#42906: — 10/06  at  11:24 AM
Pity Frederick C. Crews, he's been reading a lot of very bad books (and a few good ones)

#42907: Kristine Harley — 10/06  at  11:26 AM
Jeff Jacoby: "In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the natural world imply a higher intelligence....It's science."

I just had an "aha!" moment.

As confused as creationists/ID avocates are about what a "theory" is in science, they are even more confused about the word "science." To them, science means "truth"--Absolute Truth, as promised by religion. Rather than being a process and a methodology to them, they misconceive of it as being a "truth" in which scientists "believe." Naturally, this sets up the fallicious equal time argument.

That is how one can argue that an admittedly non-scientific theory should be taught as "science."

We can mock the creationists all we want, but I'm afraid that this misconception rampant with the general public. And that's the problem.

It's like the word "literal." My father asserted that he took the Bible "literally," meaning that he took it to be true. But when he said that the Bible was "literally true," that did not mean that he thought that Jesus was literally a lamb, for example, or was literally a door or a bridegroom, or that he thought the Holy Spirit was literally a white dove.

Slippery definitions, slippery meanings--creationists use them because the general public intuitively does, all the time! And that's the challenge for us.

#42908: — 10/06  at  11:36 AM
RE: #42906 - that book review by Crews is 4 years old. Sorry for the confusion.

#42913: — 10/06  at  11:53 AM

To them, science means "truth"--Absolute Truth, as promised by religion.

I was taking a look at an American Christian college (can't be bothered to recall which one but it was linked from Harriet Miers' home church's site) and was surprised to find it offered a Bachelor of Science degree. Took a look at the courses that comprised the curriculum and, lo and behold, not a single actual science course in the bunch. Nothing but Bible studies, mission studies and the like. Worthy enough (I am, afteral, myself a Christian, though of a different ilk) subjects in themselves, but science??????????

Clearly they want the cachet that "science" brings, but they haven't clue one about what it means. It is embarassing to have co-religionists like that, the moreso when that type are much more visible and vocal.

#42918: Kagehi — 10/06  at  12:03 PM
Damn.. I really wish I had the artistic skill to pull it off. I just thought of the 'perfect' comic for this.

Frame one: A camp fire, with the label 'truth' on it, barely casts enough light to illuminate the cavemen (labelled creationists) that sit frightened around it. In the shadows all around them are numerous spooky eyes, with the word 'knowledge' labelling the darkness.

Frame two: A smartly dressed group sit around a gas BBQ, fixing a meal, while several gas lamps light everything including the trees around them, each of these are labelled 'science'. They chat, unaware, while in the few shadows that are left, the same 'creationists' crouch in a shadows with clubs and argue if they should smash the lamps first, or the BBQ.

Or something to that effect. ;)

#42924: — 10/06  at  12:25 PM

#42913: Mike Traynor
was surprised to find it offered a Bachelor of Science degree. Took a look at the courses that comprised the curriculum and, lo and behold, not a single actual science course

That's not to out of the ordinary. I went to a real university, where I earned a Bachelor of Arts in a science subject, while they were awarding Bachelor of Science degrees in engineering. I'm not sure what the distinction between the B.A. and B.S. degrees is.

#42932: — 10/06  at  12:58 PM
Hey! I resemble that remark!

(I have a BSEE - A bachelor of science in electrical engineering. I know I am not a scientist, but I have never questioned it before. I thought the main difference was that you had to write fewer papers - but take more labs - for a science degree.)

#42935: — 10/06  at  01:21 PM
My recent philosophy degree could have been a B.S., if I had passed a core group of science classes-- I think, year-long introductory sequences in biology, chemistry, and physics (and perhaps one or two other courses besides, but my memory is foggy). I don't know if that's standard at most liberal arts colleges or what, but it suggests that the B.A./B.S. distinction doesn't have much cash-value.

#42942: — 10/06  at  01:47 PM

The average age of man prior to the flood was approximately 920 years, after the flood, mans lifespan declined by 250 years until the time of Christ when lifespans averaged 70 years. Tests indicate simulation of a pre-flood environment would produce conditions of increased longevity, cellular growth and a change in molecular structures.

900 years?? Where did they get that figure from?? Do they have any idea of how absurd that number is, how incredibly long that is?? Thats from lets say today, you would of been born in the year 1100 :\ Smack dab in the middle ages.

Even 70 years, back in the year " 0 " is still pretty high, I would guess life expectanty is probaly no more than 40.. and thats pushing it. Medieval England was only about 33, according to wikipedia.. and thats a few hundred years after '0'.

Today, theres still alot of 3rd world countries whos life expectancy is in the 30s, it really wasn't until the last 50 yrs or so they really started hitting 70s.

#42950: Brad R. — 10/06  at  02:42 PM
I'll call a truce- I sent you a lovely Fred Hutchinson article today

#42952: — 10/06  at  03:00 PM
Baugh's methodology is clearly flawed. There's no way a tiny little hyperbaric biosphere like that could accomodate a sufficiently large vapor canopy to replicate the conditions of the Genesis Earth.

#42957: Kristine Harley — 10/06  at  03:42 PM
"900 years?? Where did they get that figure from?? Do they have any idea of how absurd that number is, how incredibly long that is??" Quite.

As George Bush would say, "It's long! It's a long time! It's a...it has something to do with time, and it's long!" And absurd, Geral is right.

Makes you wonder, though...in light of the above so-called "evidence," why do people have religious objections to biologists seeking to lengthen the human lifespan? I'm reading "The Biology of Death" by Klarsfeld, Revah, and Brady, and there were howls from the religious community when scientists even suggested that humans could be made to live 150 years or more. Why shouldn't we try to be more like Abraham if we can? Because that supplants God with scientific meddling.

Hmm. Maybe that's why people argue for Intelligent Design, too? Because we're supplanting God with dinosaurs--or implying that God is a dinosaur?

#42958: — 10/06  at  03:47 PM
900 years?? Where did they get that figure from??

Perhaps they were going by this text:

"Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years.
But who calls dat livin' when no gal will give in
to no man what's nine hundred years?"

- It Aint Necessarily So 7:1-4

IIRC, Methuselah's age is mentioned in Genesis as well.

#42960: — 10/06  at  03:53 PM
#42918: Kagehi — 10/06 at 12:03 PM

You'll be happy to know that a very fine cartoon in just that vein came out a little while ago. Scroll three down . . .

http://www.liberty-news.com/showCartoons.php?artist=Don+Wright&src=

#42981: — 10/06  at  06:45 PM
I smell the stink of plagiarism.

#42982: — 10/06  at  06:45 PM
Oh, it's just my upper lip, sorry about that.

#42984: Joel — 10/06  at  06:50 PM
I don't do it all that often, but I do what I can....

#43008: — 10/07  at  08:52 AM
Well, Harvard awarded me a B.A. in Computer Science. Admittedly, even the national professional associations say my field isn't mature enough to grant true engineering degrees.

#43053: Kagehi — 10/07  at  02:49 PM

You'll be happy to know that a very fine cartoon in just that vein came out a little while ago. Scroll three down . . .

Yeah. Already printed out a copy of that one. lol But it doesn't *quite* cover what I intended. It implies 'religion vs. science', my idea was more about 'false science vs. real science.' I.e., they are willing to use a candle, but if someone tries to use a lamp they break the lamp.