My creationist friend Marquis read a book by Darek Isaacs, Dragons or Dinosaurs: Creation or Evolution? (1) and seems to think he’s found the penultimate documentation discrediting the veracity of evolutionary theory. Marquis writes:
“Well lets start off with the fact about dragon legends. There has always been dragon legends told by every culture around the world and they describe the same type of creature. How do u explain this when these early civilizations were telling stories about the same creature but they had no means of communicating with each other?...How do you explain away that Marco Polo, Flavius Josephus, Herodotus, Pliny the Elder and Marco Polo all noted historians have written about seeing dinosaurs in their works.”
Well Marco Polo as a good witness is right out. His account was no doubt taken after rising from the lotus couch in some Oriental opium den prior to his alleged dragon sightings. Aside from that it makes perfect sense that dinosaur fossils uncovered by the inquisitive of the remote past are the source of the myth of dragons. I can tell you that such has been the assessment of paleontologists. Remember of course that the historical figures Marquis mentions and their reports are 500-2000+ yrs old. This of course is before the Renaissance, when folks back then didn’t know much about the actual geological age of the Earth or about the fact of extinction. They would have no way of knowing that their finds were old, very old. It would be pure speculation if I or Darek Issacs tried to read too much into alleged eye-witness accounts of such things as a dragon by our impressionable predecessors. Our classical forefathers could turn a yarn or two, and sometimes one would have to wonder whether or not reality for them is exactly the same thing as we find after the development of modern science. Hell, there are plenty of well-meaning folks today that think they’ve seen ghosts and UFO’s, crying Mother of God statues; and that’s in our time. I’m sure Marquis doesn’t believe in that sort of thing, right?
Marquis would be wrong as well to suppose that there wasn’t contact amongst the ancient European, Middle-East, and Asian cultures going back thousands of years (I’ll concede such may be the case if Isaacs reports on Mayan dragons). Such contact of course pre-dates the alleged historical eye-witness accounts reported by Isaacs. But I’m not sure exactly what was Marquis’s conjecture here. Perhaps he is trying to say, although being somewhat embarrassed to specify, that this is somehow evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted in the years preceding Noah’s flood. Not sure, but if I ventured to guess…
Even if some accounts of dragons have some similarity cross-culturally, it says nothing about the well established fact that by 65 million yrs ago there were hundreds if not thousands of dinosaurs of all types. From fossils, paleontologists can distinguish many lineages (code for lots of evidence of transitional creatures confirming the fact that dinosaurs and all other creatures that have ever slumbered, bumbled, or rumbled on the Earth share a common ancestor). Isaac’s got nothing on such a consensus in the scientific community. A few classical accounts of dragons? Due to the intellectual dishonesty prevalent in creationist literature (2) “evidence” that there’s a common mythology about dragons probably needs quite a few qualifications as well (that’s code for it’s probably a dubious, conflated, or otherwise disingenuous account). But overturning Neo-Darwinian theory? Seems like a small, inconsequential puddle that is supposed to wash 150 yrs. of evolutionary theory away. Marquis continues:
“How do u explain that on 2006 at Hell's Creek there was a Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil discovered that had red blood cells still alive. Evolutionists claim the T-Rex has been extinct for 68 million years. It's impossible for red blood cells to last that long. How do u explain the coelacanth, which was supposed to be extinct 70 million years ago and was supposed to be the link between land and sea creatures, but it was found alive and thriving in Africa in 1938.”
It would indeed be fantastic that a 70 myo T. rex with living blood cells were discovered, but that is not what was reported. An article from the Washington Post describes this discovery. (3) What was found surreptitiously was soft tissue that had not been mineralized, after the fossil had to be broken to fit into a helicopter for transport. Schweitzer and her team discovered that some soft tissue had not been mineralized as would be expected in the fossilization process, but even cells and cellular components could be distinguished. Is this amazing? Yes. Is this fantastic? Well, no. It can’t be as this finding has been reasonably documented. This discovery, however, could spark a whole new effort for the study of soft tissue extracted from fossils. But Marquis’s statement of personal incredulity of this particular find does not negate or even conflict with the factual basis of evolutionary theory. Also I’m not sure how the re-discovery of a creature, the coelacanth, which was previously thought to be extinct, somehow discredits macroevolution. It’s not hard to imagine some representatives from an important evolutionary lineage such as the lobed-finned fishes (a representative species of a lineage that indeed lead to the evolution of terrestrial tetrapods) to have become extinct while others carry on to the present. I’m not sure why that is so hard to swallow. It may be that creationists expect ancestral species to always become extinct, while the more “progressive” daughter species take their place on the boring march to humanity. There were no preordained paths for evolution to take. Some of our ancestors went extinct, while others continued. Evolution does not take an expected linear path in which earlier links inevitably become extinct. Marquis concludes:
“These are just but a few facts from the book "Dragons or Dinosaurs" written by Darek Isaacs. Darek does a much better job explaining the fallacies of evolution and the truth about the dinosaurs. If you were to read that book I'm sure you would come out of that with your worldview severely damaged if not completely destroyed. The God of the Bible is real and you should investigate His claims.”
Well I haven’t read this book, but I did come across a review of the film, Dragons and Dinosaurs. (4) Yes there’s a film, a book, and a study guide for home schoolers, complete with a children’s story, Danny the Dragon. Apparently his book and film are being hawked as tools for evolution deniers complete with creationist propaganda for children. The reviewer, Svenson, writes:
“The first section of film starts with a broad overview of the subject and then touches on a couple of different instances which were somewhat interesting, but then Darek Isaacs (the director/producer) never goes deeper beyond references to “Behemoth” and “Leviathan {in the Bible}…It’s almost if Isaacs can’t wait to get to all the old arguments about the flood, dating methods, the fossil record, etc, that we’ve heard time and time again… Isaacs has left too many unanswered questions and filled his exploration with old hat creationism that does not relate to his premise.” (my brackets)
I found a bio on Isaacs at Creation Ministries International. (5) Isaacs has a degree in communications and one in, of course, theological studies. If our friend Svenson is correct, there’s probably nothing new under the sun in Isaac’s argument. Inconsequential puddles. Steven Jay Gould:
“Consider, for example the standard rhetorical, and deeply anti-intellectual, ploy of politically motivated and destructive critics, American creationists in particular. They just list the mistakes, envelop each in a cloud of verbal mockery, and pretend that the whole system has drowned in this tiny puddle of inconsequential error.” (6)
Finally to my friend Marquis, I would be happy to read Isaac’s book. But there is only one condition that I have that has worked rather well when my creationist friends want to “share.” I’ll read a book that you suggest, but at the same time you’ve got to read one of my suggestions. My pick is Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True, a very readable and cogent treatment of evolution. What say Marquis? Are you game?
References/Notes:
1. Isaacs Derek. 2010. Dragons or Dinosaurs: Creation or Evolution. Bridge-Logos Foundation
http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Dinosaurs-Darek-Isaacs/dp/088270477X
2. For tactics of the evolution deniers see my summary here http://chucktheatheist.blogspot.com/2011/06/chiropractors-christian-supremacy.html of
Carroll, Sean B. 2006. Making of the Fittest. WW Norton & Company: New York
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393061639
3. Gugliotta, Guy. A Major T. rex Breakthrough. Washington Post: Friday, March 25, 2005; Page A01.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63318-2005Mar24.html
4. Svenson (Administrator). Dragons or Dinosaurs: A DVD Review of Derek Isaacs Film. Freethunk, posted: October 12, 2010.
http://www.freethunk.net/articles/freethinking-movie-reviews/dragons-or-dinosaurs-a-dvd-review-of-darek-isaacs-film-275
5. A bio of Isaacs: http://creation.com/darek-isaacs
6. Gould, S. J. 2002. The Stucture of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press: Cambridge.p. 168.
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Chiropractors & Christian Supremacy
I recently read a very good book by Sean B. Carroll, “The Making of the Fittest.” (1) I wanted to review more of the content later for you, because it really is one of the best treatments of the genetic evidence for biological evolution that I’ve come across in a book intended for the general public. Today I want to skip to the end, where Carroll takes up the subject of the denial of evolution by the religious right from an interesting perspective. He compares the rhetorical tactics used by Chiropractors to denounce the practice of vaccination to those used by anti-evolutionists.
Carroll tells us that Daniel David Palmer in the late 19th century theorized that most disease is caused by pinched nerves in turn caused by a misalignment of the vertebrae. This of course was in conflict with Pasteur’s and Koch’s developing Germ Theory at the time. By the early 20th century during the battle against polio, The National Chiropractic Association suggested that chiropractic adjustments should be given instead of vaccination. Because Germ Theory conflicts with the central chiropractic dogma, Palmer and his followers ever since have fought the conclusions of modern science that call this into question. Carroll provides us a list of tactics that the Chiropractic profession has used to deny the value of vaccines and the evolution-deniers have used to discredit the established central principle in biology.
1. Doubt the science. Chiropractors have tried to instill doubt into modern scientific claims that microorganisms cause many diseases. The incidence of polio decline, they say, was caused by natural patterns. They ignore controlled clinical studies that demonstrate the Germ Theory as the causal explanation of much disease. Evolution deniers continually ignore science, and claim that there is no evidence for evolution. There are no intermediate fossils that show a pattern of common decent. Mutation cannot explain adaptation. There is no mechanism to show how new genetic information is produced. In spite of 150 years of evidence that natural selection has been the primary process that has lead to evolutionary change, it can’t explain the diversity of life on Earth.
2. Question the motives and the integrity of scientists. Evolution deniers and chiropractors have alleged a conspiracy against their movements on the part of scientists. Vaccination is motivated by the greed of scientists and pharmaceutical companies. Evolutionary science is motivated by atheism. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (2) thinks that evolution is an assault upon the fundamental principles that made America great.
3. Magnify disagreements among scientists, and cite gadflies as authorities. Chiropractors have inflated the significance of technical disagreements that scientists have about details of the effectiveness of vaccination: timing and dosing, the need for boosters later in life, etc. Experts are trotted out, whether or not their views have been substantiated by the scientific community. Likewise evolution deniers also try to inflate the importance of technical disagreement about certain details of evolution amongst biologists (include evolutionary, developmental, cell, or microbiologists, geneticists, systematists, paleontologists, archaeologists-put your discipline here). Worse still, the “expert” evolution deniers may try to get their flocks to think that they have a real research agenda and publish in peer reviewed publications (which they don’t and don’t again, respectively).
4. Exaggerate potential harm. Those opposed to vaccination like Chiropractors over-emphasize the risks of vaccinating, while often ignoring the consequences of forgoing vaccination. Ken Ham thinks that evolution teaches children that life is about violence and bloodshed. Because of the implication that natural selection is a blind, anti-teleological process, evolution deniers often try to show that philosophically Darwinism will lead to all sorts of social ills. Carroll quotes Jerry Bergman, “If Darwinism is true, Hitler was our savior and we have crucified him.”
5. Appeal to personal freedom. Since vaccination of school-aged children has become compulsory, one Chiropractic practice in Denver has stated that vaccination is “a conspiracy aimed at the destruction of basic American freedoms.” Carroll notes that many religionists view the teaching of evolution in public schools as an assault upon the religious freedom. We have also heard about school boards like the one in Cobb county, Georgia, that have put disclaimer stickers in biology textbooks. A balanced treatment policy is often attempted to discredit evolutionary theory by appealing to the freedom to have a counter-point argument for everything, including Darwinism, no matter if such positions have any scientific merit or not.
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy. Among chiropractors the idea that all diseases come from a misalignment of vertebrae is not open to further scientific inquiry. Carroll quotes R.B. Phillips, “{A}bsolute truth is already known {by the faithful} and only needs personal confirmation through individual observations.” David Cloud of the Way of Life Fundamental Baptist information service argues that evolution denies the Bible, and that we must reject evolution because it denies god and salvation. My evangelical friend, Pastor Gregory Dickow, has stated that science cannot contradict the Bible. Therefore any finding of science that denies the word of God has to be flawed in some way.
If you’ve been as frustrated as I have been about the entrenched belief of mostly Christian evolution-deniers, but have been a little mystified as to how some segments of the population can basically ignore the scientific evidence, you will find Carrolls treatment of the subject enlightening for the very reason that he points out that Christian apologists think that they are at a debate in which rhetorical tactics can win the day in spite of the validity of the arguments of the opposing team. But the thing that really makes me angry is not the poor slobs that buy in to the arguments of the Christian apologists, but the disingenuous tactics of the apologists themselves. I’m personally convinced that fundamentalist Christian apologists aren’t really trying to convince anyone in the sciences, but are exercising tactics to keep their adherents quiet and subjugated , while motivating them politically to “take back” America in acts of Christian supremacy.
Oh, by the way, how many of you rationalists out there swear by the chiropractic treatments you receive?
1. Carroll, Sean B. 2006. The Making of the Fittest. New York: WW Norton & Company
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393061639
2. http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Carroll tells us that Daniel David Palmer in the late 19th century theorized that most disease is caused by pinched nerves in turn caused by a misalignment of the vertebrae. This of course was in conflict with Pasteur’s and Koch’s developing Germ Theory at the time. By the early 20th century during the battle against polio, The National Chiropractic Association suggested that chiropractic adjustments should be given instead of vaccination. Because Germ Theory conflicts with the central chiropractic dogma, Palmer and his followers ever since have fought the conclusions of modern science that call this into question. Carroll provides us a list of tactics that the Chiropractic profession has used to deny the value of vaccines and the evolution-deniers have used to discredit the established central principle in biology.
1. Doubt the science. Chiropractors have tried to instill doubt into modern scientific claims that microorganisms cause many diseases. The incidence of polio decline, they say, was caused by natural patterns. They ignore controlled clinical studies that demonstrate the Germ Theory as the causal explanation of much disease. Evolution deniers continually ignore science, and claim that there is no evidence for evolution. There are no intermediate fossils that show a pattern of common decent. Mutation cannot explain adaptation. There is no mechanism to show how new genetic information is produced. In spite of 150 years of evidence that natural selection has been the primary process that has lead to evolutionary change, it can’t explain the diversity of life on Earth.
2. Question the motives and the integrity of scientists. Evolution deniers and chiropractors have alleged a conspiracy against their movements on the part of scientists. Vaccination is motivated by the greed of scientists and pharmaceutical companies. Evolutionary science is motivated by atheism. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (2) thinks that evolution is an assault upon the fundamental principles that made America great.
3. Magnify disagreements among scientists, and cite gadflies as authorities. Chiropractors have inflated the significance of technical disagreements that scientists have about details of the effectiveness of vaccination: timing and dosing, the need for boosters later in life, etc. Experts are trotted out, whether or not their views have been substantiated by the scientific community. Likewise evolution deniers also try to inflate the importance of technical disagreement about certain details of evolution amongst biologists (include evolutionary, developmental, cell, or microbiologists, geneticists, systematists, paleontologists, archaeologists-put your discipline here). Worse still, the “expert” evolution deniers may try to get their flocks to think that they have a real research agenda and publish in peer reviewed publications (which they don’t and don’t again, respectively).
4. Exaggerate potential harm. Those opposed to vaccination like Chiropractors over-emphasize the risks of vaccinating, while often ignoring the consequences of forgoing vaccination. Ken Ham thinks that evolution teaches children that life is about violence and bloodshed. Because of the implication that natural selection is a blind, anti-teleological process, evolution deniers often try to show that philosophically Darwinism will lead to all sorts of social ills. Carroll quotes Jerry Bergman, “If Darwinism is true, Hitler was our savior and we have crucified him.”
5. Appeal to personal freedom. Since vaccination of school-aged children has become compulsory, one Chiropractic practice in Denver has stated that vaccination is “a conspiracy aimed at the destruction of basic American freedoms.” Carroll notes that many religionists view the teaching of evolution in public schools as an assault upon the religious freedom. We have also heard about school boards like the one in Cobb county, Georgia, that have put disclaimer stickers in biology textbooks. A balanced treatment policy is often attempted to discredit evolutionary theory by appealing to the freedom to have a counter-point argument for everything, including Darwinism, no matter if such positions have any scientific merit or not.
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy. Among chiropractors the idea that all diseases come from a misalignment of vertebrae is not open to further scientific inquiry. Carroll quotes R.B. Phillips, “{A}bsolute truth is already known {by the faithful} and only needs personal confirmation through individual observations.” David Cloud of the Way of Life Fundamental Baptist information service argues that evolution denies the Bible, and that we must reject evolution because it denies god and salvation. My evangelical friend, Pastor Gregory Dickow, has stated that science cannot contradict the Bible. Therefore any finding of science that denies the word of God has to be flawed in some way.
If you’ve been as frustrated as I have been about the entrenched belief of mostly Christian evolution-deniers, but have been a little mystified as to how some segments of the population can basically ignore the scientific evidence, you will find Carrolls treatment of the subject enlightening for the very reason that he points out that Christian apologists think that they are at a debate in which rhetorical tactics can win the day in spite of the validity of the arguments of the opposing team. But the thing that really makes me angry is not the poor slobs that buy in to the arguments of the Christian apologists, but the disingenuous tactics of the apologists themselves. I’m personally convinced that fundamentalist Christian apologists aren’t really trying to convince anyone in the sciences, but are exercising tactics to keep their adherents quiet and subjugated , while motivating them politically to “take back” America in acts of Christian supremacy.
Oh, by the way, how many of you rationalists out there swear by the chiropractic treatments you receive?
1. Carroll, Sean B. 2006. The Making of the Fittest. New York: WW Norton & Company
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393061639
2. http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Hello good people. Welcome to Chuck the Atheist's place. I really enjoy discussions about a variety of topics: biological evolution, the origin of life, history, and anthropology (philosophy and religion). If you have a question about any of these subjects, I will do my best to respond in a thoughtful and respectful way.
For the first post, I would like to make sure that everyone knows where I stand in terms of my belief system. Really as an atheist I feel that I do not have one. Sure I accept evolutionary theory, but acceptance is a bit different than believing in something. As a biologist whom has surveyed the literature covering biological evolution, I realize that the evidence makes what one believes about evolution completely irrelevant. Such evidence is compelling, comprehensive, and concilient. Saying that one does not believe in evolution is like trying to hold out in your skepticism of gravity, helocentricity, or the spherical shape of the Earth. So belief is an outmoded concept, an Iron Age artifact. There's nothing wrong with holding judgement about something until there is enough evidence to develop an informed opinion.
To be sure there is nothing in science that can disprove the existence of god, if you hold that belief. I use evolutionary theory just as an example to punctuate what I think is a very good way to frame or explain human thought in terms of the concepts of belief or faith. For faith by definition does not attempt to consider evidence. At any rate, welcome. Sit down, take your shoes off, and let's chat.
For the first post, I would like to make sure that everyone knows where I stand in terms of my belief system. Really as an atheist I feel that I do not have one. Sure I accept evolutionary theory, but acceptance is a bit different than believing in something. As a biologist whom has surveyed the literature covering biological evolution, I realize that the evidence makes what one believes about evolution completely irrelevant. Such evidence is compelling, comprehensive, and concilient. Saying that one does not believe in evolution is like trying to hold out in your skepticism of gravity, helocentricity, or the spherical shape of the Earth. So belief is an outmoded concept, an Iron Age artifact. There's nothing wrong with holding judgement about something until there is enough evidence to develop an informed opinion.
To be sure there is nothing in science that can disprove the existence of god, if you hold that belief. I use evolutionary theory just as an example to punctuate what I think is a very good way to frame or explain human thought in terms of the concepts of belief or faith. For faith by definition does not attempt to consider evidence. At any rate, welcome. Sit down, take your shoes off, and let's chat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)