If I may piggyback off of @jammycakes - I think he means something like that if the rest of science/engineering was done like how YEC do science, then it would lead to people dying. For example things like,
if scientists start with a predetermined conclusion and fit everything into that hypothesis, that could be dangerous
if scientists ignore large swathes of data and dismiss centuries of science before them, that could lead to bizarre conclusions
if scientists routinely propose the laws of nature changing without evidence, science would basically be impossible as is and anything goes
if scientists write off other science as part of a big “conspiracy,” one can easily dismiss anything they don’t like using that argument (e.g. people use the same logic rejecting COVID health precautions and spreading lies about vaccines or people ignoring humans causing climate change - all of these lead to more death)
science is done more like Lysenkoism who rejected the theory of evolution and merged his communist ideology with science and it led to the starvation of millions of people
Thanks @pevaquark – that is precisely what I mean.
@cewoldt Driving and cookery may not be entirely analogous to geology, but they still have at their core a common set of underlying laws and principles: namely, mathematics, measurement, and the basic laws of physics. And it is those core underlying principles of mathematics, measurement, and the basic laws of physics, and not anything specific to driving, cookery, or geology, that tell us that (a) intensity is not a substitute for time, and (b) you would kill people if you treated it as if it were.
To follow that vein, it is important that we do controlled studies and make careful analysis of the data in medicine to determine what treatments are effective, as “common sense” and “what seems obvious” is often not true when examined. For example, Vitamin A and E supplementation was thought beneficial at one time based on logical reasons, but studies have shown Vitamin A supplementation to be associated with more lung cancer, and E was thought to be good as it is an antioxidant, but alas, supplementation showed no benefit, and higher incidence of hemmoragic stroke.
In the same way, we see layers of sediment and think that it must of come from a great flood, but careful study shows it came from multiple local floods and changing sea levels etc. over a long period of time.
Or if people had some or all their “vestigial organs” leftover by evolution removed, they would die?
Science generally proceeds with hypotheses. The “evidence” for Darwinian evolution came after Darwin’s Origin of Species, a predetermined conclusion. Since then, evolutionists fit everything into that hypothesis, regardless of how well it fits–junk DNA for example.
Scientists have for good reason dismissed centuries of science before them. Galileo for example–do I need to say more?
What is your point? Who are the conspiracy theory scientists, unless you dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a conspiracy theorist?
Again, what is your point? That millions of people have died as a result of Young Earth Creationism or denial of deep time? That is both untrue and demonizing which is harmful.
Marxism and racism have been mixed with evolutionary science and millions have died and been oppressed. I am not suggesting that Marxism and racism are necessary conclusions from biological evolution, but that is how it has been used. It would be incompatible with theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism, but not necessarily with atheistic evolution.
Specifically, what about creation science endangers people and lives. Don’t go on with generalities, like “creationists do bad science.” Do physicians who don’t believe in vestigial organs kill people? Do creationists who are physicians practice poor medicine? Do space engineers who are creationists put astronauts in danger? Does creation science keep creation geologists from finding fossil fuels?
Your generalizations and demonization are not at all instructive or helpful.
Of course, it doesn’t work that way. Just because a tailbone or an appendix may be vestigial, does not mean it is without function. A cigarette lighter socket in a an old car became the 12 volt plug you charge your cell phone in. A rather poor design, but still useful with its vestigial roots.
It’s funny how science deniers keep bringing up Galileo time and time again as justification for their claim that “science changes” or “scientists are always changing their minds.”
There are just two problems with this argument.
What Galileo was dismissing from the centuries before him was not science. It was a bunch of hypotheses and assumptions that were widely believed at the time but that nobody had bothered to test up until that point. If it hasn’t been tested, it isn’t science.
In any case, Galileo lived four hundred years ago. To bring up something that happened four hundred years ago, when modern science was in its infancy, as the basis for questioning anything in twenty-first century science when we have lasers and mass spectrometers and interferometers and genome sequencers and radio telescopes and satellites and interplanetary space probes and cloud computing and all sorts of other tools and techniques that he could only dream of, is simply patent nonsense.
No, the point is that if you applied the kind of reasoning that you see in young Earth arguments to any other area of science, millions of people would die.
Specifically, that they demand that we lower our standards of rigour, quality control, and attention to detail, in order to accommodate their approach. Once people start lowering their standards in one area of science, as sure as eggs are eggs they will start lowering their standards in other areas of science as well.
And I’m sorry, but YECs do do bad science. When you dismiss contamination as a “rescuing device,” that is bad science. When you cite tiny samples with huge error bars as “overwhelming” evidence for accelerated nuclear decay on a scale that would have raised the Earth’s temperature to 22,000°C if it had actually happened, that is bad science. When you cite errors of 10-15% in a minority of results as evidence that hundreds of thousands of other results are consistently out by factors of a million, that is bad science. And when you claim that rock formations are not fractured when such a claim is clearly contradicted by your own photographs, that is bad science.
Wow, tailbones and appendixes are vestigial as demonstrated by poor design? Wow. And are evidence for evolution! Amazing.
Keaton Halley writes in 2017,
“On a recent visit to the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York, I encountered a sign that struck me as an embarrassment to that institution. It claimed that the human coccyx, or tailbone, “serves no purpose”, but reminds us that humans have descended from ancestral animals with tails. [Emphasis added]”
Well, that is not what you are saying, but you are still saying that it is vestigial? But you are saying that the appendix is poor design but still useful? That is supposed to be evidence for evolution. And evidence that creationists do poor science.
Of course, this has devolved from the topic at hand, modified fossil evidence.
It may have some usefulness as a reservoir of normal colonic flora in the face of a wipe out of colon bacteria in the face of a severe infection (although people without appendixes do OK without them) but it is a poor design, in that infection and rupture often results in the death of its owner unless treated, and is not uncommon. But as you say, off topic.
Soft tissues being rare to fossilize, it is not well understood how many of those soft tissue organs changed, so have less to go on and less evidence of progressive change.
It doesn’t look like any of the signage at the AMNH. Anyway, the other apes (gorilla, chimp, etc.) have also lost their tails. Are you helped by your tail bone?
Quote from Tailbone “serves no purpose”? by Keaton Halley
"The coccyx and the two ischium bones of the pelvis together form a tripod that helps to bear the weight of the body and provide balance when a person is seated. As a person leans back, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.
"The coccyx also serves as an anchor for the attachment of numerous tendons, ligaments, and muscles. Some of these muscles form the hammock-like pelvic floor, which supports various internal organs, especially as we stand upright. Several muscles contribute to bowel and bladder function, including the delaying of defecation and urination—not exactly trivial abilities.
"The coccyx helps to support the spinal cord as well, serving as an anchor for the filum terminale —a fibrous length of tissue that stretches from the top of the coccyx to the lower part of the spinal cord.
“Beyond this, the coccyx serves an additional purpose in women—helping to accommodate childbirth. In females, the coccyx is less curved compared to males, so it doesn’t point as far forward, thus making room for a baby’s head to pass through the pelvis. It is more flexible as well, because the movements of the coccyx during labor actually help to enlarge the birth canal. All of this implicates purposeful design!”
Of course, it is not unusual to suffer a painful fracture of the coccyx if it does not move out of the way as it should. It’s movement only enlarges the birth canal by getting out of the way, not by magically opening the pelvis. No doubt stuff attaches to it, but it is sometimes surgically removed if chronically painful due to injury without problems. And rarely, it is associated with a rudimentary tail, with associated problems Rare disease: An infant with caudal appendage - PMC
I’ve done pretty well over the past 3 decades without my appendix, thanks.
This statement is based on egregious misunderstandings of published scientific research.
To give just one example among hundreds… the nested hierarchy studies conduct tests for statistical significance against the null hypothesis. In other words, evolution is not assumed, not in the least. Quite the opposite: the conclusion of nested hierarchy emerges from a mathematical analysis of sequence data, and is shown to be significant through statistical techniques.
Your statement about scientific research and the reality of scientific research are 100% polar opposites, Craig.
Actually, you do, because you left out key parts of the relevant history.
You seem to be implying that the data had supported heliocentrism prior to Galileo, but they were ignored due to peer influence in favor of geocentrism. This is not what happened.
Copernicus first hypothesized a sun-centric system over a century before Galileo published his works. However, basically no one left geocentrism during that intervening century because of 2 things:
Not enough supporting data for heliocentrism.
Strong belief in a literal understanding of Bible passages such as Psalm 104.
The real revolution in Galileo’s time was the advent of widespread optical instruments (telescopes). Enormous amounts of data became available, and those data supported heliocentrism. Confronted with the overwhelming scientific evidence, theologians altered their literalistic hermeneutical approach to many passages which had been thought for millenia to be obviously literal and scientifically applicable.
The scientific data have continued to accumulate since Galileo, and the heliocentric view of the solar system is considered settled. Of course, we have also learned more recently about the Big Bang occurring 13.8 billion years ago, and galaxies both nearby (light reaching us today from Andromeda was emitted 2.5M years ago) and very distant (light was emitted 13+ billion years ago), and special relativity, and general relativity…
In the opinion of tens of thousands of biologists, the consilience of sequence data, fossil data, radiometric dates, and other kinds of data makes biology today much more like astronomy in 1900 AD than astronomy in 1500 AD. In the same way heliocentrism was considered settled in 1900 due to the overwhelming data, evolution is considered settled today due to the overwhelming data. Astronomy kept advancing, and I’m sure biology will keep advancing. But the overwhelming data lead astronomers to believe that there’s no going back to geocentrism, and the overwhelming data lead biologists to believe there’s no going back to YEC.
Of course, I understand you are not convinced the data are overwhelming, Craig. But when I notice how you do not appear to understand the way scientific research of nested hierarchies for DNA sequences have been conducted, I am reluctant to give your view more weight than the weight I accord to the scientists who conduct the peer-reviewed research.
Isn’t the issue what is true and what is not? If my ten year old grandson says he found a beaver skull, that does not make it false. In fact, it was true.
So what is true about what Halley said, and what do you find to be false?
Also, you included snark, but it seems you left out the part that Keaton Halley also has a Master of Arts in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. I’ll let you look that up to see what that entails.
But again, you are defining what gets to count as knowledge, and Biola may not meet your standards. Nor would their Masters in Science and Religion, because they do not teach evolution.
All I know is that my bum hurts like hell from the wonderfully designed coccyx. And speaking of vestigial structures, What do you make of the vestigial dewclaws on dogs and cattle?
