Developing College-Level ID/Creation Courses

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

I mean, there may well be a Young Earth Creationist as the Faculty Chair of the Biology department here, for example:

https://www.biola.edu/directory/people/wendy-billock

There are qualified faculty to help build the science component out.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@davecarlson

That is indeed Sal’s claim. Of course, it’s completely wrong.

Or it turns out your major is history

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

For what it’s worth, I have a colleague at Houston Baptist University that teaches a Philosophy of Science course. The readings for the 2 weeks spent on Biology are entirely devoted to ID, with the exception of two chapter from “Adam and the Genome” by Venema and McKnight.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

What does he think if the GAE ?

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

We are on very good terms, but I just don’t see him frequently and don’t know if he’s current on the discussion. I’ll have to share my copy with him - after I’m finished, of course!

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

Thanks for the info!

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@stcordova

A lottery, btw, is intelligently designed to guarantee a winner.

This is rarely the case with the major lotteries in the USA. (In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a lottery with a guaranteed winner.)

You hear it on the news all of the time: “There was no winner in this week’s state lottery so it’s another rollover. Then pot is now at $8 million.” Sometimes there is no winner of the lottery for many weeks. This is actually by design. The lottery officials learned long ago that not so many “small” winners and an occasional huge news headline winner pays off with more people buying lottery tickets.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@stcordova I do appreciate you conversing with all of us and what appears like genuine attempts to find some middle ground. Clearly there is a lot of disagreements still, and that is okay.

@stcordova

There are qualified faculty to help build the science component out.

This doesn’t really work for me. Good science should largely be able to stand on its own. The credentials of the people involved are secondary, though certainly correlated with quality. Just because someone is “qualified” doesn’t mean the scientific claims they are making will be valid. We are concerned about the validity of the claims, not the qualifications of the people making the claims.

By confining this to philosophy, though, you are making a good move. Rather than presenting contested scientific claims, you could instead made divine design arguments from well established and agreed upon science. WLC does this to good effect.

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

From Jerry Coyne:

In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to [the pseudo science of] phrenology than to physics. — Coyne, Vice and Men

I studied a little physics, I don’t think 90% of evolutionary biology has the right to call itself science by comparison. Same for many of the claims abiogenesis, except when it tell the truth about how remote the chances of life are.

[davecarlson]

Yes, we’ve all seen that Coyne quotemine many times before. The fact that you continue to do use it simply reduces your credibility.

Also for the record, based on my observations, you seem to know far less about evolutionary biology than you to think you do.

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

The fundamental problems with evolutionary biology are circular reasonings and non-sequiturs and equivocations. These are logical fallacies, but are the pillars of evolutionary theory.

Here is an example non-sequitur. We have a phylogenetic inference from such and such set of proteins, this implies the orphan/TRG systems evolved in these creatures from their ancestor naturally. That’s a non-sequitur. A specific example of this is a few solitary sequences are shared between the Eukarotic Spliceosome and prokaryotic self-splicing introns. It doesn’t matter that the spliceosome is made of so many complex proteins not found in prokaryotes, and that the evolutionary steps to effect change are statistical miracles. But it doesn’t stop evolutionary biologists from asserting common ancestry and that the changes are natural (as in consistent with normative expectation).

Same for the evolution of Chromatin. Saying it evolved (as in evolved naturally) is not proven, it’s a faith belief in the face of contrary evidence, and that is not science.

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

Evolutionary theory claims humans evolved from a fish, or that humans actually are fish (Sarcopterygii, to quote Axel Meyers and PZ Myers).

Here is a fish, note the order of the organs if we go counter clockwise from head to back:

1. Head
2. Heart
3. Stomach
4. Anus
5. Urogenital Opening (analogous to vagina)
6. back

this is in contrast to the human anatomy:

1. Head
2. Heart
3. Stomach
4. Vagina
5. Anus
6. Back

Note how the order of the anus and vagina had to be flipped or inverted between fish and human!

Evolutionary biology might cite the cloacal stage of human embryonic development and represent that as mostly sufficient to solve the problem of how the organs flipped position.

But there is no consideration for the mechanical feasibility of such a transformation. This is “science” by story telling, which is not science. The scientific thing to do is to merely compare anatomical features. Unless a detailed and plausible account of mechanical feasibility exists, it shouldn’t be represented as science.

It seems rather forced to insist “this happened naturally” (or by normative mechanisms). That is not science, that is imposing faith beliefs of how things came to be.

Scientifically it’s believable to say, “a fish gives rise to a fish after N-generations” because we see a fish give birth to a fish. It’s another thing to claim a human or bird came from a fish since that doesn’t agree with direct observations, it’s an inference, and the more that it is at variance with the operation of normative mechanisms, the more it is akin to believing in miracles, which is a religious belief.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Timothy_Horton

Radiometric dating would show nothing on earth is older than 6000 years.

That one has already been falsified

Faizal_Ali:

The fossil record would show an abrupt appearance of all organisms now classified at a relatively low taxonomnic level (say family or genera) with no predecessors or transitional forms between them.

That one has already been falsified.

Faizal_Ali:

Geological records would show the entire earth was covered by water about 4000 years ago.

That one has already been falsified.

Faizal_Ali:

Genomic evidence would show major population bottlenecks of all lineages at this time.

That one has already been falsified.

Oh for four. Looks like YEC has already been falsified, right Sal?

Why does it not surprise me both Sal and Bill have dropped the topic of falsified YEC predictions like a hot potato?

[Timothy_Horton]

@stcordova

The fundamental problems with evolutionary biology are circular reasonings and non-sequiturs and equivocations. These are logical fallacies, but are the pillars of evolutionary theory.

The fundamental problem with Creationism is too many YECs hand wave away the incredibly huge amount of positive evidence for evolution with the false claims ToE is based on circular reasoning, non-sequiturs, and equivocations.

Look at any of the YEC posts here for examples.

[Faizal_Ali]

@stcordova

Dr. Harshman, if to level the playing field such that I’m not outnumbered 10 to one in this place, I’m happy to engage you in an online audio/video conversation publicly visible to the class,.

I have often posted on creationist and theist forums and groups where I am outnumbered. I don’t have much problem because I make claims that I can defend regarding subjects I can understand.

I will also admit, however, that the people outnumbering me there are not nearly as intelligent, qualified and informed as the ones you would be facing here. But that in itself should tell you something.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

The conversation could be very educational.

No doubt. But it would be moreso if we just included the parts from @John_Harshman alone.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

Brilliant Sal. You think maybe because there are close to 400 million years of evolution between humans and our distant fish ancestors might explain why there are no direct observations?

Would this qualify as an example of circular reasoning for your curriculum?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@stcordova

It’s another thing to claim a human or bird came from a fish since…

…it’s a straw man. Individual organisms do not evolve. Only populations do, so the use of the singular pronoun is just another creationist trope.

[John_Harshman]

@stcordova

I don’t think 90% of evolutionary biology has the right to call itself science by comparison.

Present company excepted? Or not?

[T_aquaticus]

@stcordova

They may or may not be right, . . .

That would be the important point.