Project Steve and Its Detractors
A few days ago, I blogged about Project Steve. Predictably, I ruffled some pro-creationist feathers, particularly those of M. Mitchell who commented.
So M., I'm sorry if I've offended you but this is not a "petty squabble". The reason for Project Steve is to show that a larger and much more prestigious group of scientists can be compiled that discount rather than support creationism--even while limiting themselves to those named Steve. It's a whimsical idea but as a rhetorical tool, it also sheds light on exactly what's happening here.
Creationists compile lists of scientists to cause the illusion that there is scientific merit to their positions when in fact, the opposite is true. One of the most important features of a scientific theory is that it has to be testable, i.e. it has to lead to conclusions that can be disproven. Creationism does not meet that standard as attributing the known world to God (or some other "intelligent" designer) can NEVER be tested nor proven wrong.
People have looked at the fossil record and carbon dating evidence for evolution and simply said 'God created that these findings thus giving the "illusion" that evolution is a viable conclusion.' How can a scientist possibly respond to this? Such an idea is impervious to refutation.
For this reason, the vast majority of scientists refuse to endorse creationism as science. I have no problem with including such theories in classes on religion...just not in science class.
Even one like myself who unashamedly believes in God can recognize the difference. This is no petty squabble.
So M., I'm sorry if I've offended you but this is not a "petty squabble". The reason for Project Steve is to show that a larger and much more prestigious group of scientists can be compiled that discount rather than support creationism--even while limiting themselves to those named Steve. It's a whimsical idea but as a rhetorical tool, it also sheds light on exactly what's happening here.
Creationists compile lists of scientists to cause the illusion that there is scientific merit to their positions when in fact, the opposite is true. One of the most important features of a scientific theory is that it has to be testable, i.e. it has to lead to conclusions that can be disproven. Creationism does not meet that standard as attributing the known world to God (or some other "intelligent" designer) can NEVER be tested nor proven wrong.
People have looked at the fossil record and carbon dating evidence for evolution and simply said 'God created that these findings thus giving the "illusion" that evolution is a viable conclusion.' How can a scientist possibly respond to this? Such an idea is impervious to refutation.
For this reason, the vast majority of scientists refuse to endorse creationism as science. I have no problem with including such theories in classes on religion...just not in science class.
Even one like myself who unashamedly believes in God can recognize the difference. This is no petty squabble.
Labels: Humor, Junk Science, Project Steve
posted by The Medicine Man at 2:08 PM
1 Comments:
"So M., I'm sorry if I've offended you but this is not a "petty squabble"."
No offense taken. I don't spend my time making lists of people who agree with me and posting them on the web so others can see how stupid my detractors are and how much sense my beliefs make.
"The reason for Project Steve is to show that a larger and much more prestigious group of scientists can be compiled that discount rather than support creationism--even while limiting themselves to those named Steve."
Still sounds like you're saying that, assuming your statistics are true, and assuming all signers of "the list" are truthful in giving their credentials (this is the internet, after all) this somehow proves conclusively that evolutionists are the only "real" scientists and the rest are basically nincompoops. In other words, evolution is good and all others are bad because your list is longer than the other guys. Wow. How scientific can you get?
"It's a whimsical idea but as a rhetorical tool, it also sheds light on exactly what's happening here."
So, pardon my dullness, but exactly what did it shed light on? The fact that creationists apparently compile lists of scientists who believe in creationism? The fact that you can do the same thing - - only yours is longer and allegedly more prestigious? Sorry, I'm not impressed. Compile a longer list of chicken recipes than Martha Stewart. Now THAT would impress me. ;)
"Creationists compile lists of scientists to cause the illusion that there is scientific merit to their positions when in fact, the opposite is true."
So, you have asked these unnamed creationists the reson they allegedly compose these lists and they told you? So, evolutionists are more credible because there are more of them - not because they can actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt anything that happened millions or billions of years ago.
IOW, Steve x 1.6% = 54,000 = longer list and more credibility. Got it.
"One of the most important features of a scientific theory is that it has to be testable, i.e. it has to lead to conclusions that can be disproven."
Aren't there ever challenges to and within evolution circles? Aren't there disagreements even between evolutionists on how things may have occurred, or don't they question and test each other's theories?
For example, the USA Today article entitled "Fossils unearth big debate" By Dan Vergano. "If bones don't lie, why do fossil researchers argue about everything?
Serious disagreements regularly accompany fossil discoveries, from disputes over the relation of Neanderthals to modern people to whether dinosaurs had started disappearing before they ultimately vanished 65 million years ago."
"Creationism does not meet that standard as attributing the known world to God (or some other "intelligent" designer) can NEVER be tested nor proven wrong."
Neither can evolution. You can't scientifically prove evolution or creation or intelligent design or any other theory is wrong. There are no firsthand accounts of something evolving. There aren't even any firsthand accounts of anything being created. You can't dig up something that is thousands or millions or billions of years old and conclude with absolute certainty that "X-Y-Z happened, it has been tested and it now stands as truth for all eternity. No more testing or challenging is needed." Nonsense. Tests have limitations. The accuracy of carbon dating has been questioned.
"People have looked at the fossil record and carbon dating evidence for evolution and simply said 'God created that these findings thus giving the "illusion" that evolution is a viable conclusion.'"
Huh? So you are saying that some unnamed people (i.e. creation scientists) just look at the fossil record and don't attempt to test or interpret the evidence scientifically, but just say "Hey, God must be trying to trick us by making this evidence look like it's proving evolution! What a good joke! (unlike the Steve joke those zany evolutionists tried to play on us!)"
You are saying that not one but many people study incredibly hard for their science degree(s), desire their work to be taken seriously - like all scientists - and maybe even wish to be published in credible scientific journals, then will throw it all away on some unprovable unscientific theory? (Unlike evolution, of course.) For what reason?
Why would established scientists risk the ridicule of their colleagues by testing and examining the evidence for years, only to conclude creationism - or at least ID - is the best answer?
There have been creation/ID scientists in the past - Copernicus, Max Planck, Galileo, Blaise Pascal, Ben Franklin, Isaac Newton. Don't students hear about these men in science and history class, or do they just learn about their discoveries and not the rich history of their lives?
"This is no petty squabble."
In your opinion. In my opinion, compared with the previously-stated challenges facing our public school system, it is petty. But, to each his/her own.
M. Mitchell
Coniecturalem artem esse medicinam
Post a Comment
<< Home