There's nothing like a good old-fashioned creationism debate to stir up our SExperts. This one began with a posting by Clive the Flying Ostrich, who wanted more information in order to defend better the scientific view of the universe on another website:

Probably a silly way to pass time, however, I've got into a conversation with one guy who has demonstrated a basic ignorance of science all the way through our discussions, but has now gone and clearly looked something up (probably from a debunking science website) and produced a list of specific science 'problems' which has passed beyond my knowledge to properly refute or reply to. A few I recognise but the specificity defeats me as I am an interested and avid reader but not a scientist myself. I suspect that is the point behind the tactic: trying to trip me up on details.

Quite. Pseudoscience is, after all, the enemy of intelligent thought. Clive went on to give us some more details:

This is the list, I was wondering if anyone can explain to me the science behind each of these claims so I'm prepared to stand ground on what science can reasonably tell us.

1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
4. The universe has too much large-scale structure (interspersed 'walls' and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Our SExperts certainly had views on those statements, and we'll come to those in a moment, but where had these ideas come from? Orcus suggested that Clive check out the creationist's sources and, when it turned out that they were 'numerous websites', HappyNerd had some strong thoughts we could all agree with:

Numerous websites don't count. Don't accept anything less than a study published in a peer-reviewed journal. That ought to keep him busy for awhile, and who knows, he might actually learn something.

And BouncyBitInTheMiddle was able to sum up the general bemusement very succinctly:

Science is more than just using long words. Does he understand what those things mean? I don't.

In fact, lack of any hard evidence to back up the statements was exposed quite quickly after Clive reported back on a little gem. His tormentor had said '...it is extremely questionable whether proof by empirical evidence is a valid method of proof'. Oh dear.

Aristotle tried to work out the way the world must be by pure reason, with spectacularly bad results. Others claimed to have been divinely inspired, but since their answers contradict one another, they can't all be right, so who do you believe. Even the Bible is a mass of contradictions, so the only way to know which bits to accept as truth is to have some way of investigating the truth and corroborating them. This is known as proof by empirical evidence.- Gnomon.

...there's no point in debating with creationists because the fact that they rely on faith for their beliefs and opinions about the universe rather than evidence and enquiry means that they have no use for the evidence you provide for your side of the debate. How could they? Their religion tells them how things are and were and ever shall be so it's a waste of time to try and convince them otherwise. Evidence is simply not a part of their mindset and they'll always find a way to refute whatever you come up with, or just flat out tell you that you're mistaken without any argument or reason whatsoever (ie, faith), so why bother?- Gosho.

Would they stand on the side of a road blindfolded, ears plugged up and use their faith to decide when to walk across it?


No, of course not. One needs evidence that a car isn't there that would knock them down.- Researcher Dot Dot Dot.

So, essentially, it's a case of head versus heart. If you believe that way the explain the universe is to investigate it and test your theories, you're going to find it difficult to argue the point against someone who believes that what they feel is true regardless of evidence to the contrary. This is an impasse which is not easily resolved.

The simple fact is that scientists try to explain how the universe was formed and how it functions, whereas philosophers try to explain why. Creationists, on the other hand, seem to want to have the final say on the hows and the whys, and their cherry-picking of flimsy 'evidence' and theories alienates thinking people on both sides. Let's see what the SExperts had to say about those bits of evidence Clive mentioned at the start:

1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.

   There are two significant and relevant chunks of data I know of. One: red shifts. Star spectra show a Doppler shift depending on whether they're moving toward or away from us (the waves get squashed together or stretched out). Most stars are moving away from us, the further away they are the faster they are moving. I don't see how a static universe model could possibly explain this.

   
   
   Second are the supernova measurements which show the universe is accelerating. I can't see how that could support a static universe model either.- BouncyBitInTheMiddle

   
   
   Scientists didn't invent the idea of an expanding universe because they wanted to annoy theists, it was a very counter intuitive suggestion that took a considerable amount of time and strong evidence before it was accepted. If a static universe model fitted the data better, scientists would most likely believe it because it's the default intuitive presumption. The idea that scientists are out there wilfully biasing the evidence in an attempt to annoy theists is just an egocentric paranoid fantasy. Annoying theists is a hobby for some scientists, but it's really not the main part of their job.¹- Dogster.

2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

   That's missing the point spectacularly. The background 'temperature' is the equivalent energy of the radiation that appears (to us) to be coming from everywhere, hence background. If it were generated by stars, it would appear to be coming from stars.- DaveBlackeye

3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

   Er. The big bang theory explains elemental abundances, it doesn't predict them.
   
   That's how science works. We have so much hydrogen and so much heavy hydrogen in the universe - any theory on the big bang must be good enough to explain the observed abundances - if it doesn't it's wrong.- Orcus.

4. The universe has too much large-scale structure (interspersed 'walls' and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

   B******s, it's the other way round. The universe is far too uniform, hence they had to invent inflation.- DaveBlackeye.

5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

   As exceedingly unlikely as the giant spaghetti noodle monster? - Orcus

   I've never once heard anyone claim that quasars all have the same apparent brightness. I think he's confusing them with Type II supernovae, which all happen in the same way therefore all have roughly the intrinsic brightness. But even then, they don't all have the same apparent brightness on earth. - DaveBlackeye

6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

   No - the upper limit of calculation error for studies of the age of globular clusters is a bigger number than the age of the universe. Not the same thing. The lower limit is significantly less than the age of the universe, unsurprisingly. - DaveBlackeye

7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

   Where does theory state that the universe is 'everywhere uniform'? Quite the opposite to my knowledge.- Orcus

8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

   Say what? 'Must?' I feel he must enlighten us further on this assertion.- Orcus.

   This could be right. So?- DaveBlackeye

9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

   Yes, this is interesting isn't it. Certainly a challenge for the theoreticians. That's what scientists like. It would be boring if we knew it all already.- Orcus.

   Lo and behold, a picture intended to show more distant objects than any picture taken before reveals that those objects have higher red shifts doh . More evidence in favour of the expanding universe I would say. But not sure what is meant by "evolution" in this context, or at what stage of evolution a galaxy that old is supposed to be. Maybe they haven't developed arms yet... - DaveBlackeye

10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

    I think he's demonstrating a simple misunderstanding of Einstein's cosmological constant here. Einstein rigged this number for a static universe, as opposed to one that will (at some point) collapse back in on itself, or one that will expand for ever. I can understand a figure that would've caused the universe to collapse before now, but what does 'already dissipated' mean? It has dissipated, surely.- DaveBlackeye.

Yep, that's a few myths successfully debunked. Well done, the SExperts.

But we'll let Happy Nerd have the final word on the matter:

This is an interesting thread I've been lurking on, but I'm still as deeply confused as the day (several years ago) when I naively asked the guy stridently demanding that my occupation in the sciences necessarily means an absolute adherence to Atheism, 'Must it be so cut and dry?'

Most of the early biologists were related somehow to the Church and if Mendel didn't have a problem reconciling his research with his religion, then why should I? It is apparent to me that the data support the theory of evolution rather than the strictest interpretation of Creation (the 6-days flat, one day vacation, a few thousand years back, no dinosaurs need apply version).

That doesn't mean we should not try to understand God's creation, our part in it, and our responsibility to it. In fact, an honest belief in Creation means an acceptance that God gave us brains to use and the intelligence to seek both knowledge and understanding. Honoring the God of our fathers means we should use our heads for something other than a hat-rack, and think of God as something other than the catch-all for blame. (Why are we sick? Is it God's Will, or did we pollute our drinking water? Hey, let's blame it on God, because it's so much easier than fixing the sewers or distributing medicine!)

That said, I have no idea how to win a debate with someone who has a knee-jerk dogmatic rejection of the vast and growing body of data compiled by the scientific community.

This article was based on a posting by Clive the Flying Ostrich, at the SEx forum - where science is explained.


Why not pop over with your own questions? The pick of the bunch could well feature in The Post's future

issues.

SEx Education Archive

Skankyrich

06.08.09 Front Page

09.10.08 Front Page

Back Issue Page