucy [2 million years old..oh, no, it’s 3.2 now isn’t it!]; someone desperate to find the missing links that you say are not important, goes off to Africa and low and behold finds one. What is Lucy? For a starter only 40% of the skeleton was found; she has an undisputed ape skull, with a less than average cranial capacity even for an ape. The teeth however were ‘small’, like humans [and some apes] and had ‘thick enamel’ like humans [yes you’ve guessed it, like some apes, orangutans] and that’s why they got excited. There were no fingers or feet found but you’ll often see her reconstructed with delicate straight human like fingers. Other examples of Austr. afaren. have the typically curved fingers of tree dwelling monkeys. Her shoulder again is typical of a tree dwelling monkey, the glenoid fossa in humans (where your arm connects to the scapula [shoulder blade]) is lateral/outward facing. It’s why we struggle to hang from our arms. Monkeys that live in trees have a tilted glenoid fossa, it points upward. She had a great time hanging from trees. The poor girl, famous as she is, was only about 3 foot high. Human ancestor? Don’t think so.
The point with Piltdown Man was that it was announced in 1912 and not denounced as a fraud until 1953. Rigorous? As a Brit it particularly tickles me that the femur was actually shaped to look like a cricket bat. Science does make mistakes but it is symptomatic of this data poor, imagination rich field, that there is such a desperation to prove evolution true. And it only took 41 years for them to find out. Nebraska man was used as evidence of human evolution in the famous Scopes Trial. No good saying some years later that we got it wrong, your honour. The case was closed.
I’ll try n look at these links later but it’s the missus birthday and the in-laws have just arrived.
God bless.
By: Steve on May 23, 2007
at 4:04 pm
ps sorry about the first submit [12], didn’t realize you did it using the tab button.
By: Steve on May 23, 2007
at 4:06 pm
Steve,
I’m not the best person to provide a spirited defense of punctuated equilibrium. My knowledge of the theory is superficial at best. So I’ll focus on your other points.
I’m still confused by what you call the lack of “transitional” fossils. Take another look at the Smithsonian website, it contains information not only on Lucy but on a range of Hominids leading up to modern humans. It seems to me that there is indeed a transition towards modern humans.
You dismiss Lucy as one step in that transition because she exhibits ape-like characteristics (small brain, arms for tree climbing, etc.). Yet you ignore the human like traits she also has (hips and legs capable of walking upright). The excitement that find generated has everything to do with the fact that she’s an excellent example of a transitional form. She exhibits both Ape-like and modern-human-like characteristics.
As an aside, I’ve never heard her described as only 2M years old, the original estimate from 1973 was 3 – 3.9 M years old. That estimate has since been refined to the commonly accepted 3.2 MYO. That number has been arrived at using radiometric dating and confirmed via a number of other dating techniques.
On the topic of dating, your dismissal of it as a circular is grossly inaccurate. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html) This website discusses that misconception, excerpt below.
“When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one’s understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.”
As for Piltdown Man, scientists suspected he was a fake long before they could prove it. However, it’s not enough to say “This doesn’t feel right!” In order to fully debunk something, you must prove it. Part of that proof is offering a plausible alternate explanation. So far you’ve given me a whole lot of “This doesn’t feel right” and a lot of hand waving. Hoaxes and errors, long since corrected, aren’t enough to throw out all of the good work that science has done in this field.
At the beginning of this discussion, you referred to the “faith” in evolution. Yet you’ve pointed to 2 examples where scientists have examined their theories, found them to be in error and corrected them. You also referred to creation as a science yet failed to offer any evidence, any theories that can be verified (or not) or any solid research.
On a personal note, hope your wife had a happy birthday. Late May is clearly an auspicious time for birthdays as mine was yesterday.
Here’s another article on radiometric dating
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
By: Kevin on May 25, 2007
at 2:28 pm
I love the fact that my reply got sent to the spam comment bucket (I just rescued it). If nothing else Steve, I think WordPress agrees with you.
By: Kevin on May 25, 2007
at 2:31 pm
Wouldn’t it be infinitely more effective, instead of trying (in vain) to find flaws in natural selection theory, to propose some alternate hypothesis which fits the evidence just as well? 🙄
By: Rae on May 26, 2007
at 4:08 pm
Hi Kevin
Sorry, been out of action for a while. You’ve given me a bit of work to do so I’ll get on with it but I didn’t want you to think that I’d disappeared altogether in the meantime. Belated happy birthday by the way, we had a nice time,hope you did too.
Steve.
By: Steve on June 7, 2007
at 6:05 pm
no worries Steve, looking forward to your response.
By: Kevin on June 7, 2007
at 7:29 pm
Hi Kev,
Hope you are still ‘out there’; caught up with family health issues that now seem resolved.
The problem I have with the transitional fossil issue is that the evidence is at best debatable. There are no real convincing transitional fossils. The real problem with them is the underlying problem with evolution.
It is a prior belief in evolution that determines the evidence outcome. Lucy is a classic example. You say that this creature is convincing evidence of a transitional form from ape to man. Yet what is it? A 40% partially complete skeleton of a 3 foot high creature exhibiting features shared by other ape creatures. Most are not able to walk upright but some do, those with arboreal habitats where the ability to walk upright is useful when walking on branches high in the trees.
The hip and scapular arrangements are typical for arboreal monkey/ape creatures. The feet and hands were not recovered altho’ this did not stop museums having artists drawing fine, delicate human-like features.
The fact that this creature walked upright is not a proof. Some monkeys do that already.
The skeleton is incomplete. Few of these hominid finds have ever truly been examined other than by those who found them, as these specimens are kept in very secure situations and the best someone in the paleo-anthropological field can hope for is to work with a cast/copy or to work from papers written by other people in their field.
Piltdown man. Your response would suggest that you would make a great politician. The teeth were filed down! The femur was said to have been shaped like a cricket bat. A leading British paleo-anthropologist spent his life promoting this specimen and found out that it was a fake shortly before he died 40 years later. There were some who opposed it from it’s initial discovery but it was used to promote the theory of evolution for 40 years. One reason it remained undetected was for the reason I have given above. Few were allowed to examine it and only copies, where the filing would not have been evident, were generally the only things made available. Just like the modern specimens please note.
Even your reply to radiometric dating deficiencies should ring alarm bells. ‘Refining’ the process. If the date is ‘wrong’ how do you know unless you already have determined the date of the rock you are examining. It is still the case that most fossil finds are dated independent of the actual sedimentary layer they are found in and are usually dated using index fossils. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated using these methods as you know.
To say that inconsistencies in dating are small is misleading at best. Sertsey Island was formed by volcanic activity in the 50/60s. Dating of rocks which were of known age ranged from the low millions to hundreds of millions of years of age. If the dating method fits, it’s used; if it doesn’t it’s put down to contamination etc.
This is a massive subject and we could both go on all day probably. The Bible to does provide a credible framework for explaining many earth processes that stump evolutionists. Worldwide sedimentary deposits on a massive scale in the past, not seen today. Fossilisation on a scale no longer seen; of soft parts, even fossils of ripple marks, animal footprints; fossil graveyards sometimes on stupendous scales [millions of fossil herring on your continent as one example]. Even the ice age which followed Noah’s flood is more readily explained; post-flood waters were warm [‘fountains of the deep’], volcanic activity would have contributed to global cooling [ash high in stratosphere] but the warm waters to increased precipitation, snow and glaciation in northerly latitudes and even in some high sub-tropical areas; it’s end explained by the eventual cooling of the oceans, the decreased volcanic activity leading to warming of the land masses.
Global cooling does not cause an ice age, you need increased precipitation too which doesn’t happen in very cold air. I’ve rambled on but it is such a big subject isn’t it!
Hope you are well; I’m on annual leave at the moment but I’m responsible for cooking tonights meal so I’d better get on and do it.
God bless, Steve.
By: Steve on September 4, 2008
at 11:35 am
Welcome back Steve, I’m still here although I don’t spend as much time on this blog as I did in the past. Too much else going on. Glad to hear your family health issues are resolved.
I’ll give a more detailed answer later but I wanted to address this right away because it’s not the first time I’ve seen it. Your quote:
“Sertsey Island was formed by volcanic activity in the 50/60s. Dating of rocks which were of known age ranged from the low millions to hundreds of millions of years of age.” is false.
No radiometric dating has been performed at Surtsey. I did a quick google search and found this from from answers in Genesis (of all places):
“I do not think that any radiometric dating has been carried out, but judging from such measurements made on other recent lava flows, an apparent age of hundreds of millions of years might easily be obtained.”
Leaving aside the author’s complete ignorance, this is someone from your side of the debate admiting that no radiometric dating took place at Surtsey. The reason why, because scientists aren’t idiots. You don’t need special techniques to date rocks when you watch them form on TV.
By: Kevin on September 4, 2008
at 2:44 pm
Steve, just came back to address the rest of your comment and thought I’d point out that you clearly have not reviewed the extensive evidence available on human evolution. Lucy was one skeleton, there were many other’s like her discovered. They all dated to the same time period.
Paleontologists don’t decide on a whim how these creatures will look when they create graphical representations. They have the skeletons. The skeletons indicate where muscles/tendons attach. The configuration of bones and muscles indicate how an animal might walk/stand/run/etc. It may not be 100% perfect but to imply that it’s arbitrary is flat wrong and, frankly, ignorant.
One the availability of these bones for research, they’re millions of years old and rare. Lending them out to every Tom, Dick and Harry with some quack philosophy and bogus science is probably a bad preservation strategy.
As for Piltdown Man, science was able to let go of that one a long time ago, maybe it’s time you did the same. It’s sad that one paleo-anthropologist spent so many years pimping it. His wasted life’s work, however, is not enough to render the scientific method, or its fruits, meaningless.
By: Kevin on September 15, 2008
at 1:38 pm