Creationism and the Presidency
Creationism is its pure form is the belief that the word was created about 10,000 years ago and the fossil record exists only because of the great flood during Noah’s era. The question that I would personally like to have answered is whether the President of the United States is, or is not, a subscriber to this notion. In an age of scientific discoveries and daily breakthroughs can we afford to have leaders who think that scientific method itself is a hoax? This particular webpage tries to examine the issue and includes some of the primary pro-creationist information.
Since Bush is a born-again Christian of the new style, the liklihood that he is a creationist is quite high. In fact, I’d be shocked if he was not. But except for a Frontline documentary on Bush’s beliefs, we know very little. This is something I’d like to know. I think it’s important. Has he ever come out and told anyone? If he thinks the whole thing is bogus it might offend his flock. So is he misleading them? Or does he believe in creationism and is ashamed of his belief? It just seems strange to me that a man so religious never lets on about the basics. I want to know. And while we’re at it can we find out whether he subscribes to “talking in tongues” too.
related links:
Bad Science
Adam and Eve Toast?
I don’t want to hi-jack this post, and I don’t want to start a philosophical or relgious debate.
It should be noted, however, that “creationism” is not a strictly Christian term.
Moreover, a number of noted astro-physicists, who are officially agnostic, support the idea of “Universe by Design”.
Some of the arguments to support that stance are very, very convincing.
Sorry, Jeffro, what you say makes no sense, even at the most superficial level. First, it’s “astrophysicists,” not “astro-physicists.” Second, to say they are “officially agnostic” is nonsense, as there is no sort of agnostic or astrophysicist oath they have to sign before become astrophysicists.
You are right, though, that it’s not a strictly Christian issue. Nonsensical explanations of the universe include things like the earth sitting on turtles, the idea that it was all created yesterday (including our memories) and lots more. Modern “intelligent design” or whatever they are calling it this week, is still, though, a foot in the door to making the Christian bible the offical tool for scientific teaching and investigation.
“Some of the arguments to support that stance are very, very convincing.”
Only if you don’t know anything about science or the fields of study to which the arguments refer. Thankfully, with the Internet, anyone can discover what a load of horseshit ID is. There’s really no excuse for advocating it other than ignorance or having a (not so secret) underlying agenda.
John said this about the (probable) creationist beliefs of the President:
“In an age of scientific discoveries and daily breakthroughs can we afford to have leaders who think that scientific method itself is a hoax?”
Clearly this is a rhetorical question, and John would argue that the answer is “No.”
I find this chilling for two reasons. First, the statement itself seems like a gross caricature. Undoubtedly there are creationists who are ignorant or otherwise reject some tenets of modern scientific methodology, but it is inaccurate and unfair to imply that anyone who believes God had some direct role in creating the world also rejects science. John, while you’ve no doubt read critical summaries of Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, please take the time to read just a few chapters of it yourself, and then tell me if you still hold to your broad-brush statement without qualification. Do you seriously believe this author does not believe in scientific methodology? I know you’re a pretty opinionated guy, as I often enjoy reading your columns in PC Mag, so I don’t expect you to change your mind, but still, I’m inviting you to consider some evidence that is contrary to your position.
A second reason I find your assertion rather chilling is that you’re willing to assert with such confidence–in a field that is outside your own area of expertise–a litmus test of a “required belief” as a qualification for high public office. Now I suppose you could counter my concern and say, Ok, would you want to allow someone who believe there are pink unicorns running around on the North Pole? Of course not–there has to be some reasonable common ground, some test of truth and rationality that we can agree on. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to take a scientific hypothesis, even one that is strongly supported, and suggest that, if you don’t accept this, you are either stupid or crazy, and you can’t be President. That sounds like something Richard Dawkins would say (Dawkins is an intelligent, but rabid, apologist for neo-Darwinist evolution), but not John Dvorak . Many, many scientific theories, which were widely accepted as the “received notion” in their day, have now been discarded or superceded. Even aspects of Einstein’s revered quantum theory have been modified over time, with modern notions such as string theory now pushing for consideration. Scientific theories come and go, and even strongly supported ones such as evolution can be seriously modified, i.e., the “paradigm” (Thomas Kuhn’s construct) can shift. It does not seem reasonable to freeze a particular scientific hypothesis at a moment in time, to suggest “This is the only possible acceptable view of truth,” and then require everyone to meet that standard in every walk of life unrelated to the field.
If the President were clearly mentally unstable, irrational, or had done something illegal and provable that would otherwise disqualify him from the Presidency, then let him be removed or impeached. But I say, the President has a constitutional right to hold his personal beliefs about the origins of the world, as long as he doesn’t try to impose them on the public, and so I think John’s assertion is incorrect.
Before you all get all your digs in at Creationism…
(1) Have you ever examined the best evidence for Creationism and against Neo-Darwin Evolution? (I’d suggest “The case against Darwin” by James Perloff as a starting point. It focuses on those evidences which are easy to explain in a short book and those evidences which are most powerful. Also, you can buy it in almost any bookstore for less than $10. Unfortunately, it leaves out the more complex mathmatically issues, but it is a good starting point.)
(2) Neo-Darwin Evolution is basically Classic Darwinism with the added component of Natural Selection / Survival of the Fitest “selecting genes” as the mechanism or engine for Evolution. (I hope this made sense. Basically, Darwinism by itself did have the mechanism down pat.) Neo-Darwinism is the dominant theory of origins that is taught in our Universities today. Therefore, I would ask anyone here, what is the best and most irrefutable evidence to show that naturalistic Neo-Darwin Evolution occurred?
Timlt. First of all you are using the word “chilling” too much. This is actually an old left-wing code word, so that baffles me. Second are you saying I have no right to this opinion? I wouldn’t vote for a puppy kicker either. I have standards. I voted for Bush the first time around and I’m disappointed. And I’m not going to argue about creationism or Dawkins. What you fail to grasp is that with an education one accepts long-standing modern Western Christendom rationale thought. The fact is there are no pink unicorns on the North pole (your weird example). I do not have to go there to know that. You’re trying to fool readers with specious nonsense. If you want to beleive that the world was created 10,000 years ago, and that 30,000 years of Chinese history is a hoax, good for you. Do I want someone so flummoxed by reality (like that) to be my leader. NO WAY. Not that this makes him or you a bad person. And I haven’t even gotten to the talking in tongues stuff.
That said plenty of people voted for Pat Robertson a few years back. They have a right to. AND I have a right not to. You seem to think (by your last paragraph) that unless the President has done an impeachable offense there is no rationale for voting against him. What planet does this idea come from?
I have to agree that this is where Bush is weakest. Creationists can accept that nuclear waste can have a half-life of 10,000 years, but can’t believe that the world was created more than 10,000 years ago? (*Does not compute*).
I have to say that this is where Bush and the Republicans really lose my support. I’m a firm believer in the market system and low taxes which is why Democrats lose my vote. But that doesn’t mean voting for Republicans isn’t painful at times.
Unfortunately, it will be a cold day in hell (pun intended) before an atheist gets into office just because there are so many religious loons on both sides. For every Christian crack pot on the right, there is a astrologist, new ager or feng shui bozo on the left.
It would be nice, for a change, to have a leader that actually understands science for once. That actually comprehends the scientific method for finding truth. The reality is that the President has to be a good judge of people and thus good at surrounding themselves with an intelligent staff. That said, Ashcroft isn’t exactly a beaming testimony to that ability.
John, if you really want to know Bush’s beliefs, Google “Bush Creationism” and you’ll get all the answers you need on the first results page without even clicking through. You voted for Bush? Don’t Google? Shoot me now.
A second reason I find your assertion rather chilling is that you’re willing to assert with such confidence–in a field that is outside your own area of expertise–a litmus test of a “required belief” as a qualification for high public office.
After reading that, I scrolled back up and re-read John’s post.
Where do you get the “as a qualification for public office” crap?
Therefore, I would ask anyone here, what is the best and most irrefutable evidence to show that naturalistic Neo-Darwin Evolution occurred?
🙂
Therefore, I would ask anyone here, what is the best and most irrefutable evidence to show who authored the “Genesis” chapter of the bible? Extra credit: When was it written?
First off, not all Christians interpret the creation section of Genesis in a literal way. It’s not written like the historical books of the Bible like 1 and 2 Samuel and many others. While it makes it clear that God created the Earth and Mankind, and not that it was a matter of chance, I think insisting that the world was created in 7 days is not a good interpretation of that passage. I have taught on Genesis, and while some can argue for that, I don’t believe it’s the best interpretation of the text. Many parts of the Bible are written in this poetic way – the book of Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, etc…
Personally, I think it takes much less faith to believe God created the universe, the earth and mankind than to believe everything somehow everything wound up the way it is because of chance interactions. Try running the odds of the earth coming into being with all it’s life by complete chance, and you’ll see what I mean. The only reason you would conclude this happened by chance is by ruling out the possible existance of God. That assumes God doesn’t exist, and I think it’s very hard to prove that is the case. I am not saying you have to assume He does exist either, but ruling it out at the start isn’t good science. It isn’t keeping an open mind to what the evidence might show you.
If you want to actually read some work that is a very credible argument for creation, and not just some article that is easy to ridicule, look at any of Phil Johnson’s books on the subject. He’s a law professor at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall and argues with logic of an excellent attorney. The first book is “Darwin on Trial”, the second is “Reason in the Balance: The case against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education”. The third is “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds”, and the last “The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism”. I would recommend them to all who really want to understand the evidence for darwinism and creation.
Most folks on both sides of this debate blindly believe what someone taught them on this subject, and don’t actually understand the pros and cons of both sides. The atheistic mindset found in most universities today doesn’t exactly encourage one to investigate the issue and not take Evolution as a matter of faith.
Read some of Johnson’s books and post what you think of them. You would be surprised at how many scientists have come to the conclusion that evolution is fundamentally flawed.
Thanks,
Mike
Coincidentally, I just saw a hilarious show on creationism by Penn and Teller (from their Showtime program “Bullsh*t”, downloaded on Kazaa). It lends weight to the idea that “Intelligent Design” is just a deliberate smokescreen.
This is mostly just a sad reflection of people’s ignorance, and one should be compassionate, but I’m still tempted to pull a prank at a school board meeting where the teaching of creationism is being debated: get several people to address the board, one by one, and have them say stuff like, “School board members, I represent a Christian denomination that has its own true account of the origin of life. We have irrefutable proof that the Earth plopped out of Elvis Presley’s butt three weeks ago, and we demand that this be taught alongside evolution.” Or, “I am God, I can prove it, and I made the Earth from a Heathkit set back in the 70s.” Etc. Then again, it might be better to keep it more subtle, offering just minor but incompatible variations of creationism.
A related question regarding George W Bush is whether he believes in the rapture, which, as “60 Minutes” reported, is a belief held by a surprisingly large number of Christians in the U.S. Shades of Martin Sheen’s president in “The Dead Zone.”
What’s especially sad to me is that creationists seem to be motivated partly by a distaste for the idea that people and other creatures share a common lineage and are made of the same stuff. I myself feel reassured by the idea that I’m related to the pelicans I was watching today.
Firstly, As Dave mentioned, I would highly recommend to everyone to buy and watch Penn and Teller’s Bullshit. The purpose of the show is to debunk stupid beliefs (UFO’s, Reflexology etc) and well as some common misconceptions (Recycling works, Secondhand Smoke kills etc) as well as loony organizations (PETA). For believers and non-believers alike it is a good dose of reality. It’s great comedy that teaches people how to go about differentiating bullshit from truth.
Secondly, there is OVERWHELMING evidence that the earth is older than 5,000 years. Paleontology is not the only science involved in evaluating human history beyond 5 to 10 thousand years. Among others are Generics, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Oceanography and more. The evidence for the evolution theory is as overwhelming as the evidence that the world is not flat. There is absolutely no **scientific** basis for creationism. One more time, there is no **scientific** basis for creationism. The problem is most people studied how to pass notes in class instead of how real science actually works to find truth.
Thirdly, Mr. McEwen said that “Verifiable history (i.e. dates that are verified beyond a reasonable doubt) do not go back as far as many would like to believe.” I’m reminded of a quote from a Journal of Irreproducible Results article that started, “History has been with us a long as the transcribed record.” That was meant to be a *comical* statement. History *is* the transcribed record. That has nothing to do with whether homo sapiens, who were probably unable to write, were living on the planet longer than 5000 years ago. We can verify with absolute confidence that homo sapiens that are generically identical to modern humans have been on Earth longer than 10,000 years. We have fossil record (something the creationists love to dismiss for some reason) that dates back that far and farther. *Modern civilization* however, is only about 10 thousand years old. Those are two completely different statements.
I don’t think creationists understand that in order for the creationist theory to be accepted, *they* have to provide proof of its veracity. That proof always fails at the “and an intelligent designer” or “a supreme being” then made the universe. Where is the proof of the existence of that being? Where is the proof that there is one and only one? Which creationist theory (each religion has their own)?
Back to the original question, of what George W. Bush believes.
Bush is a Methodist, which, generally speaking, is a moderate denomination. He was raised Episcopal, which, generally speaking, is a liberal denomination, at least in teaching. An Episcopal is more likely to be an evolutionist than a Methodist, and either one of those is more likely to be an evolutionist than a Pentecostal.
As far as speaking in tongues, it wouldn’t surprise me either way if Bush believes in it (and believing in it is different from practicing it). Sometimes you’ll go to a church service where there’s tongue-speaking and it looks like anarchy because everyone’s doing it. I’d be highly surprised if Bush is in that category. Are there Methodists who speak in tongues? I know there must be, because there are Lutherans who do (which surprises a lot of people). Most of the Lutherans I know who speak in tongues do so only occasionally, and generally when they are alone. I guess you could say I believe in speaking in tongues because I’ve done it, once. In 20 years.
I suspect George W. Bush falls into the same category I do.
As far as creationism and its effects on you, I won’t mince words: I’m a creationist. But I don’t tell people they’re going to hell if they believe in evolution. It changes my view of things, sure, but I still believe in the scientific method. I use it almost every day. Since nobody can repeat the world’s coming into being, and life’s coming into being, it’s not about the scientific method. My dad, who was a doctor, a Christian and an evolutionist, used to say that whichever you believe, you get to a point where there’s some force that had to set it all in motion. Dad believed that force that set it in motion was God. An atheist would believe that force that set it in motion was chance, or chaos. Either way, you’re choosing to believe in something.
If Bush is a creationist, then, one of his fundamental beliefs is going to be that every human being is part of some big plan and has a purpose for living. If he’s an evolutionist, he’s more likely to be willing to accept the idea that a particular person is an accident, because we all are.
Since I run around in Christian circles, I can tell you there are a lot of Christians who are happy to have someone who professes to be a committed Christian in the White House. Does that mean his Christian beliefs control him? I don’t think so. No more than John F. Kennedy’s status as a Catholic made him a puppet of the Pope and Rome, which was a fear during his time.
I can also tell you, because I ran around in Baptist circles for a good part of Bill Clinton’s presidency, there were a lot of Baptists who were happy that one of their own was in the White House.
Oh, and if I were a betting man, I’d bet that Bill Clinton is a creationist.
I’d take the bet. But the fact that you think that Clinton is a creationist tells me that he should have been asked about it too.
I am rolling my eyes so much reading these discussions they hurt.
Please! It’s interesting to discuss whether it’s important to know the President’s position, but STOP the silly debating of creationism.
It’s like reading kids arguing whether pokemon lives anywhere near the smurfs. Talk about your fairy tale somewhere else. There are endless places more appropriate for that.
Thanks!
I think that the poster who calls himself “give it rest” just can’t handle the truth.
I did post another evolution/creationism debate post… (which may or may not be up by the time you read this) which I hope Dvorak lets through. I’ll stop there on the evolution/creation debate if no one else cares to challenge my points.
However, in the spirit of cooperation, this post WILL focus more narrowly on the main topic of this thread…
Basically, with John Dvorak’s main article as well as many of the pro-evolution comments, there is a sort of “we all know that only ignorant, backwoods, rural, bible-thumping, fundamentalist Christians are capable of believing such provably false myths as creationism” (I don’t think many of you would call this characterization of what is really going on in your minds an exaggeration… Am I right on target with what you are really thinking?)
However, what many of you don’t seem to realize is that many, many well respected and renowned scientists and scholars are either creationists or, as the very least, extremely skeptical about Evolution.
See the following page for evidence to back my point up. (Be sure to scroll down to the actual list of scientists.)
http://www.s8int.com/nodarwin.html
I would say that if Bush finds himself in the same boat as people like Henry F.Schaefer (Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia and 6th most frequently quoted chemist in the world in science journals) and Fred Sigworth (Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U.) …then Bush may be smarter than you give him credit.
…now, what were you were saying about “fairy tales” and “smurfs”???
First off, not all Christians interpret the creation section of Genesis in a literal way. It’s not written like the historical books of the Bible like 1 and 2 Samuel and many others. While it makes it clear that God created the Earth and Mankind, and not that it was a matter of chance…,
So, believing that “God created the Earth and Mankind” is not considered a literal interpretation of the Bible?
My main problem with ID is not that the proponents want discussion of a creator – that’s fine by me – it is that they only want discussion of the creator that Christians believe in.
The aurguments always come down to (some, not all) Christians wanting to graft their belief structure into/onto the secular model. I never hear of anyone wanting Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddist beliefs to be grafted onto Darwin’s theory. 🙂
A close second, in my complaints against ID, is that they use all sorts of facts and figures to attack Evolution, and then want to use an anonymously-authored text – with no known publication date – as a reference for their arguments. Very scientific on the attack, but totally un-scientific on the defense.
And the people who mention how history gets “vague”, more than about 4000-years ago, should consider current events – where people are giving conflicting testimony about what happened just 30-years ago, in Vietnam. People can’t agree on that, but some of us are absolutely certain about what happened 2000-years ago – or at the creation of the world – because the Bible tells them so.
Mike Voice:
I’ve been accused of getting away from the main focus of the original article. Fair enough. I did.
Now… your last post demonstrated that you never really read the points that I and others made very closely. It is obvious that you skimmed (if even that) and then posted a rebuttal to a “straw man”. I don’t even know for sure WHO you are talking to in your last post because no one is even coming close to doing what you accuse them of doing.
But, to be sure, tell me what “anonymously authored text” you are referring to and, if it was from me, I’ll provide impeccable sources. (I thought I did this already, but I could have missed one or two).
Also, when I talked about “history getting vague”, I’m simply referring to the fact that we cannot pinpoint the actual year or even the decade (or even the century, in most cases) of many major events that scientists believe to have occurred once the timeline goes beyond 4,000 years ago. There is simply a disconnect between history stops and paleontology picks back up. But, again, I repeat myself and you obviously are replying to posts that you didn’t read carefully in the first place.
Finally, just because I mentioned some things as compatible with “biblical creation” does NOT necesssarily mean that these same things are incompatible with other’s belief about creation. Where did you dig that one up from? Moreover, I have relied ONLY on provable science and scientific authorities throughout this thread. I have not once appealed to the Bible as an authority or reason for the readers here to trust me.
Certainly I am not ashamed of the Bible… and I happen to believe the Bible literally…
…but I would not dare use the Bible to convince someone of something if that person didn’t believe in the Bible in the first place… and if I didn’t think that I already had science on my side (apart from the Bible), I would not have entered into this discussion in the first place.
…but next time, please challenge what I actually said, not the “straw man” arguments that you want and prefer to argue against.
I think we need to get back on track…it’s about whether Bush believes in creationism, not about the viability of creationism. Nobody is going to be convinced that their opinion is wrong.
All further posts arguing about creationism will be edited if they are not succinct.
Disclaimer, I believe in both. God created the universe and established it’s laws. These mathematical and physical laws set into motion the gears that resulted in us. This is my belief set.
Basically, it all comes down to what happened prior to Plank time (the first 1×10^-43 seconds). Physics, in it’s current form, cannot by definition make any predictions prior to that time. Science can neither prove nor disprove that some “hand of god” set the universe in motion. A scientist must accept that uncertainty.
I find it a little disturbing, as a scientist, that people are believing literally in a english translation of a latin translation of a greek translation of original hebrew documents. While I believe that “God” or a “creator” exists, the literal belief in King James’ version of Genesis is an issue that needs to be asked of both candidates.
But do any of you really think that either candidate would give you anything approaching a straight answer? It would be political suicide to either look like a creationist loon or an outright atheist. Why don’t we ask Kerry also? Last time I checked he was a practicing Roman Catholic, ergo, should believe in creationism according to the Church. If he doesn’t, he’s a hypocrite since creationism, to some extent, is required of any religion. You must acknowledge an omnipotent god to be a monotheist. Omnipotent gods are not created after the fact.
Besides the creationist delema there are a number of other items that those who believe everything in the bible have to explain.
The Tower of Babel for example. I wonder how tall it was compared to modern concrete and steel skyscrapers? At what height does God get nervous about reaching Heaven?
Then – Noah and the Ark. 40 days and the planet is covered in water. The highest mountains are 27,000 feet so that means it had to rain 28 feet per hour. That’s a hell of a storm.
Then – if God can see the future – doesn’t he know everything everyone is ever going to do – including himself? And – if God knows everything he’s going to do – then he doesn’t have any free will. Unless he doesn’t know everything that everyone is going to do – then there’s something he doesn’t know.
The limitations of omnipotence. I can go out and get drunk and be stupid. Can God do that? NO! But – you would say – God wouldn’t want to do that – and that’s another thing I can do that God can’t.
The real question is – why does the invisible cloud being remain invisable? Is he hiding from those evil intellectuals who won’t surrender their logic to worship something that refuses any test of reality? I suppose it is God’s will that people like me remain confused and ignorant and I will fulfill my destiny and spend eternity in hell – a fate that God has already foreseen.
What scares me is – people actually believe this.
Rob McEwen
The initial part of my comment (#25) was a quote from comment #14 – which was posted by “Mike Myers”.
I’m not sure how you took my post as an direct rebutal to any of your postings – as I normally insert the quote first – to avoid confusion.
Most of my post was just me chipping-in with my 2-cents – on something that had gotten off-topic – after scanning the commnents (you are right on that score), since most of it is pretty dense. I had no intention of trying to rebut your statements – using a “straw man”, or otherwise.
But, to be sure, tell me what “anonymously authored text” you are referring to and, if it was from me, I’ll provide impeccable sources.
No, it wasn’t from you. The “annonymously-authored text” I was alluding to was Genesis – as I don’t believe anyone is credited with writing it. 🙂
Wow. I am amazed at the lucidity of these posts. I am even more amazed that one of my favorite writers actually answers them. What a great little spot to find on this world wide web.
However, again, I see that acceptance and tolerance are hard to come by in a discussion such as this. I ran into a similar thing when our High School Alumni class (1974) started a web site in Jan.2001. Ingrained beliefs about God and Creation seem to leave very little wiggle room, and my fellow alumni were trying to draw blood from each other (Missouri Bible Belt) .
“I would ask anyone here, what is the best and most irrefutable evidence to show that naturalistic Neo-Darwin Evolution occurred?”
There is NO example of something ever coming from nothing.
The mathematical probability of something occurring — when it has NEVER occurred, when there are NO scientific combinations of events or circumstances predicating its occurrence — is ZERO.
It’s the basic division between philosphical materialism and idealism. The latter exists in the dreams of the “faithful”. The former relies on the history of all science and, in fact, the daily behavior of all but the demented.
Believers may walk down the street expecting the 3rd bush on the right to burst into flame — or, even better, some hippie-looking dude in a long robe to appear from nowhere and promising miracles — but, in daily practice, believers act like spontaneous materialists just like everyone else.
Bush’s belief system is very simple. If it helps him get elected – he believes in it. Bush believes what Karl Rove tells him to believe.
Rob, people like you make me understand why people vote Democrat. To answer your question, the entire science of Palentology refutes your claim. We have fossils of early humans (Neandertal etc) we *know* to be millions of years old. You want evidence, go pickup a science book. Take a course in real science at a real university. Astronomy, Palentology, Geology, Chemistry all provide evidence that evolution is accurate. You want your evidence? That is where it is located. It is nonsense to believe that Plank’s constant is the hinge on which all of the evolution theory revolves. Evolution is substantiated from numerous fields of studies and thus in numerous ways. That’s one of the reasons it is so solid. Saying that Evolution is wrong is like saying the world is flat.
Jeff, creationism cannot be supported by scientific evidence which is why it is not a scientific theory. It stops being scientific right at the point where it purports a supernatural or “intelligent designer.” Since they cannot provide scientific evidence for the existence of such a being, the theory itself cannot be established.
I”m not going to suck up any more of John’s blog trying to convince loons how actual science works.
As I said before, many smart people in the past have believed all kinds of crazy stuff but that did not preclude them from being good or even great leaders. Likewise, many smart people that had their basis in reality and understood science made terrible leaders. So, should it worry us that the President probably believes in the equivalent of the tooth fairy? Yes. Does or would it prevent him from being a good leader and good at his job? Not necessarily.
However, I think the answer to your question John is that there are still numerous ostriches in the world that still believe in creationism and thus they are not at all disturbed that Bush (or even Kerry) might believe in it. (Which in and of itself is disturbing.)
John said:
now plate tectonics is a hoax too!
Please re-read this article again. I don’t think it goes near as far as your comment suggests. Rather, this is a competing theory regarding plate tectonics.
Also, again… the combination of everything I’ve personally espoused is NOT incompatible with a “big bang”15 (or so) billion years ago… but I’d admit that I do veer from the traditional “old earth” creationist model. Therefore, I’m NOT espousing a 10,000 year old earth. (Remember, I’m not yet convinced one way or the other… I try to stick with science that is irrefutable and/or more provable. Personally, I find astronomy as young earth creationist’s biggest enemy.)
As far as how “young earth” creationists (and I don’t count myself as one) get these dates, I’ve read that these estimates are based on genealogies in the Bible. (This is not an exact “science”, but one can reach a range of dates using this method.)
The funny thing about this is that I get the distinct impression that Kerry really doesn’t care about religion but simply made himself out to be Catholic to appease the ostriches of the world like Rob. I expect that one finds out how many loons there are in this country when they run for President.
This whole topic is even more ironic in that Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were all agnostics (so was Paine but he was never elected). In other words, the first six Presidencies were dominiated by essentially non-religious men.
Rob…stop babbling bible bs…go get a degree from a non-religious 4 year university in a major science field (Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Genetics etc)…then we’ll talk evolution vs. creationism.
As Will Rogers once said, “It’s not what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know that ain’t so.” You think you know how to use the scientific method. You don’t. Go learn young grasshopper.
Whenever I observe one of these flareups of creationist nitwittery, I’m amused by the deep misunderstanding of the workings and language of science evident in the creationists case. I’m surprised nobody’s said “Evolution is a theory and not a fact!!” yet.
Here’s what they should’ve taught you in grade school: A ‘fact’ is an objective, measurable observation we can make about the world, a datum. A ‘theory’ is a collection of words to explain the facts at hand. Now, here’s the clever part: the theory can also be extended to point out facts that we haven’t discovered yet. By using the theory as a guide to search out these facts and finding them, we can reinforce and refine the theory. If we fail, or falsify the theory, we can junk it and work up another. It’s a marvelous self correcting mechanism.
This is where science exceeds previous methods of telelogy. You can make your career as a scientist by breaking someone elses theory! The constant vigorious testing of theories with new measurements and discoveries is what keeps the process honest. The whole idea of a dogmatic scientific community is laughable. If a guy in a lab could turn the last 200 years of biology on its head with a better theory of the origin of species (evolution says zip on where life itself came from) then he’d have gold plated tenure for the rest of his life.
That’s where creationism breaks down. It not only fails to explain the data at hand, it makes zero predictions as to what we could find if the hypothesis were true. Therefore, it’s not falsifiable and it is NOT part of the body of science. Stretching your explanation to fit available data is not enough. Saying ‘God done it!’ isn’t falsifiable, since there’s always an out to explain away errant data (remember Sagan’s invisbile dragon in a box?).
Back to Bush: I can’t see Bush as a creationist. I see him more as the wishy washy ‘God works in many ways’ Christian who thinks that each day in Genesis represents a zillion years. Or maybe he just doesn’t give it much thought. Either way I’m ambivilent. I’m unconvinced that a understanding of advanced biology is a requirement to hold high office in this country. That’s what advisors are for. I see him more sympathetic to getting creationism in schools, but that’s just playing to his base and would happen regardless of his personal beliefs. Besides, that’s just another reason to dynamite the federal education system.