Over on Triablogue, there's some fairly standard creationist nonsense in response to a comment from Daniel Morgan on one of their posts.
First, Daniel asked "Were the species all created ex nihilo?" In response, he was told it's a question of "kinds," not species.
This leads quickly to another question: what in the world is a "kind"? Creationists talk about it a lot, but never explain it. A useful contrast is the Biological Species Concept--the idea that two populations are the same species if they can mate and procude fertile offspring. Because we know, among other things, that new species can evolve, creationists can't use "species" as "kind," but how do they propose to test whether two populations are the same "kind." In a similar vein, in response to the question of "Are the biologists lying about the descent with modification of species from common ancestors?", Daniel was told that the "It fails to distinguish between evidence for microevolution and evidence for macroevolution." Again, what is macro/microevolution? Mircoevolution has to include speciation. On the other had, the evidence for evolution at the level of taxonomic families is much the same as the evidence at the level of phyla. We're talking about things like the nested hierarchy, which most scientists think works at all levels. Do the Triabloggers think it works for families but not phyla? If so, what's their evidence?
The section on the age of the earth is rather confused. It's major points are something about resetting clocks, and "that radiometric decay rates are not designed to tell the time. That is not their natural function." For not recognizing these things, scientists are called "terribly gauche, which, in some ways, is worse" than being liars. Sorry guys, scientists are going to try to figure out how the world works, and they're going to do so without worringy about untestable hypotheticals. They will use electron mircroscopes to investigate matter even if Zeus didn't design electrons for that purose. They will use light to try to figure out the chemical composition of distant stars, even if Ra might be holding up a big mirror to confuse them. That's how science works. Deal with it.
3 comments:
I gave up arguing science with them for a good reason: they don't play by the rules
Trying to get a creationist to define a "kind" is like trying to get them to explain the geophysics of Noah's Ark -- lots of creativity and hand-waving, but nothing approaching reality.
Oh, it's a mistake to say that invoking miracles is unscientific. Rather, ask them how they propose to go about applying science to miracles. Offer helpful suggestions, such as "Maybe you could test Intelligent Design by praying over a petri dish and seeing if the bacteria sprout falgella."
I think I need that opposite of a blender again, after reading their quotes.
Post a Comment