45 percent agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"

Well, that's the most depressing I've read all day. To believe that, you not only have to dismiss evolution, but also geology, chemistry and physics.

Why? They can all have begun functioning the way we perceive them now at that point.

When scientists study things like sedimentary rock and radioactive decay, they conclude that the Earth is billions of years old. This is so completely noncontroversial in the scientific community that it makes evolution v. intelligent design look like Bush v. Gore. Nor is it some secularist conspiracy: I'm sure there are many geologists who believe in God.

To believe that the Earth is only 10K years old, you must believe that God played tricks by leaving innumerable false clues as to the Earth's age. And if you believe that, why not believe that He created everything yesterday, and just gave us all false memories of everything before that? It'd be logically equivalent and just as silly.

Silly, yes. But no more so than non-causality ... randomness.

Papaya:

Suppose God was in a hurry and wanted to get to this point in 10,000 years instead of ten billion. Don't you ever Fast Forward through the commercials & stuff?

I have a question about evolution. Why did it stop? In other words, if we're supposed to be decendent from apes, why haven't the apes made any progress lately? Shouldn't some of them be in kindergarten or doing menial work? Or some of them not have so much body hair?

Posted by: AllenS at October 7, 2005 9:56 PM

OJ: Give it up. There is no reason to believe that God is messing with us. There is better reason to believe that the words of the Torah are not a science textbook, and that they need to be read in a more sophisticated way than is usually essayed by American Protestants who read them in translation and without access to or knowledge of interpetive traditions

Allen:

Don't laugh, they actually claim the reason we've never observed it is because it's over:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,644002,00.html

Robert:

I'm not a Young Earther, but it's no sillier than the materialist adding inflation into the Big Bang to make their numbers work.

Intelligent design is not the same thing as 6-day, recent-time creation. One of the best proofs of I.D. is the way the Darwinists refuse to discuss it and twist the debate to a refutation of Bibical literalism, as PapayaSF has done above.

Allen: We're not descended from apes, we share a common ancestor. We're basically distant cousins, is the idea. Letting the "descended from apes" idea spread is one of the biggest mistakes Darwinists ever made. Not realizing Richard Dawkins is a secret agent from the creationist camp and letting him talk so much is their current biggest...

One thought on the "appearance of age." I'm not a young earther either, but if you're going to believe that Adam was create as a mature adult man, there's no reason that Earth couldn't have been created as a mature adult planet.

Hey, Lou, I'm not twisting anything. I'm commenting on one particular poll number that seems to indicate that a huge chunk of the populace doesn't seem to understand that a belief in a "young Earth" is not only complete nonsense, it's wacky theology.

Ghostcat: Evolution isn't randomness, it's randomness together with rules (physical laws). A good explanation is Laws of the Game: How the Principles of Nature Govern Chance by Eigen and Winkler.

OJ: it's a lot sillier. Astrophysicists are using math to describe complex, observable phenomena. Their theories work up to a point, and then they admit there are some missing pieces to the puzzle. This is not at all like tossing out geology and sundry other sciences because their timelines don't fit with calculations made by a bishop 350 years ago based on religious texts from 2,000 years ago.

And from that Guardian piece: "This view is controversial, however." Not everyone thinks human evolution is over.

But I can understand scientists' reluctance to discuss ID, because saying (in effect) "God made it so" isn't science. If you want to nitpick evolutionary theory, have at it, but bringing theology into it isn't an argument, it's changing the subject.

Papaya:

Tell a mathmetician/physicist the result you want and he'll hand you the formula.

Timothy:

And these are all things that all of us believe not just possible but likely at some level--pick up most any science fiction book and you find intelligent beings engineering worlds. What's 2001: A Space Odyssey but one big ad for I.D.?

Papaya: I read the poll a little differently. I don't think it's saying that people believe that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years, but that H. sap. was created, on an old Earth, within the last 10,000 years. People might even believe that evolution is correct right through the apes, but that we're different, having our own direct creation. I've run into this and similar beliefs quite a bit. The most racist statement I've ever heard in person was when, in 79, a high school student from the south said that he believed that evolution explained blacks, but that whites were created by G-d as set forth in Genesis.

"The likelihood that the 87% will continue to let the 13% dictate to them is approximately 0%."

Keep in mind that 68% of Americans don't want creationism to be taught as science in science class. It's a pragmatic view that you may not agree with, but if you want to play this by polls and public opinion, then keep this in mind.

David: Maybe, though that would still be problematic, as there is plenty of hard evidence for H. sapiens sapiens (our current variety) having been here for around for about 200,000 years.

creeper:

Yes, they want Creationism taught as ID in science class.

To think that in this day and age there are still this many people in an advanced industrialized country is nothing short of scary. Most countries have a decline in religious fundamentalism as development occurs. The U.S. ranks with devestated peasant societies when it comes to this irrationality. And this is one of the primary reasons that there are so many people fearful of the U.S. They should be. That's the rational response. Think about it.
1.The only country to have ever used an atomic bomb, when, as most recent scholarship shows wasn't nevessary at all.)Don't even think of starting the "It stopped the war and saved lives" apologetic nonsense)
2.The country who spends more on WMD(You can call them "defensive" if you wish to become a subject of Orwell's)than the next 20 countries combined.
3.One of the only countries in the world that has ever been accused of "Unlawful use of force" i.e., terrorism by the World Court, to which it responded by increasing the terror.
4.Having levels of religious fundamentalism on par with most devastated peasant societies.
5.Having more and more of these folks getting close and closer to the centers of power.
6.Having something which is on par with astrology, with probably even less scientific evidence, i.e., creationism, to actually become a part of any sort of "serious" debate.(I mean, we don't debate that there is really no Santa that much anymore either, do we?)

It's quite easy to see why the world is scared and wanting to aquire their own WMDs/nukes. What rational person wouldn't feel they needed to defend themselves? And this was even predicted by all the intelligence agencies long ago. Anyway, to think the creationism, i.e., de-evolution is going to help the world move any further out of the dark ages which it's already in is simply to deny progress and humanity. Don't be surprised to see the creationists supporting the cloning of dinosaurs or something as bringing them back would probably make them feel right at home.KB

KB, of course, has never seen any sign of anti-Americanism on the left.

kb

(I assume you are an American)

Do you not realize that your bitter contempt for your country and its people is a form of disorder brought about by indoctrination or some other pathology? It's one thing to hate your country's politics to the point of alarm or despair, or believe it is headed the wrong way or even choose another country, but to believe it and it's people are respositories of evil is a pathology. Objectively, there is no country in the world that meets that description, but to think your own does is akin to going through life convinced your parents were the most evil people in history. You don't argue with such people, you prescribe therapy.

You know very well that folks the world over are trying desperately to get to the States by the millions, while pretty much only its disaffected intellectuals emigrate, and many of them spend the rest of their bitter days nursing the grievances of their youths. That one fact should be enough to reassure you that you must be very wrong. Time to grow up, my friend.

Papaya:

Relax. I think you are assuming that these people believe what they do after they have applied their minds and done some critical inquiry. Scientists are forever assuming that people care about their issues or that correct scientific beliefs are a prerequisite of good citizenship or an informed public. People believe all kinds of things without really thinking about them in any sytematic way. Think of the millions of secularists who accept darwinism as holy writ without ever putting their minds to it critically. All those figures mean is that these people are surrounded by people of similarly serious faith.

Also, people can and do believe contradictory theses at the same time if there is no real need to decide. Meteorology is an area where I happily defer to the experts, but I can't be in a fierce thunderstorm without something inside of me telling me Somebody somewhere is a little put out. Modern medicine has no greater fan than my wife, but she still believe drafts cause colds and that the incubation times for our son's illnesses are measured in minutes, especially when she is looking to blame some other negligent mother.

This is more than just quaint. Our freedoms and democracy stand in large part not on intellectuals of extensive learning and firm conviction, no matter how sound, but on the decent, muddled middle, which is something people agitated about the latest SCOTUS pick might ponder.

Now, if you were to tell me fifty percent of American geologists believed the world was ten thousand years old, that would worry me, even if it were "true" on some mystical level. I want those guys to find the oil.

David:

People might even believe that evolution is correct right through the apes, but that we're different, having our own direct creation

I think C.S. Lewis might have believed something like that. (cf. "Living in an Atomic Age"). The funny thing about that belief is that, if the darwinists are right that one can legitimately validate a scientific theory from historical evidence, one can argue that belief has a fair measure of plausibility to it, especially as darwinism flounders so badly when it comes to human history. Consciousness and evolution away from (natural) survivability are much more consistent with that belief than with the modern synthesis.

The local bar association is having its annual do in a few weeks and I was thinking of livening things up by making an after-dinner speech promoting that theory. Care to join me, or should I just refer all follow-up questions to you? :-)

(I suspect the fear of that belief and an unconscious sense of its potential cogency is driving much of modern neuroscience and similar new disciplines. If we thought evolutionary biologists could be testy about being challenged on slugs and apes, just wait until these guys get their act together.)

kb:

Bingo! The key to our greatness lies precisely in our rejection of Reason.

I think C.S. Lewis might have believed something like that. (cf. "Living in an Atomic Age"). The funny thing about that belief is that, if the darwinists are right that one can legitimately validate a scientific theory from historical evidence, one can argue that belief has a fair measure of plausibility to it, especially as darwinism flounders so badly when it comes to human history. Consciousness and evolution away from (natural) survivability are much more consistent with that belief than with the modern synthesis.

Peter, can you expand on that one? How does Darwinism fall down so badly?

The problem with the 10,000 year old man theory is that, even assuming that homo sapiens is a separate, unevolved species, the fossil evidence goes a lot further back than 10,000 years.

Robert:

I'll have to commend the essay, which doesn't appear to be online, to you. It addresses human alienation and the fact that the human condition involves a yearning dissatisfaction and eternal searching that leads to all kinds of good and bad things. His point seems to be that the idea that man is or ever was in any way adapted to his environment in a natural sense is nonsense. Good stuff, Robert, but try to remember it isn't a scientific text.

As to physical evolution, that's more me pondering all out debates around here. How can anyone relate the shedding of hair or fur-covering with the result that man can no longer survive uncovered or trekking from East Africa to all corners of the globe, no matter how inhospitable, were processes driven by survival imperatives. What animal can you think of that ever did anything like that?

Standing by for some more great "trade-off" stories.

Peter: I think we've established, through circumstantial evidence, that KB is not American, but is probably Canadian.

Peter: Points taken, and I am not a reason-uber-alles type.

And of course Darwinism flounders with human history. Wrong scale, for one thing: yardsticks aren't much help studying quarks, either. Plus new and crucial factors emerge.

As for animals that did something like humans losing fur, how about cave fish losing their sight?

OJ: You sound like like someone who'd condemn devices with sharp edges because of how they were used in the French Revolution. I've got no problem with limits to and errors of reason in theology and related human areas, but it works darn well in biology and other sciences.

David:

Lucky us.

Papaya:

Yes, the technological advances weren't worth the Age of Reason.

Biology doesn't use Darwinism.

David Said:

"KB, of course, has never seen any sign of anti-Americanism on the left."

You're correct. And you haven't offered anything. And there's nothing I've said which even remotely resembles the totalitarian-minded concept of "anti-American" either. Do you think you see something which isn't there? Do you also see UFOs, Big Foot, or a liberal media? Well, what would one expect.KB
=================================================
Peter said:

"kb(I assume you are an American)"

You would be correct.KB

"Do you not realize that your bitter contempt for your country and its people"

Well, given that what you've already asserted is either a fallacy or a flat out lie I'm not really sure I need to go any further. Perhaps you're having difficulty with the English language. There isn't a word I've written which has anything to do with "anti-Americanism". Were you and Dave both home-schooled?KB

"is a form of disorder brought about by indoctrination or some other pathology?"

Wouldn't know as your entire premise doesn't exist. Or, perhaps you'd like to demonstrate how "you think" it does.KB

"It's one thing to hate your country's politics to the point of alarm or despair"

Wouldn't know. Have mentioned hating anything.KB

"or believe it is headed the wrong way"

So, it's "anti-American" to think that the country where you live, in which the government works for you, and which spends your tax dollars on doing certain things throughout the world, should be doing what you say if you think it's headed the wrong way? Sorry, buddy, but you obviously haven't the foggiest idea of what democracy means.KB

"or even choose another country"

Who has done this?KB

"but to believe it and it's people are respositories of evil is a pathology."

Wouldn't know. Haven't said this, nor have I even inferred it.KB

"Objectively, there is no country in the world that meets that description"

Probably. Wouldn't know, as I haven't said anything about this.KB

"but to think your own does is akin to going through life convinced your parents were the most evil people in history."

Straw. Empty. Nothing there.KB

"You don't argue with such people, you prescribe therapy."

Yes, I do prescribe therapy to those who are actually SO indoctrinated that they actually believe that criticism equals hate. This is nonsense. It's the logic of a pre-school child. I can give you a few analogies which my 7 year old son has no problem with. Let me know if you're interested in learning.KB

The rest of the jingoistic fantasy that everyone is trying to get into the states doesn't deserve to be commented upon. It's juvenile, naive, arrogant, and, basically, false. Anyway, if you decide you want a lesson in the basics of democracy, propaganda, the media(which you probably believe to be liberal), or any of the other things you seem not to have a clue of let me know.KB

OK, kb, you are a fervent patriot, but everyone except you and your pals is trying to undermine your nation's true ideals in order to murder and pillage in the rest of the world. Everyone else needs and deserves WMD's to protect themselves from the evil creationists, wicked capitalists and defenders of Israeli oppression that have grabbed power and keep blackmailing and tricking so many hard-working but stupid folks (that false consciousness is a bitch, ain't it?). But you are on the case and will work ceaselessly to help them understand what is good for them and lead them in overthrowing the bad guys? That will restore the wonderful dream of the Founding Fathers as correctly interpreted by Chomsky and Zinn.

Have I got it? G-d bless America, right?

"Yes, they want Creationism taught as ID in science class."

Not that I've seen. I trust you have nothing to back that up, but go on, surprise me.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2005/10/creationism_is.html

And predictably enough, your link doesn't back up your claim... no surprise there.

Although neither evolution nor creationism is accepted by a sizable majority, upwards of two-thirds of the public over the past 20 years has supported teaching both accounts of the origins of life. Even among proponents of natural selection, a majority wants students to be exposed to creationism. And a large minority of Americans -- around 40 percent in both the Gallup and Pew polls -- says that creationism should be taught instead of evolution.

"Yes, they want Creationism taught as ID in science class."

No, the 68% want creationism either taught outside of science class, mentioned as a non-scientific belief in science class, or not taught at all.