I finally got a chance to listen to my segment on the Intersection show on radio station WMFE that was broadcast this morning. It’s archived at the show’s website here. I think it turned out great. We recorded about twice as much as what made it into the show but I think they still managed to capture all the important aspects of the interview. My sincere thanks to host Matthew Peddie for having me on. I promised him that the issue of evolution in Florida schools will come up again within a year or so, and when it does I’ll make myself available for another interview. This subject is the gift that just keeps on giving, ya know!
Social
Site Search
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Pierce R. Butler on What do Florida public school students learn about climate change?
- David Honig on New Florida Board of Education Chair: “I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.â€
- dhogaza on New Florida Board of Education Chair: “I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.â€
- dhogaza on New Florida Board of Education Chair: “I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.â€
- dhogaza on New Florida Board of Education Chair: “I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.â€
Blog Categories
Facebook Feed
I listened last night Brandon, nice job.
I heard the teaser this morning in the car. Can’t wait to hear the full segment later tonight.
The definition given about theory was very inaccurate.Scientific Theory is NOT greater than facts, it is supposition,it can be rejected or modified if it does not match empirical findings. This means modification or rejection of the theory is based on, verifiable discoveries, observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. The importance of this is that empirical evidence such as endangered species list allow us to clearly observe that we humans must use real science to be INVOLVED in doing what we can to stop extinction. Because none of these animals have been observed adapting to the environment of our pollution. Because as a realist,we only have evidence of extinction theories are imposed subjective ideas put in black boxes.Teach kids about black boxes and just admit when you don’t have all the information to make an accurate judgement.
Mibster
I think you are being a little hard on Brandon’s statement, remember he was speaking to a radio audience, who as we know, are not that scientifically literate. In some ways a theory is, greater than mere facts, a theory in science contains not only facts, but also laws, inferences and tested hypotheses. Facts (and also theories) are never final and what is accepted as a fact or theory today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. The rest of your post I really didn’t understand, sorry.
Nope, Mibster, my explanation was accurate. I heard Eugenie Scott speak on this subject a few times and I was actually just riffing off of her usual explanation of theory. See this video of her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1hxGj5bMg
Brandon, When are you going to realize that “Its just a theory” means exactly that ??? LOL
Brandon,
Great interview. But I would have to disagree with Scott and yourself on the idea that evolution’s theories are a way of knowing the natural world. I would agree that evolution is a way of explaining the natural world. And that explanation is only centered around the belief in accepted assumptions and corresponding facts.
A world view is far more than just a theory.
CHRIS “A world view is far more than just a theory” So can you explain that to us???
Ivorygirl,
I think you’ll find that people tend to conform their factual beliefs to ones that are consistent with their cultural outlook, or world view. As cultures change along with revelation or forced indoctrination views can also change. Marxism for instance (naturalism) adheres to the idea that God or a supreme being cannot and must not exist, so the belief and the believers must be eliminated for the benefit of the truth. Along the same line Islam (theism) dictates all non believers must conform or be eliminated. World views have saved millions and world views have murdered millions.
A few popular world views, pantheism, polytheism, postmodernism and your naturalistic view all have the same disconnect with the recognition or existence of a knowledgeable, powerful creator which might give purpose to any of it. For one thing only theism, in my opinion, recognizes the complexity of life and the cosmos as a product produced by an intelligence far beyond our comprehension.
Regardless of validity, theories such as heliocentrism, spontaneous generation, flat earth, general and special relativity stand along with evolution by natural selection as theory. But in your view it’s not just a theory, it’s the truth. Naturalism is the view you project.
By comparison, I’m theistic, and find creationism as the best and only possible explanation. It’s the truth.
I find a six day creation by a knowledgeable creator far more palatable than an unguided assimilation of non existent matter into a complex living organism over any length of time.
Molecule to man evolution is more than just theory.
Here is an interesting article: “Belief in God rises with age, even in atheist nations”. Perhaps age, experience and gathered wisdom could result in the sorting out of fallacies proposed by other dogma. http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2012/04/18/belief-god-rises-age-even-atheist-nations
Chris: … heliocentrism, spontaneous generation, flat earth, general and special relativity stand along with evolution by natural selection as theory.
The latter two stand apart by virtue of multiple confirmed tests – along with the germ theory of disease, tectonic plate theory of continental movement, etc. From the anomalies of Mercury’s orbit to the minute corrections required for GPS functions, Einstein’s theories of relativity work well enough for us to call them true.
Creationism has no well-delineated mechanisms by which anyone can make and test predictions (unless you stretch and count the “mysterious ways” dodge). But unless you – or somebody smarter – can systematize it into a useful mental tool, creationism is not even a theory… never mind “true”.
By the way, did you know that “dogma” means “revelation”? Science performs without such things, and does better than religions do with myriads of them.
Oops – apologies to all for the close-tag html fail in my comment above!
Pierce,
My point with theory true and false was the same. But disproven theory might be like a firecracker exploding and then it’s gone. But that doesn’t mean it was never a firecracker.
I would disagree with you that creationism has no well well-delineated mechanism. Just because you don’t know the creator doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. For instance, a simple example might be the blueprints for a space shuttle. You don’t know where the prints came from or who designed them, but it’s obvious they weren’t the result of undirected random mutation. Just because you don’t have all the information does’t make the plans of supernatural origin. And even if you don’t understand any of it, there was nothing supper natural here for the designer, whoever he was. The same is true with DNA. Paley’s watch is another, perhaps better example. http://comp.uark.edu/~senor/paley08
“By the way, did you know that “dogma†means “revelationâ€? Dogma also means : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization
Science should performs without dogmas and it does in most cases. But when the offensive God of the bible comes into play as a potential creator, He is removed or replaced. Any consideration of this Creator must be eliminated to support a secular humanist agenda or ‘dogma’, not science.
Romans 1:10 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Chris: … the blueprints for a space shuttle. You don’t know where the prints came from or who designed them, but it’s obvious they weren’t the result of undirected random mutation.
In what kind of fantasy would a person get their hands on such blueprints without a clue where/who they came from? The scenario of finding a watch in a meadow at least doesn’t require the reader to enter a dreamworld just to consider the analogy (which fails on its own terms with a few cogent questions, but you already knew that, right?).
Dogma also means : …
Which other uses derive directly from the earlier Greek meaning – a claim from “incontrovertible” authority. Religions demand such raw power; science rejects it.
But when the offensive God of the bible comes into play as a potential creator, He is removed or replaced.
As LaPlace allegedly said, there is no need for that hypothesis. So far physical evidence shows no reason to invoke such an entity, so it’s the principle of parsimony, aka Occam’s Razor, that slices out all the deities (with the possible exception of Murphy).
The sciences of paleontology and geology gave Shubin the tools to find a type of fossil never before seen. What comparable discoveries have come from any form of creationism?
Pierce,
Shubin’s dead fish, you’ve got to be kidding. Talk about blind faith. Your insinuation could be right. I doubt any creationist looking at the facts would come up with a hypothetical tale like Shubin has,
Chris – pls try to make sense, willya?
Sneers are cool when backed up with evidence; otherwise, you’re just obviously covering up failure.
Shubin combined the estimated time of animals moving onto land with a geological report of accessible rocks from the same estimated time period, and found a (fossil of a) sea creature with legs. Just as evolutionary theory predicted, and with no other guide.
Has anyone achieved anything even slightly comparable by use of creationist ideas? Has anyone achieved anything (except collecting money from the gullible) with creationism?
Pierce, you must live in a box. I don’t want to upset your faith but Tiktaalik has had problems for quit some time and may have lost it’s transitions status. But you already know that as these icons fall into the growing pile of bogus traditions they must be replaced to keep the faith alive, so chin up.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/the-tracks-of-a-ghost/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D1JXqKdkrs
What kind of creationist prediction are you looking for?
Chris –
The story in your first link only shows that another organism apparently walked on land before Shubin’s dead fish did. Do you think that the ToE claims that biological transitions occur only at one point and time? (Hint: No.)
I live in a rural enough box that my DSL struggles to deliver videos – a medium I don’t prefer anyhow. You’ll have to persuade me that your YouTube link is worth clicking, or perhaps find the same material in text.
Did you notice comment # 12 at yr first link?
Truly, prophets walk among us.
As for predictions: Any previously unnoticed physical phenomenon whose existence was deduced from creationist principles &/or observations, which was confirmed by follow-up research. (I will concede that the Bible gets a few things right regarding Middle Eastern archaeology, but that counts for about the same cred as the existence of London for proof of Harry Potter’s adventures.)
E.g., does Genesis 30:37 provide usable insights on animal breeding?
Can mental health be improved by expulsion of demons?
Do natural disasters occur more often in areas of disbelief or sexual variation?
Has anyone ever found a plant seed smaller than that of the mustard?
Do males and females of Homo sapiens sapiens have different rib counts?
After Michael Behe predicted no one would ever find the land animal->whale transition fossils that Charles Darwin had hypothesized over a century before, did anyone find any?
Pierce,
“Do you think that the ToE claims that biological transitions occur only at one point and time?” No, I think the information simply shows the Tiktaalik is just a dead fish and not the spectacular transitional link it was claimed to be. Might I add, a dead fish covered in sedimentary strata which is flood geological evidence.
I’m not sure any of you questionable questions would fall under a definition as a scientifically predictable proposition with the exception of Behe. Which you and I both know is just another concoked fish story.
Here’s one, creationist claim intelligence only comes from intelligence. This naturally is in direct opposition to evolution’s foundational claims. Can you give some examples of non intelligent mater independently producing intelligence. Perhaps a dictionary producing a comic book unassisted or something.
Chris/Pierce,
I’m just sitting on the fence watching this exchange,and enjoying it.
My only comment would be. Chris said “Can you give some examples of non intelligent mater independently producing intelligence?” When it comes to you Chris I would have to agree.
Chris,
BTW please use your spell check and don’t make up words like concoked and mater,it really hurts the little credibility you have.
Ivorygirl,
I was beginning to worry, thought you might have been abducted.
Our exchange is enjoyable. I’m excited to finally find out from Pierce the scientific facts you’ve been hiding all this time.
Pierce,
Creationist predict that all information processing code is the product of a code maker, it doesn’t make itself. Can you show where this prediction doesn’t apply to DNA code?
Creationist predicted that Neanderthals were not only related to humans they were human. Recent discoveries indicate this prediction to be correct. New research is finding Neanderthal DNA present in modern humans.
Humans are one-fifth Neanderthal, according to shock new scientific study
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/humans-one-fifth-neanderthal-according-shock-3092118#ixzz33FaWcOcW
Pierce, despite the 500 thousand year breeding separation propaganda in this article, could you please list the various life forms humans have successfully breed with other than humans.
Chris: … Tiktaalik is just a dead fish and not the spectacular transitional link it was claimed to be.
Sneering without anything (other than arrogance) to support your position does not persuade. Tiktaalik is another successfully filled prediction of evolutionary science – something that has happened so many times that, indeed, “spectacular” does not apply.
… sedimentary strata which is flood geological evidence.
To the exact same degree that the mud on my pickup’s tires is.
I’m not sure any of you questionable questions would fall under a definition as a scientifically predictable proposition with the exception of Behe. Which you and I both know is just another concoked fish story.
Please restate this in some way that makes sense, if possible.
Can you give some examples of non intelligent mater independently producing intelligence.
Assuming you didn’t intend the bilingual pun in there … well, your “challenge” indicates you don’t understand evolutionary theory. (And you really need to offer a definition of “intelligence” before we can get very far with this…) Let me try to get through with a rough analogy: Once, playing baseball in elementary school, I hit a single and ran to first base. Later in that same inning, I scored a home run: not because of my feeble hit, but in consequence of what the next batters after me did.
Creationist predict that all information processing code is the product of a code maker, it doesn’t make itself. Can you show where this prediction doesn’t apply to DNA code?
Do a little online searching for [“John Conway” + “game of Life”]. Then maybe you’ll be ready to read up on “RNA”.
Creationist predicted that Neanderthals were not only related to humans they were human.
Also pls read up on taxonomy, and the arbitrariness of species definitions.
… please list the various life forms humans have successfully breed with other than humans.
Depends on your definition of successful breeding. Georgia hyperchristian Neal Horsley seems to feel he scored big-time not so long ago.
Pierce,
And here I had thought you might be able to answer some simple questions, silly me.
C’mon Chris – you can evade better than that!
Evade what?
Chris – You have not replied to (i.e., evaded) my points about Tiktaalik’s significance, the absurdity of saying anything quickly buried proves a global flood, the incomprehensibility of your “concoked” ‘graf, that evo theory does not predict inert matter acquiring “intelligence” in one step, early RNA, or taxonomic ambiguity.
And those come from just my most recent comment. How about a few words on the relevance of Gen 30:37 on animal breeding, or any of the questions following that in the same comment?
Pierce,
Gazillions of creatures buried rapidly in sedimentary strata all over the earth is exactly what you would expect to find after a global flood like the one described in the bible.
If fully formed 4 legged creatures left the foot print tracks found in Poland 18 million years before Tiktaalik appeared, I would think Tiktaalik in not the transitional missing link between fish and tetrapods it was original believed to be. If this is the case, Shubin’s predictions were wrong. And now all of the imaginary artist renderings specific to this dead fish can now be used by evolutionist to start the grill.
Regardless of Jacob’s method the bottom line is he used some selective breeding. What ever he did, it worked. I think there could be more to the story than written, such as, custom or fooling Laban. Here is some commentary on Genesis 30:25-43 The actual
http://kvnkstr.com/exegeticalstudiesandsermons/exegesis_gn30_37_43.html
https://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/serve_pdf_free.php?filename=SCB+13-1+Pearson.pdf
Chris,
I hate to interject in your conversation, but are you saying that the biblical account of Noah’s flood is true and not just allegorical or a parable ?
From your comment “all over the earth” are you implying that this was a global flood rather than a local one?
Chris – “Gazillions of creatures buried rapidly in sedimentary strata all over the earth is exactly what you would expect to find …” after millions of years of ordinary earth processes, too. Moreover, you would expect to find them laid out consistently in distinct strata, whereas after a big flood you’d expect to find them mixed up chaotically amid evidence of turbulence.
Guess which of those two possibilities we see, around the world?
If fully formed 4 legged creatures left the foot print tracks found in Poland 18 million years before Tiktaalik appeared, I would think Tiktaalik in not the transitional missing link between fish and tetrapods it was original believed to be.
As I thought you grasped earlier in this thread, no one expects that there was one transitional ancestor for all land vertebrates.
If this is the case, Shubin’s predictions were wrong.
But it isn’t. Shubin made a prediction, went out (with considerable hardship) and found just what he had said would be there – but you (knowing, obviously, nothing of paleontology) still have the sheer arrogance to declare him wrong?!? He did not claim he was going to find the only/earliest water->land vertebrate, but he did find one from the expected geological period – just as the Polish dig did. The two discoveries support each other.
What ever he did, it worked.
Yeah, whatever gimcrack magic the hero of a fairy tale uses always works. Go buy a few goats and try to replicate those results.
The actual
That latter word has very little application to Bible stories, and virtually none to Genesis.
Pierce,
By your comments I see you know nothing about Noah’s flood. Try stepping aside from the uniformitarian view and check out flood geology without the secularist bias.
‘As I thought you grasped earlier in this thread, no one expects that there was one transitional ancestor for all land vertebrates.’ That wasn’t the claim. I don’t think your statement is relevant. Remember Your Inner Fish.
It’s to bad you’ve been fed so full of crap you can’t comprehend the topics.
Ivorygirl,
How many local floods did it take to form the Grand Canyon?
Chris,
“How many local floods did it take to form the Grand Canyon?
If you are considering “flash flooding’ by the Colorado River,countless times,although that was just one of the factors in the formation.
… I see you know nothing about Noah’s flood.
Enough to debunk it at least 79 different ways.
… the uniformitarian view …
“Uniformitarianism” and “catastrophism” synthesized generations ago. The “geological” view is widely available, so I won’t try to summarize it for you; suffice it to say that the “biblical” view gets the locations of a few hills and bodies of water approximately right, and damn little else.
I don’t think your statement is relevant.
Would even Sarah Palin or Marco Rubio dodge a simple question that clumsily? You have no answers of any substance, and we all know it.
It’s to bad you’ve been fed so full of crap you can’t comprehend the topics.
A non-answer, personal insults, and misspelling, oh my.
Chris, you have to do better or FCS will need to start looking for a better grade of troll.
Ivorygirl,
Are you suggesting the different sedimentary layers accumulated with specific soil types from local and flash floods? What would be the size of a local flood which would transport different strata to this location. And also can you explain why the only signs of erosion are on the top of the surface layer and no erosion can be observed between layers in the lower stack.
Chris,
I try to stay out of these little flame wars as I find them unproductive. However, as someone who has earned two degrees in geology and earth science, worked as a field geologist for 10 years in the western U.S. and done a geologic float trip through the Grand Canyon, I feel compelled to address your geologically incorrect assertion about unconformities in the Grand Canyon suite of rocks.
There are at least 14 described unconformities in the Grand Canyon sequence of rocks (unconformities represent periods of erosion). These include the Great Unconformity between the Vishnu metamorphic rocks (1.65-1.85 billion years old) and the Tapeats sandstone (about 550 million years old) in the very bottom of the canyon. This represents a gap in the rock record of more than 1 billion years, almost 25% of the Earth’s history.
But let’s ignore the age difference between these two formations (because it is my understanding that you don’t understand the process of radiometric age determination). Geometrically, the Vishnu rocks have an almost vertical dip while the Tapeats is almost horizontal. It is analogous to the world-famous Hutton’s Unconformity (which I have visited twice) along the east coast of Scotland where essentially flat-lying rocks overlie vertically dipping layers. This is where Hutton first began to comprehend the immense amounts of time required to explain the evidence recorded in Earth’s geologic record.
Finally, I would like to state that, except for you, the regular contributors to these comments are all interested in learning and teaching. At a blog dedicated to advancing the state of science in Florida, you seem to be doing little more than raising people’s blood pressure and inducing face-palm moments in those who have genuine concerns and interests in science education. Surely you have better things to do with your time.
Chris,
You seek to re-enforce Bronze Age superstition with incoherent stabs at an explanation. Your arguments fail to put any of the other forces and happenings into any kind of perspective and then pronounce that it’s “obvious” to you. Immersing yourself in the practice of trying to sound like a scientist while still remaining entirely unfamiliar with the methodology does little to convince anyone.
Chris,
I would like you to read (with a open mind) Dr Donald Prothero’s book “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters. In Chapter 3, Dr Prothero a prolific paleobiologist, fully explains why a global flood could not have, in any way, formed the grand canyon. He also covers why geologically, a global flood is highly improbable. Just a thought.
cope,
Wow, I didn’t know I’d produced a geologically incorrect assertion about the unconformities in the Grand Canyon. I thought I was just asking a few questions. My question wasn’t about the Grand Canyon’s famous unconformities. It’s not my fault if those missing layers of strata don’t fit evolution’s predictions.
I’m glad to know you have had the experience at the Grand Canyon to understand some of what is observed there.
I’ve been to the Grand Canyon three times once to the north rim and twice to the south, it’s amazing. My daughter lived in Arizona and my son went to collage in California so I’ve done a little traveling thought the area. One of the interesting things that seems to be common with rangers at most of the national parks is their response to simple questions, such as the ones I just ask Ivorygirl. One of the questions I alway wonder about is why there is no visible erosion between the layers of strata thoughout the canyon. Usually I get the millions of year compression answer. Wile that may work on the lower layers it doesn’t fit the highest upper layers. When questioning rangers about the bottom of the top layer, most indicate they don’t believe it either and then say, “That’s what they told us to say.” Not very convincing.
The real question is are we looking a millions of years in time as you have indicated or are we looking at rapid sedimentation over a relatively short period of time. I think the latter has proven to be the case for the Red wall Limestone which contains the fossils of the sea creatures called nautiloids. As you must be aware they were entombed in mud wile swimming in relatively the same direction. The area is up to forty feet thick and covers more than 5000 square miles.
I do understand the basics of radiometric dating and it’s limitations. Do you? Accepting anything thing and every thing without question which is said to be science is just not my way, sorry. I’m not alone. Try eating a little chocolate, I hear it good for high blood pressure.
Chris,
Your assertion: “…no erosion can be observed between layers in the lower stack.”
My counter: at least 14 periods of erosion (unconformities) have been studied and described in the geologic literature.
Funny you should mention the Redwall limestone as it is bounded both top and bottom by unconformities. You can learn more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwall_Limestone
Thanks for the concerns about my blood pressure. From now on, I will read your posts while reciting “om mani padme hum” silently in my head. This always has a calming effect on me.
I will also stop trying to educate you about matters geologic. After 25 years as a public school science teacher, I have learned to save my energy for tasks at which I have some possibility of success rather than spending it fruitlessly on lost causes. As Albert Einstein famously stated, “Insanity (is) doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” I shall not try to educate you any further.
Namaste.
cope,
“Your assertion: “…no erosion can be observed between layers in the lower stack.â€
Not my comment. I said compression may be an explanation for no erosion on the lower stack, but it won’t work in the upper levels. Not to mention the million of years in missing strata, the flat gaps between the upper layers show no erosion. Each layer is protected by the one above it. For the most part, the visually perfect level layers of strata can be seen for hundreds of miles like layers in a cake. If each layer was exposed to the elements unprotected for millions of years there would be massive erosion from exposure. It’s not there.
I see you have no comment for the nautiloid fossils in the Redwall limestone. The fact is this layer must have been laid down rapidly, perhaps days at best. This is what you would expect to see in an underwater mud flow.
“I will also stop trying to educate you about matters geologic. I shall not try to educate you any further.” No problem, don’t over do it, you need to save your energy, I’m sure I’ll get by somehow.
After 25 years of teaching it would appear you’ve learned not to question what you’ve been told to teach.
“Keep an open mind – 
but not so open that your brain falls out”
Jonathan,
Thanks for the tip.
Jonathan,
Have you read, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No?
Chris,
Yes about 20 years ago.
Me too. The 1995 rendition The Fossils Still Say No is breaking news when compared to Darwin’s 1859 holy book.