Getting the basics wrong

Faith & Science Conversation
,
1

The thing that bugs me most about young earthism is that not only is it simply factually wrong, more often than not the things that it gets wrong are the elementary basics.

Time and time again, when I am confronted with young earth claims, I find that it is not subjective philosophical or theological arguments that I am having to explain. Nor is it advanced and complicated postgraduate-level physics with dense equations and theorems. On the contrary, it is very elementary and foundational principles that apply to every area of science, both “operational” and “historical.”

Most commonly, it’s a complete failure to understand the most elementary basics of how measurement works. It doesn’t take much intelligence to understand that every form of measurement will have a certain amount of error, and that the first thing a scientist has to do is to determine and quantify that error. I don’t expect anyone to understand the details of how this is done; I just expect people to understand the general principle that this is done. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, this is the very first thing that you learn in the very first half hour of the very first practical class of any A level physics course worth its salt. It’s Measurement 101. It’s beginner stuff.

This is why young earthists’ claims about radiocarbon in ancient samples such as diamonds fall so far short of the mark. They insist that the value should be zero. But there is no such thing as a zero error bar. To insist that contamination should be zero, or to dismiss it as a “rescuing device” or an “evolutionist paradigm” or a “different worldview” is to deny the validity of one of the most basic and elementary principles of accurate and honest measurement that there is.

Nor does it take much intelligence to understand that you cannot claim that a measurement technique is any more unreliable than the measured uncertainties. Yet young earthists routinely hold up a minority of discrepancies of only 10-20% or so as evidence that all determinations of age must be out by a factor of a million. Unreliability simply does not work that way.

Sometimes they even flat-out deny that measurement is relevant to the question at all. The young earthist accusation that I’m taking Deuteronomy 25:13-16 out of context by applying to science is probably the most staggering example of this that I’ve come across so far. This is ridiculous because accurate and honest measurement is absolutely fundamental to every area of science. As I’ve said before, even if those verses were originally intended to address finance, commerce and trade, to deny their validity to other domains where measurement is used is to demand the right to tell lies.

These are things that I should expect everybody to be able to understand and agree on, at least in principle, even if they don’t quite grasp the details of what it looks like in practice. They aren’t difficult concepts to understand. Certainly they are concepts that everyone with any scientific background whatsoever beyond compulsory science classes at school should be able to grasp. But I find that time and time again I am having to explain them even to young earthists with science degrees. Even after I do so, they still don’t get it.

This is what concerns me most about young earthism. I get the impression that it is sowing confusion in people’s minds about the most elementary basics of how science even works. About skills and disciplines that are essential to any science-based career or activity. Skills and disciplines that have nothing whatsoever to do with “evolutionism” or “secularism” or “different worldviews” but that apply equally to Christians and secularists alike.

I understand that young earthists have legitimate concerns about many things, such as the inspiration of Scripture and the moral state of society. Many of these concerns are concerns that I share myself. But if you can’t even get the most elementary basics right about empirical, evidence-based disciplines, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously about anything else, even about things about which you are right?

And if you can’t even get the elementary basics of how science works right, what makes you think that you are qualified to challenge its more advanced aspects?

11 Likes
Are these the false prophets God warned us about?
2

The problems are transparent. Sloppy apologetics doesn’t end well.

1 Like
3

The two elementary things I often see YECs getting wrong (in addition to what you write about) is the scientific method and uniformitarianism.

First, most YEC’s don’t seem to understand how the scientific method works. The major problem is they don’t understand what hypothesis testing is, nor the difference between observation (i.e. measurement) and theory/hypothesis. You will often hear them saying evolution isn’t scientific because you can’t observe humans evolving in the past. However, that’s the theory, not a claimed observation. You don’t observe the theory, nor do you repeat the theory. That is nonsensical. As Gould stated:

“And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.”

Instead, you test the theory using observations. For example, here is a list of 29 tests of the theory using observations.

The next thing they get wrong is uniformitarianism. This concept says that the universe operated through the same laws and processes that we see operating now. That includes catastrophic processes, contrary to the claims of YECs. Even worse, YECs claim they reject uniformitarianism, and yet they use it throughout all of their claims. The moment they claim particles in water will settle out and form sediments during a flood they are using uniformitarianism. What they are really saying is that they want to pick and choose which natural laws should apply depending on what conclusions they lead to.

5 Likes
4

Ouch.

That is a false dichotomy.

There is no good reason for the common person to understand science other than its applications, and even then it is only from a user point of view. if it goes wrong then you find an expert.

The sceintific method is a distinct approach with its own rules and restictions but, unless you are going to claim sceintism, it does not dictate all thought processes or understanding.

The reason religion and science come into conflict isthat the two have different approaches to life and they are diametrically opposed. The moment one or the other tries to dictate or assert the problems start.

I wonder who has the authority to declare what is sloppy or not?

The reasons for incompatibity are mutlitudal father than specific

Richard

1 Like
5

Hi Richard. Good question. Are you seeking to learn how to assess subject matter understanding and/or evaluate claims & arguments? I that think comes under the area of epistemology.

Added: I read this some years ago Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

1 Like
6

No.

I would question anyone to have the authority rather than trying to claim it or attain it.

Richard

1 Like
7

You seem to expect quite much from a person that has no university or even high school level education. There are probably many who have very little or no understanding about how research is done at the university level. The persons would have enough of intelligence to understand the basics but nobody has teached them about these matters.

These persons often have a two-edged attitude towards research. If someone tells that there was a certain amount of carbon in the sample, they assume that the figure is exactly that. They have no idea how the figure was obtained, it just is.
That expectation holds until the researchers claim something that contradicts the earlier beliefs of the person. At that point, all results become doubtful and there is a doubt that the researchers let their worldview distort the interpretation of the results. Probably many suspect that there is a conspiracy behind the unwanted results.

If you want that ‘ordinary’ people with little education know the basics, you have to first teach them. The teaching should be done in a simple way that can be trusted.

3 Likes
8

I agree, the scientific method is not useful in many areas of the human experience. At the same time, if someone is going to claim a theory isn’t scientific it should be based on how the scientific method actually works. All too often I have heard people claim evolution isn’t a scientific theory because you can’t observe evolution in the past. This shows an obvious misunderstanding of how science works and what scientific theories are.

4 Likes
9

Very often, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The strength of a conclusion isn’t in what the conclusion says but how that conclusion was reached. What is the data? What methods did you use to acquire the data? How was the data analyzed? What are the strengths and weaknesses in this process? What are the potential sources of error in the methods, data, and analysis? What is the measured error in the data itself?

Outside of science, general uses of logic and reason follow the same line of thought. We evaluate knowledge not by what the knowledge says, but how we acquired that knowledge. What was the thought process that arrived at that conclusion? How reliable are the premises that led there?

1 Like
10

I am not a Vulcan.

Logic can and does fail

Richard

1 Like
11

Agreed. It helps to meet people where they are.

1 Like
12

Non-Vulcans can use logic and reason, too.

It’s really a matter of what flag you are planting. If you claim you have a conclusion based on logic and reason, then you need to demonstrate how they were used to reach the conclusion. If you claim you have a supported scientific theory, once again you need to marshal the evidence and hypotheses to support this claim. If you are claiming a personal religious experience, none of this applies. For much of the subjective human experience, rules of reason, logic, and science don’t apply, and thank goodness they don’t. If nothing other than logic and reason were allowed we would be much the poorer for it.

4 Likes
13

https://www.quiz-maker.com/cp-np-discover-your-star-trek

Apparently, I’m a Vulcan/Borg.

2 Likes
14

It is more the principle of lauding or dictating over others or daring to crticise how somone else thinks or reasons. Within the scientifc environment such things can be specified but less so outside it. Much of humanity’s problems are caused by people who think they know best.

Richard

15

Though perhaps divorce rates would be lower. :slightly_smiling_face: The loss of traditional matchmakers probably has had an impact.

1 Like
16
  • No it ain’t. Richard’s just a curmudgeon who objects to anybody playing “King of the Mountain” which is his own personal way of pushing everybody off “the mountain”.
  • And when he gets push back, he complains.
1 Like
17

That I might accept

That is taking things too fa, and imples that i am trying to replace them.

I have no status to be knocked off of.

Richard

18

Hi Terry. You gotta meet people where they are. I hear what Richard is saying and hear his concerns.

19

The thing I see YECs getting wrong often is that they repeat false claims presented by professional creationists - especially quotes - without checking whether the claims are accurate and without saying they are using a secondary source.

4 Likes
20

Liked in under 30 seconds!!! Perhaps I’m being stalked…

1 Like