A Conversation for Creationism - Fundamental(ist) Errors

Changed Entry

Post 21

Geoff Taylor - Gullible Chump

HV
I withdraw my earlier comment.

I'm aware that Richard Dawkins has his detractors, and it might be nice to include what they have to say. I'll see what I can find and let you know the gist....

Geoff


Changed Entry

Post 22

Hoovooloo

Thanks Geoff.

I'm not (I think, and despite some evidence) quite as rabidly anti-religion as Dawkins - which is, I think, one of the reasons why he has so many detractors. He is uncompromising in what I would characterise as "contempt" for religion. But I'm trying to keep as much as possible to Guideline nine, and discussing only facts rather than interpretations. Much of Dawkins' most controversial ideas are to do with more obscure upshots of certain interpretations of evidence, rather than the stuff which is widely accepted as fact or, like the chances of self-replication arising randomly, self-evident from the simple statistics involved.

There's no real need to get into that level of detail in such a short piece, as the main points of creationist position are here. (If there are any missing, I'd appreciate having them pointed out so I can put them in... Josh? anyone?)

H.


Changed Entry

Post 23

Gnomon - time to move on

Congratulations, Hoovooloo, on an entertaining and well-balanced article. I don't think I even found any typing errors!

My only concern is that you present all these arguments as "Common Creationist Arguments". Are they really common or are they just ones that one particular creationist came up with?


Changed Entry

Post 24

Dr Hell

Hi.

I like it. BUT: The title: The entry is not about Creationism. It's about the 'Flaws in the Creationist line of argument'.

I'd have the entry re-titled.

Addendum: The first self-replicating molecules were not even DNA, RNA was before that. And even before that probably proteins did the job. The experiment of Miller (Glass bulb with proto-atmosphere under the influence of temperature and lightnings) showed that after a comparably little while proteins formed within his broth. So the picture goes like this:

1st step: Proto-atmosphere under the influence of temperature and electrical discharges can produce peptides in thousands of years. A random process.

2nd step: Interactions between proteins yield RNA as a 'storage' medium which itself has enzymatic activity and is self-reproducing.

3rd step: Membranes make stuff a lot more stable. Here we have cells.

So... In the end we have (possibly) been designed by some witty chemical compounds as a medium to perpetuate themselves. Crazy, no?

The point is: You don't need *DNA* to start 'life'. Miller's broth could be enough.

--------- End of addendum.

Good entry. Think about the title.

HELL

PS: If I were Josh I would be very angry or hurt right now. I mean, let us assume he started with all good intentions... His entry(ies) got shredded and he didn't move a finger to improve them, even with all the comments (also in the best of intentions). Now, the corpse isn't even cold yet, and you, Hoovooloo, start an entry about (more or less) the same subject. Sort of blocking his way. If this entry gets included chances are he's never going to get any entry on Creationism in the edited guide because this one is there already. (Having the article retitled would leave a loophole open, and would be a nice gesture)... Anyways. I like the entry. I don't like the title. H.


Changed Entry

Post 25

Hoovooloo

They are actually popular creationist arguments - I've found them on several creationist websites. When I jazz it up with GuideML I'll be providing a link to at least one pro-creationist website and at least one anti-creationist one too - gotta keep it balanced... Anyone with any recommendations for sites, please put a link on your homespace and tell me about it (you can't post links to conversations smiley - sadface)

Actually I think it *is* about Creationism. What is there about Creationism that I haven't covered? Origins, locations, influences, ideas, significance, possible motivations - all in there. What else is there to say? (btw, the title of the entry is no longer the title of the thread - please check).

I know DNA was not the first self-replicator. That's why I was generally careful to talk about "self-replicators" generally rather than DNA in particular. I thought I'd mention DNA as it's the best known.

Finally:
"PS: If I were Josh I would be very angry or hurt right now. I mean, let us assume he started with all good intentions... His entry(ies) got shredded and he didn't move a finger to improve them, even with all the comments (also in the best of intentions).

People tried to help. He ignored them. If other people's writing makes him angry, that's a shame. But he's a Christian, so I'm sure he'll forgive.

> Now, the corpse isn't even cold yet, and you, Hoovooloo, start an entry about (more or less) the same subject. Sort of blocking his way.

I actually had Josh on the authors list until people started saying I ought to ask his permission, and since he pretty much ignores or deliberately misunderstands everything everyone says to him, asking his permission would be pointless. I don't intend to block his way at all. He wants an entry on creationism in the Edited Guide. He can't or won't write one that matches the criteria for Edited Entries. I can (I think). If anything, he should be grateful I'm spending my time getting his ideas a wider audience. I'm not blocking his way - I'm doing his work for him, because he can't or won't. If he doesn't like the way I'm doing it, he is of course at liberty to write in his own words a description of Creationism which matches the writing guidelines and doesn't break any rules.

>If this entry gets included chances are he's never going to get any entry on Creationism in the edited guide because this one is there already.

Based on his behaviour to date, he's never going to get an entry on Creationism *of his own* in the Edited Guide anyway, because he has explictly refused to understand the Peer Review process. If what I've written gets in, he will have "got an entry into the edited guide", because he's directly inspired me to write this. I'd credit him, but people seem to think I shouldn't. So be it.

>(Having the article retitled would leave a loophole open, and would be a nice gesture)

I have changed the title several times. I think the current title - "Creationists and 'Creation Science'" - is an accurate reflection of the content, which is as drily factual as I can manage. This is in contrast to the original content, which was more of a rant on both sides.

I think there's room for another entry IF AND ONLY IF that one too makes an honest attempt to stick to the writing guidelines, particularly number 9 - no fiction.

H.


Changed Entry

Post 26

Azara

Hi, Hoovooloo!

I have to admit that I took a quick glance through your original 'debate' entry and unsubscribed immediately from this thread. I thought it had all the makings of a really bad-tempered row.

I am very relieved to find, on taking another look, that you have rebuilt the entry from scratch, and that you have followed the true principles of Peer Review by considering and responding to all the suggestions made. smiley - ok

I think it's a very good entry now, but I'm afraid I don't know if you've covered the full range of creationist arguments (I got very bored with the whole business a long time ago!).

I spotted just a couple of mistakes in the DNA section: 'If one has a grasp of the statistics involved, you would be more properly surprised...' should have either 'one' and 'one' or 'you' and 'you', not a mixture; and you've a typo in 'probablilities'.

So well done, for really improving this entry enormously!

Azara
smiley - rose


Changed Entry

Post 27

Hoovooloo

I'm not trying really to cover the full range of creationist arguments - the entry is long enough already, I think. I'll be providing a link to a creationist website, and another link to somewhere else. The entry is intended to be an introduction to the subject only, and I'll be changing the title (again!) to take account of that fact and to stop this title from being almost identical to an entry Ste has written on the same subject but from a different angle.

Thanks for the typo notes...

H.


Changed Entry

Post 28

Dr Hell

Hi there again... The part on DNA was just meant as an addendum, just some more curious data, it was not meant as a criticism whatsoever.

And now...

Let's come back to some other things...

"I have changed the title several times. I think the current title - "Creationists and 'Creation Science'" - is an accurate reflection of the content, which is as drily factual as I can manage."

I disagree. You are biased. The entry was not about "A short introduction to Creationism". The first paragraph maybe is. The whole rest is about the "Flaws in their line of argument".

"I think there's room for another entry IF AND ONLY IF that one too makes an honest attempt to stick to the writing guidelines, particularly number 9 - no fiction."

Number 9! - c'mon, give me a break! Hoovooloo, you must not thump on the guidelines. It's not your style and makes you look like a fanatic... I've seen some lots of fiction in the edited guide, even some with a pseudo scientific approach with little resemblance to reality. That (Number 9) cannot be the REAL reason. It was Josh's stubbornness to even re-title his entry that got it out. IMO if he had titled it correctly and added a note inside explaining that this had nothing to do with science, at least with what most people call science, it COULD have gotten in.

Later,

HELL

PS: "I actually had Josh on the authors list until people started saying I ought to ask his permission" I know, and I agree it is better now, that you have taken him away and rephrased his sentences in your own words.

"...and since he pretty much ignores or deliberately misunderstands everything everyone says to him, asking his permission would be pointless." I disagree. You cannot add someone to the researchers list without his/her permission. I do not think that he would like to be seen as the author of THIS entry. If any of his creationist-buddies saw THAT they would throw him out of the club.

"I don't intend to block his way at all. He wants an entry on creationism in the Edited Guide. He can't or won't write one that matches the criteria for Edited Entries. I can (I think). If anything, he should be grateful I'm spending my time getting his ideas a wider audience." Hmmm... Are you sure these are HIS ideas? If you didn't want to do it, why did you do it? To help Josh get a wider audience? I don't think so...

"I'm not blocking his way - I'm doing his work for him, because he can't or won't." But... Why do YOU bother? I am sure that it's not because you want to do his job for him. More probably, because it (the original entry from Josh and the resulting discussion) inspired you, and because you are having fun. Not because you are doing his work. And I am sure he didn't ask you to do it...

"If he doesn't like the way I'm doing it, he is of course at liberty to write in his own words a description of Creationism which matches the writing guidelines and doesn't break any rules." Breaking rules... Hmm.

Anyways...

Let's talk about it. H, too.


Changed Entry

Post 29

il viaggiatore

I agree the title should be changed. Perhaps "A Criticism of Creationism"?


Changed Entry

Post 30

Spiff

Hi H, smiley - smiley

This strikes me as very readable. I read most of the first - 'debate' - version and for what it's worth I much prefer this.

I picked up on one or two language points, and have a couple of more general comments. As usual, take 'em or leave 'em. smiley - biggrin

>>to either prevent - you may or may not prefer not to split it smiley - smiley

>>proper biology - this sounds a little odd. Do you mean 'official', 'standard issue', 'authorised' or just 'widely-used'?

>>is not currently having as much influence as it once had

>>warning stickers telling that they contain - is 'telling' the word you want here?

>>Nebraska man & Piltdown man - This may sound like a detail, but I would keep these two the same way round in the subheader as they appear in the text. Especially to keep that word 'respectively' nice and clear.

>>"lack... from the fossil record."- 'absence... from the fossil record', maybe? Lack of sounds vague. Is there *any*? Some, but not much?

>>The mouse trap - Of course, you would need a mouse, which are pretty complex in themselves. smiley - smiley

>>Conclusion - I think this was a much-needed disclaimer. As you rightly say, many denominations of the Christian church do not believe that the story of the creation contained in Genesis should be taken as historical truth. Some believe that it is an allegory or some other kind of symbolic story.

I still feel that there are some places where the text tended to sound more general than this disclaimer would suggest.

For instance in the passage with:

>>one of the most important planks of religious faith - the belief >>that God created everything exactly as described in the Bible.

This sounds less specific to me than you may intend. Even just 'a religious' would make a difference.

You will have noticed I was involved in the earlier discussions. I don't want to open up any of that.

Nonetheless, I still feel there is a whiff of ill-feeling left in this piece. I don't want to try to change it for you. But that's something that I felt.

In view of this, I find that the title is slightly misleading. I don't say it's not *accurate*, but that it does not reflect the negative slant of this 'short introduction'.

Well, regardless of the inspiration, this is now a very readable article. I don't know a great deal about the technical or scientific aspects and equally I don't know much about Creationism itself. I can only claim to be interested in writing and it seems well-written to me. All the best with it. smiley - ok


Seeya
Spiff


Changed Entry

Post 31

Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide!

I also agree that the title should be changed. "An introduction to Creationism" implies a well-balanced look at the topic, while this remains one-sided. There are all sorts of information that "An introduction to Creationism" entry would include that are not here -- like the difference between young-earth creationists, old-earth creationists, and the intelligent design believers. Creationism is actually a spectrum of beliefs -- at one end you have folks who believe the world is flat because they think the Bible tells them so, and at the other end you have people who believe in evolution, but believe evolution happened because God set it up that way. While the term Creationism is an umbrella term that overarches all of these beliefs, your arguments appear to only address some of the issues raised by old-earth creationists.

"Criticisms of Creation Science" or something would be a better title.

Even with that, there are still some noticeable gaps in the entry. I'm left with the impression that rather than answering the most common Creationist claims, this entry has simply answered those that are the simplest to deal with. Most of the "creationist claims" you counter in this argument are the ones proposed by the more.... radical creationists (i.e., those who are less concerned with science).

There are, however, some creationist claims which come *far* closer to validity -- I think this entry really needs to address those. Otherwise, this entry isn't even "Criticisms of Creation Science" -- it's "Criticisms of the Creationist Views of an Adolescent".

If you're unclear as to what I'm talking about, I'd suggest you check out some of the better websites -- I've linked to them on an entry I've been pondering writing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A671951

I especially suggest you take a look at the one on "Why I disbelieve evolution" as it does a good job of summarizing the old-earth creationist views from a more rational viewpoint. The Talk.Origins FAQ also has quite good info from the evolution standpoint.

smiley - aliensmile
Mikey


Changed Entry

Post 32

Spiff


Hi again,

I seem to have simul-posted (or at least there were some postings I hadn't seen when I posted). Sorry about that. It doesn't look to bad, though.

I am really posting this to say what a good idea I think that was from Mikey. I haven't looked at the sites, but it looks like a useful basis for any wanting to find out more. Nice idea. smiley - ok

Spiff


Changed Entry

Post 33

GreyDesk

Hi H.

It seems Josh has made a reply, albeit a very small one. He has in the last day or so updated his space with the statement, "The Theory of Evolution is flawed". Perhaps this may be his last word on the debate.

I didn't get to read the earlier version(s) of this piece as it had been hidden by the mods. What you've written so far I really like. It also I believe leaves space for a creationist article to exist in the guide, should someone be bold enough to write such a thing using real scientific arguments to back up their case.

GD


Changed Entry

Post 34

Hoovooloo

Wow! This looks like being more work than I bargained for. However, fear not, when I have the time I *will* try to do justice to all these comments. I'm going to be busy this week, and not here at all next week, so I'd like to ask for (a) patience (b) more of the same good stuff from anyone with a view on either side, because I would prefer this entry to be balanced and I agree I've only dealt with the points Josh raised, rather than covering the full spectrum and (c) if there are any Scouts thinking of picking this any time soon, please DON'T, because although I considered it "finished" when I posted it the excellent input here has made me want to put some more stuff in.

H.
Off to do some research, then off to do some snowboarding...


Changed Entry

Post 35

Geoff Taylor - Life's Liver

Oh no, I fear a Guide Entry on "Snowboarding - The Existentialist Perspective" smiley - biggrin

Have a good Crim, HV

Geoff


Changed Entry

Post 36

Hoovooloo

OK, I've changed the title *again*, and I really like this one.

I've GML'd it so it looks a bit better, and switched a few bits about. I've also added a couple of the most relevant links...

Any more comments, as ever, more than welcome...

H.


Changed Entry

Post 37

Hoovooloo

And like that *foof*... he's gone.

I'd like to withdraw this entry from Peer Review - not because of any problem with it per se, or any problem with the comments on it, but because I've come to the conclusion that the subject simply can't be done justice in a single entry by a single author.

I've therefore applied for a University project on it, and specifically included Ste (who's already written another entry on this) and Josh on the list of contributors (I'm hoping I can get Josh to write something from "his side" to balance "my side"). If anyone else has anything to add, please go here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A672248

And start a conv there. I'm particularly keen to get entries from other Christians (I'm not optimistic that Josh will want to contribute...smiley - sadface) and I'd really like a separate entry on the influence on the US education system. Input from any professional scientists (biologists, geneticists, paleontologists etc., he said, being optimistic...) who can fill in the good stuff on DNA would be welcome. Anyone who can help - thanks in advance.

H.


Changed Entry

Post 38

Ste

The article mentioned by Hoovooloo in his previous post which is authored by me can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A671717. It is incomplete so any suggestions are welcome.

Thanks,

Ste smiley - stout


Changed Entry

Post 39

Orcus

Hell,

'Addendum: The first self-replicating molecules were not even DNA, RNA was before that. And even before that probably proteins did the job. The experiment of Miller (Glass bulb with proto-atmosphere under the influence of temperature and lightnings) showed that after a comparably little while proteins formed within his broth. So the picture goes like this:

1st step: Proto-atmosphere under the influence of temperature and electrical discharges can produce peptides in thousands of years. A random process.

2nd step: Interactions between proteins yield RNA as a 'storage' medium which itself has enzymatic activity and is self-reproducing.

3rd step: Membranes make stuff a lot more stable. Here we have cells.'

I think you should be a little careful there. This is all pure theory and Miller's experiment does not do anything like support all this. The RNA world theory comes from the discovery that ribosomes contain RNA capable of catalysing reactions just as proteins do (albeit in a far more limited way, and less efficiently) - nothing to do with Miller's experiment. Also, whilst a nice theory, there really is very little evidence other than this to support it.
I would be interested to see how Miller's experiment produced even a single dipeptide, let alone a protein. It formed a mixture containing *some* of the essential amino acids and that is all as I recall. It also condensed cyanide into the purines and pyrimidines that makle up the bases in nucleic acids - nice result. It formed a complex mixture of carbohydrates also, but crucially it *did not* produce *any* ribose which is the base sugar of RNA and DNA (although it's 2'-deoxyribose in DNA) - VERY BAD result. I don't recall as to whether fatty acids (the basis of lipids which form membrane bilayers) were formed or not. Of course, his starting 'primeval broth' could well be incorrect, but then it was present 4500 million years ago so we'll likely never know.

The current pre-biotic theories are very nice but are also highly dubious. Certainly don't take them as gospel (smiley - winkeye). It's a fascinating area but one which, as I said, we'll likely never get to the bottom of completely.


Changed Entry

Post 40

Giford

Hi Hoovooloo,

I'm actually glad you've taken this out of PR - I was about to post something saying I didn't think that one author could do this justice. I was also worried that this article relies on a knowledge of 'the Josh affair'; it still feels to me like a reply to Josh, rather than a stand-alone.

In order to be a neutral stand-alone, you need to make the Creationist case much more convincingly. If you are sure the evidence supports your case (and I am sure it does), you should have the confidence to present the opposition case as well as possible, and let your audience decide for themselves. In that respect, I felt that your original point-by-point post was actually better.

Hopefully, becoming a Uni project will address all those points, so I guess I am flogging a dead horse here, but I'd hate to see such an important subject have a biased article written about it. I wouldn't want to see a Uni project without any Creationist input. I also feel that Irreducible Complexity deserves more explanation than you have given it.

Tacking Josh's name onto an article that we all know he'd disagree with vehemently was a rotten trick (though he did use Dawkins as an argument against evolution... ) and I'm glad you've withdrawn that. In my book, that would have to count as a 'personal attack'.

Gif smiley - geek













































































































Key: Complain about this post