Home » Intelligent Design » Would Larry Moran have flunked a famous creationist from his school? Maciej Giertych’s letter published in Nature

Would Larry Moran have flunked a famous creationist from his school? Maciej Giertych’s letter published in Nature

Professor Larry Moran demanded pro-ID and pro-Creation students at universities be flunked. See Larry Moran — Will the real idiot please stand up?

Would Moran destroy the careers of aspiring scientists who make positive contributions to society — all this in the name of Moran’s dogmatism? It turns out one of the PhD alumni in biology from Moran’s school (University of Toronto), a respected scientist and pro-ID creationist recently had his letter published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. This is news in itself that creationists and ID proponents are getting airtime now in scientific journals:

Maciej Giertych

1. Institute of Dendrology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 62-035
Kórnik,Poland

Sir:

In your News story “Polish scientists fight creationism” (Nature 443, 890–891; 2006 doi:10.1038/443890c), you incorrectly state that I have called for the “inclusion of creationism in Polish biology curricula”. As well as being a member of the European Parliament, I am a scientist — a population geneticist with a degree from Oxford University and a PhD from the University of Toronto — and I am critical of the theory of evolution as a scientist, with no religious connotation. It is the media that prefer to consider my comments as religiously inspired, rather than to report my stated position accurately.

I believe that, as a result of media bias, there seems to be total ignorance of new scientific evidence against the theory of evolution. Such evidence includes race formation (microevolution), which is not a small step in macroevolution because it is a step towards a reduction of genetic information and not towards its increase. It also includes formation of
geological strata sideways rather than vertically, archaeological and palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, a major worldwide catastrophe in historical times, and so on.

We know that information exists in biology, and is transferred over generations through the DNA/RNA/protein system. We do not know its origin, but we know it exists, can be spoiled by mutations, but never improves itself spontaneously. No positive mutations have ever been demonstrated adaptations to antibiotics or herbicides are equivalent to immunological adaptation to diseases, and not a creation of a new function.

We keep on searching for natural explanations of everything in nature. If we have no explanations we should say so, and not claim that an unproven theory is a fact.

Here is a bio Maciej Giertych from Creation Rediscovered

Sometime in 1955, when I was taking Honor Moderations in Science (Botany, Chemistry and Geology) at Oxford University, the O. U. Biology Club announced a lecture against the theory of Evolution. The largest auditorium in the Biology Labs was filled to capacity. When the speaker was introduced (I regret I do not remember his name), it turned out he was an octogenarian with a Ph.D. in biology from Cambridge, obtained in the 19th century.

He spoke fervently against the theory of Evolution, defending what was for us an obviously indefensible position. He did not convince anybody with his antique arguments; he did not understand the questions that were fired at him; he rejected science as we knew it. We all had a good laugh hearing this dinosaur. He fought for his convictions against a sophisticated scientific environment, deaf to any opinions inspired by religious beliefs. Today his views are being vindicated by new evidence from natural sciences. May his soul rest in peace.

In 1955, like all in my generation, I was fully convinced that Evolution was an established biological fact. The evidence was primarily paleontological. We were taught how to identify geological strata with the help of fossils, specific for a given epoch. The rocks were dated by the fossils, the fossils by the strata. A lecturer in stratigraphy, when asked during a field trip how the strata were dated, explained that we know the rate of current sedimentation, the depths of strata and thus the age of rocks. In any case, there are new isotopic techniques that confirm all this. This sounded very scientific and convincing.

In my studies I went on to a B.A. and M.A. in forestry, a Ph.D. in plant physiology and finally a D.Sc. in genetics. For a long time I was not bothered by geology, Evolution or any suspicious thoughts. I had my own field of research in population genetics of forest trees, with no immediate relevance to the controversy over Evolution.

Gradually, as my children got to the stage of learning biology in school and discussing their problems with Dad, I realized that the evidence for Evolution had shifted from paleontology and embryology to population genetics. But population genetics is my subject! I knew it was used to explain how Evolution progressed, but I was not aware it is used to prove it. Without my noticing it, my special field had become the supplier of the most pertinent evidence supporting the theory.

If Evolution were proved in some field I was not familiar with, I understood the need to accommodate my field to this fact, to suggest explanations how it occurred in terms of genetics. But to claim that these attempted explanations are the primary evidence for the theory was quite unacceptable to me. I started reading the current literature on the topic of Evolution. Until then I was not aware how shaky the evidence for Evolution was, how much of what was “evidence” had to be discarded, how little new evidence had been accumulated over the years, and how very much ideas dominate facts. These ideas have become dogma, yet they have no footing in natural sciences. They stem from materialistic philosophies.

My primary objection as a geneticist was to the claim that the formation of races, or microevolution, as it is often referred to, is a small scale example of macroevolution – the origin of species. Race formation is, of course, very well documented. All it requires is isolation of a part of a population. After a few generations, due to natural selection and genetic drift, the isolated population will irreversibly lose some genes, and thus, as long as the isolation continues, in some features it will be different from the population it arose from. In fact, we do this ourselves all the time when breeding, substituting natural with artificial selection and creating artificial barriers to generative mixing outside the domesticated conditions.

The important thing to remember here is that a race is genetically impoverished relative to the whole population. It has fewer alleles (forms of genes). Some of them are arranged into special, interesting, rare combinations. This is particularly achieved by guided recombination of selected forms in breeding work. But these selected forms are less variable (less polymorphic). Thus what is referred to as micro-evolution represents natural or artificial reduction of the gene pool. You will not get Evolution that way. Evolution means construction of new genes. It means increase in the amount of genetic information, and not reduction of it.

The evolutionary value of new races or selected forms should be demonstrable by natural selection. However, if allowed to mix with the general breeding population, new races will disappear. The genes in select combinations will disperse again; the domesticated forms will go wild. Thus there is no evidence for Evolution here.

Mutations figure prominently in the Evolution story. When in the early ’60s I was starting breeding work on forest trees, everyone was very excited about the potential of artificial mutations. In many places around the world, special “cobalt bomb” centers were established to stimulate rates of mutations. What wonderful things were expected from increased variability by induced mutations. All of this work has long since been abandoned. It led nowhere. All that was obtained were deformed freaks, absolutely useless in forestry.

Maybe occasionally some oddity could be of ornamental value, but never able to live on its own in natural conditions. A glance through literature on mutations outside forestry quickly convinced me that the pattern is similar everywhere. Mutations are either neutral or detrimental. Positive ones, if they do occur, are too rare to be noticeable. Stability in nature is the rule. We have no proofs for Evolution from mutation research.

It is sometimes claimed that strains of diseases resistant to antibiotics, or weeds resistant to herbicides, are evidence for positive mutations. This is not so. Most of the time, the acquired resistance is due to genetic recombination and not due to mutations. Where mutations have been shown to be involved, their role depends on deforming part of the genetic code, which results in a deformed, usually less effective protein that is no longer suitable for attachment by the harmful chemical.

Herbicides are “custom made” for attachability to a vital protein specific for the weed species, and they kill the plant by depriving the protein of its function when attached to it. A mutation that cancels attachability to the herbicide and does not totally deprive the protein of its function is in this case beneficial, since it protects the functionality of the protein. However this is at a price, since in fact the change is somewhat detrimental to normal life processes. At best it is neutral. There are many ways in which living systems protect functionality. This is one of them. Others include healing or eliminating deformed parts or organisms. Natural selection belongs here. So does the immunological adaptation to an invader. Of course such protective adaptations do not create new species, new kinds, new organs or biological systems. They protect what already exists, usually at a cost. Defects accumulate along the way.

Within the genome of a species, that is, in the molecular structure of its DNA, we find many recurrent specific nucleotide sequences, known as “repeats.” Different ones occur in different species. If this variation (neutral as far as we know) arose from random mutations, it should be random. How then did the “repeats” come to be? If mutations are the answer, they could not have been random. In this context “genetic drive” is postulated, as distinct from “genetic drift.” But Who or what does the driving? The empirical science of genetics knows only random mutations.

Currently there are new suggestions that molecular genetics provides evidence for Evolution. Analyses of DNA sequences in various species should show similarities between related ones and big differences between systematically far-removed species. They do exactly that. Molecular genetics generally confirms the accuracy of taxonomy. But at the same time, it does not confirm postulated evolutionary sequences. There are no progressive changes, say from fishes to amphibians, to reptiles to mammals. Molecular genetics confirms systematics, not phylogeny; Linnaeus, not Darwin.

No. Genetics has no proofs for Evolution. It has trouble explaining it. The closer one looks at the evidence for Evolution, the less one finds of substance. In fact, the theory keeps on postulating evidence and failing to find it, and moves on to other postulates (fossil missing links, natural selection of improved forms, positive mutations, molecular phylogenetic sequences, etc.). This is not science.

A whole age of scientific endeavor was wasted searching for a phantom. It is time we stopped and looked at the facts! Natural sciences failed to supply any evidence for Evolution. Christian philosophy tried to accommodate this unproved postulate of materialist philosophies. Much time and intellectual effort went in vain, leading only to negative moral consequences. It is time those working in the humanities were told the truth.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

30 Responses to Would Larry Moran have flunked a famous creationist from his school? Maciej Giertych’s letter published in Nature

  1. Obviously Maciej Giertych is lying because we all know that the ONLY reason to doubt the theory of evolution is because of one’s religion! I know that is true because I read it somewhere… ;)

    I highly recommend the book “Why is a Fly Not a Horse?” by Italian geneticist (and Creationist) Giuseppe Sermonti-

    From my blog on wobbling stability

    Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

    (snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

    Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

    Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

    It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.

    And I posted a link to that on Larry’s blog and it was subsequently ignored…

  2. Notice that Dr Maciej Giertych’s offers ONLY scientific evidence against Darwinian totalism (not religious ones). However, in American schools, this kind of insight would be rejected solely for the raeson that Dr Maciej is a creationist.
    How sad that students are prevented from hearing good science due to philosophical naturalism.

  3. Excellent point Mats. The following is something else you may never see taught in high schools:

    The Earth/ Moon system- Refuting a 4.5 billion year old Earth

  4. Salvador,

    Pardon me for ignoring Moran’s childish antics for now. offtopic…
    Updated your regeneration post

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....1#comments

    with this Eureka Alert: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_.....111706.php

    Plus quotes and comments. It bolsters your argument and I’m curious what you think about this latest discovery.

  5. Michaels,

    This latest discovery affirms the following possibilities:

    1. The original designs in life have been deteriorating

    2. The original designs in life have been re-programmed along the way by systematic switching off of features

    3. The original designs of life had contingencies programmed in them that were activated, some of which the Designer is willing to show humanity, and in some cases will to allow us to use this knowledge to help ourselves

    4. Some combination of 1,2, and/or 3

    ID proponents mostly agree on #1, certain creationists like myself and those within the Baraminology Study Group (YEC) accept 1,2,3,4.

    I believe that much of biology has evidence of:

    1. formerly benevolent modes of operation. Many biological entities, such as disease causing bacteria had once benevolent modes. Stephen Meyer in debate with Peter Ward suggested the Type-3 Secretory system descended from the flagellum, and that this deadly configuration was not as deadly in its original mode of operation.

    2. Gordon Wilson has daringly suggested that malevolent (harm causing) design was latently put in many biological systems and then later activated. We might be able to switch biological systems between modes of operation.

    3. Either reprogramming or deterioration has occurred. Why have marsupial moles, placental moles, certain fishes, etc. etc. lost delicate functioning capabilities like sight? Mysteriously, as Geron reported (see How IDers can win the war, human cells seemed to suggest that humans had a latent capactity to live very long, that their cells were re-programmed for some reason to allow humans to live only a max of about 120 years. This peculiar question is arising in evolutionary biology. See this University of Souther California article: Punching the Timeclock of Life

    Ten years ago, Valter Longo had an inkling of a theory of aging that is now challenging the dogma of one of science’s heavyweights – Charles Darwin.
    ….
    In research published in the Sept. 27 edition of the Journal of Cell Biology, Longo proposes that aging is programmed so that the majority of a population dies prematurely ….

    Actually Longo has his story partially right. I think organisms die prematurely probably by design: either reporgramming, deterioration of the original “ageless” design, or some combination of both. I suggest also there is evidence of fine tuning in the death cycle of organism so that over population is manageable in the interim until the Designer’s purposes are accomplished. It may be that aging must be tied to the age of sexual reporduction to permit this fine tuning, and indeed it is.

    So in sum, back to the topic of Moran. Fine minds like Giertych, Wilson, and so many other IDers and creationists would be denied the chance to make positive contributions to science and denied the chance to explore these interesting scientific questions (and thus ultimately the truth) if Moran had his way. Moran would rather the Dark ages of Darwinism shroud our eyes from the true history of life rather than seeing the truth of design in life.

  6. Prof. Lawrence (“Larry”) Moran’s coercive directive to flunk Intelligent Designer students is a classic example of Lysenkoism. Like Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, Moran seeks to deny education and employment to all who do not hold to his dogmatic theories.

    By seeking to coercively enforce his dogmatic beliefs, Moran breaches the unalienable right to freedom of speech and freedom of religious practice preserved by the First Amendment.
    Moran advocates establishment of philosophical naturalism as a national religion in violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition of establishing a state religion. Such dogmatic fascism caused the death of more than 95 million people during the 20th century at the hand of Marxism – more than three times all deaths by 20th century wars. See the Black Book of Communism.

    Academic freedom critically depends on the unalienable rights to speech and religion – INCLUDING freedom to explore and model nature for all who are skeptical of Darwinian orthodoxy. Coercive discrimination like Moran’s seriously hinders science and harms society, especially when exercised under dictators such as Stalin.
    Statesmen like Maciej Giertych are crucially needed to take the courageous stand to stop Darwinian Fascism like that shown by Moran and to preserve our unalienable rights.

  7. To clarify my previous post, persons in the US who imitate Prof. Moran would violate the First Amendment of the USA’s Constitution. Since Prof. Moran is in Canada at the University of Toronto, his Darwinian fascism directly violates Canada’s Charter of rights and Freedoms.

    PART I Canadian charter of rights and freedoms

    Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
    1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    d) freedom of association. . . .
    15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

    Specifically, Moran violates parts I.2a) “freedom of conscience and religion”; I.2b) “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression”, and I.15(1) “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right of . . . equal benefit of law without discrimination . .”

  8. Joseph said:-

    Excellent point Mats. The following is something else you may never see taught in high schools:

    The Earth/ Moon system- Refuting a 4.5 billion year old Earth

    Is anyone going to comment on this; is this relevant to or consistent with the ID viewpoint? I understood that ID generally and William Dembski specifically accepted an old earth – in which case someone surely will take issue with Joseph?

  9. Is anyone going to comment on this; is this relevant to or consistent with the ID viewpoint? I understood that ID generally and William Dembski specifically accepted an old earth – in which case someone surely will take issue with Joseph?

    1. ID is compatible with both YEC and OEC (among other viewpoints) but personally I find those types of arguments a waste of time since it’s not directly relevant to design detection (although if a young earth were proven somehow that’d pretty much leave ID as a restating of the obvious).

    2. Bill himself definitely supports viewpoints that assume standard geological time. At the same time the only time–that I’m aware of–that this issue comes into play with ID itself is in the calculations for the UPB. But I believe even YECers have no issue with that since it’s best to be as conservative as possible when defining a UPB.

    3. Please, please, please don’t start a YEC vs OEC argument here…

  10. Robin,

    People take issue with me regardless of any of my blogs! ;)

    BTW ID accepts the data and according to “The Privileged Planet” there is plenty of ID doubt about the materialistic formation of the Earth/ Moon system.

    My point, of course, is that even if all the data supports what I posted I doubt it would get taught.

  11. DLH- I luv u man! (got any bud light?) ;)

  12. Patrick

    Thanks for your reply, but my post appears a little shorter now than it was when it left my screen – could you check whether some of it got scraped off on its way through the filter?

    I did (unless my memory is playing tricks) also refer to some of the vaunted new scientific evidence against evolution adduced by Dr Giertych in his letter – specifically the passage:-

    It also includes formation of
    geological strata sideways rather than vertically, archaeological and palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, a major worldwide catastrophe in historical times, and so on.

    Do IDers really accept that there is palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, and that there was a major worldwide catastrophe in historical times?

    You ask that I not start a YEC v OEC argument here, but I didn’t mention creationists at all; the issue was the extent to which this type of evidence is accepted as valid evidence against evolution. If, as evolutionists would say, the arguments misrepresent the scientific position, surely (if only to avoid the charge that ID is just creationism in drag) IDers should forthrightly condemn reliance upon them.

    Joseph

    Why are Dr Lisle’s calculations not taken seriously by mainstream astronomers? Does he say?

  13. Robin asks:
    Do IDers really accept that there is palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, and that there was a major worldwide catastrophe in historical times?

    As I stated earlier IDists will accept the data- that means for YEC, OEC OR for any materialistic worldview- if it is scientifically valid.

    Robin:
    Why are Dr Lisle’s calculations not taken seriously by mainstream astronomers? Does he say?

    The book is on its way to my house as we speak. I did send AiG an email pertaining to a response on my blog, however it did not contain what you just asked.

    As far as “mainstream” anything- they usually reject what doesn’t fit their worldview pertaining to naturalism (and I would think it would be a matter for astrophysicists not astronomers).

    What some mainsteamer could do is to attempt to refute his premise. Anyone can “not accept” something. But to be scientifically correct they must do so in the framework of science- ie actual data and calculations.

  14. Thanks for your reply, but my post appears a little shorter now than it was when it left my screen – could you check whether some of it got scraped off on its way through the filter?

    I’ve heard of that happening before (browser incompatibilities?) but your comment as it is now is what I saw in the filter.

    You ask that I not start a YEC v OEC argument here, but I didn’t mention creationists at all; the issue was the extent to which this type of evidence is accepted as valid evidence against evolution.

    The age of the earth, universe, etc. are sore points for OECs and YECs so I assumed you were talking about Christian creationists.

    If, as evolutionists would say, the arguments misrepresent the scientific position, surely (if only to avoid the charge that ID is just creationism in drag) IDers should forthrightly condemn reliance upon them.

    I notice you automatically set the tone as the “scientific position” equating to whatever “evolutionists” support (I prefer the term Darwinist since many ID proponents support intelligent evolution). I don’t care if the source of the evidence is a creationist as long as it’s correct. For all I care the age of the universe could be 42.

    Now moderators like DaveScot would personally agree with you that certain positions compatible with ID that he favors should be supported by major ID proponents over others. But this was decided against since ID itself does not directly conflict with these positions and because doing so would cause needless arguments that would detract from ID’s focus. It’s the big tent approach–work together to focus on the common issue. Once the paradigm shift is over we can then debate which of these ID compatible positions is the better explanation.

    Or at the very least we’d prefer that such debates do not occur on UD. Feel free to go to Joseph’s blog and discuss this subject with him there.

  15. For the sake of discussion, and as a working hypothesis, I presume old Earth, even though I personally think otherwise. Most of the discussion at UD generously assume billions of years.

    The point of this thread however, is whatever Giertychs views of the age of the Earth, it is apparent he is a respected scientist whom Moran would have flunked. Is that ethical? Is that fair? Is that right? Is that good for science?

    Sal

  16. Patrick said:-

    I notice you automatically set the tone as the “scientific position” equating to whatever “evolutionists” support

    In fact, I didn’t; I said if the arguments misrepresent the scientific position.

    And surely that is the point; it is what the true scientific position actually is that is the issue. If the YEC position is garbage, or if the evolutionist position is garbage, shouldn’t either equally be exposed as such, if put forward on UD?

    Joseph

    I asked whether IDers accepted that there is valid palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs lived with humans, not whether, if there were such valid evidence, it should be accepted. The latter is self-evident. The former is of some controversy; and if there is none does ID really want to be seen endorsing the arguments as scientific arguments against evolution?

  17. Scordova said:

    The point of this thread however, is whatever Giertychs views of the age of the Earth, it is apparent he is a respected scientist whom Moran would have flunked. Is that ethical? Is that fair? Is that right? Is that good for science?

    It has been taken on trust on thsi blog that Giertych is a respected scientist; not being a geneticist myself, I have no knowledge of his work, and have only his letter to nature, and a bit of Google research, to go on. I asked whether anyone here was aware of valid evidence that man lived with dinosaurs, or that there had been a worldwide catastrophe in historical times, because those views are decidedly unconventional and if seriously held without valid evidential support would reflect on the scientific respectability of the man.

    Is it fair to fail someone who doesn’t understand the relevant science – yes. The issues are whether he does so and whether he would have been flunked.

  18. Robin:
    I asked whether IDers accepted that there is valid palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs lived with humans, not whether, if there were such valid evidence, it should be accepted.

    I would have to view the evidence in question in order to answer that question. But seeing it wouldn’t impact ID one way or another- ID doesn’t care- I don’t know of any IDists working or caring about that angle.

    And yes, any and all (scientific) garbage belongs in the dump.

  19. Joseph said:

    Robin:
    I asked whether IDers accepted that there is valid palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs lived with humans, not whether, if there were such valid evidence, it should be accepted.

    I would have to view the evidence in question in order to answer that question. But seeing it wouldn’t impact ID one way or another- ID doesn’t care- I don’t know of any IDists working or caring about that angle.

    And yes, any and all (scientific) garbage belongs in the dump.

    I actually said rather more than is quoted above – I also asked about the existence of evidence for a worldwide catastrophe in historical times.

    Dr Giertych has cited these, among other issues, as scientific reasons to reject the theory of evolution; and Mats specifically claimed that Dr Giertych’s reasons were purely scientific; yet the claims that evidence exists for these two positions are generally accepted as valid only among those with a very definite religious objection to evolution. Is nobody here going to call them out and point out that ID is only interested in science, and not religion?

  20. ID is only interested in science (not religion).

    And it could be that people reject such evidence for their own religious views- not because the scientific data doesn’t exist.

  21. Joseph

    We both know there is no evidence for a worldwide historical flood, and plenty of evidence against one; the claim is a religious one, not a scientific one. It does not support ID’s claim to be a-religious if the position that the claim is scientific stands without challenge on blogs such as this.

  22. Robin:
    We both know there is no evidence for a worldwide historical flood, and plenty of evidence against one

    I have heard this bluster before and I have asked what the evidence would look like.- if there were a world-wide flood. I have yet to receive a valid response. What do we have as a reference?

    I have yet to see any evidence against it- except personal incredulity.

    I do know there is evidence that most, if not all, of the land we know see was once under water. And I also know the alleged Flood was much more than just water.

    I also know that if we could take the oceans depths and make the planet a nice sphere by raising those depths (and flattening the mountains), the water would cover the earth to the depth of some 900 meters.

  23. Joseph

    One would expect to see a worldwide sedimentary layer dating to the same period, within historical times; the sedimentary layer sought by 18th and 19th century geologists and not found. One would expect to see evidence of a genetic bottleneck dating to within historical times within all species; none has been found.

    One would expect to see world civilisations destroyed all at the same time; there is no such evidence, and there are continuous records of civilisations into which one could not fit a world-wide flood.

    One would not expect to see continuous growth of coral for many millennia; but that is seen.

    And what worldwide temperatures would accompany raising the depths and flattening the mountains, and then reversing that operation – indeed, how much heat would be released simply doing it one way?

  24. Robin:
    One would expect to see a worldwide sedimentary layer dating to the same period, within historical times; the sedimentary layer sought by 18th and 19th century geologists and not found.

    Not necessarily. As I said there was much more than just a Flood.

    Robin:
    One would expect to see evidence of a genetic bottleneck dating to within historical times within all species; none has been found.

    That has been explained in “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility study”

    Robin:
    One would expect to see world civilisations destroyed all at the same time; there is no such evidence, and there are continuous records of civilisations into which one could not fit a world-wide flood.

    I would say that all depends on when the Flood occurred. I do question the Flood occurring within 4,000 years ago. However if it occurred 10,000 years ago…

    Robin:
    One would not expect to see continuous growth of coral for many millennia; but that is seen.

    Ditto- but that has also been explained.

    The bottom-line is no one knows what we expect to see. Sure we can set-up a strawman and knock that down. But that is not how science operates.

    Robin:
    And what worldwide temperatures would accompany raising the depths and flattening the mountains, and then reversing that operation – indeed, how much heat would be released simply doing it one way?

    Obviously you don’t even understand the scenario. I was just pointing out that there is enough water to do the trick.

    The scenario of the Flood that I have always heard was the ocean basins were much more shallow than today and the mountains didn’t exist. Both the ocean basins and mountain creation occurred during and after the event. That is just from a simple reading of the Bible.

    You should really visit some Creation websites- AiG and TrueOrigins would be a good start.

  25. Would you guys please move this over to Joseph’s blog?

    http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/

  26. Patrick

    Would you guys please move this over to Joseph’s blog?

    http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/

    When I saw my last post had been deleted I thought this might have been coming.

    “This” arises out of the original article and initial responses to it – welcoming Dr Giertych’s letter to Nature and describing him as a respected scientist and his objections to evolution as scientific. I have no wish to go to yet another blog to continue the discussion – perhaps Joseph would venture into talk.origins?

  27. “This” arises out of the original article and initial responses to it – welcoming Dr Giertych’s letter to Nature and describing him as a respected scientist and his objections to evolution as scientific.

    I made the reasons quite clear in #14. Dr. Giertych may be dead wrong on some issues but the main point still stands that some people advocate “destroy[ing] the careers of aspiring scientists who make positive contributions to society”. Do you agree with Moran that supporters of ID or creationism should automatically be flunked? Personally, even if I thought a student was pursuing an idea I considered worthless I’d still allow it as long as the student clearly understood the opposing ideas I was teaching by the end of the semester. The student doesn’t have to believe them, they just need to know them and be capable of using them in practice.

  28. Patrick said:

    I made the reasons quite clear in #14. Dr. Giertych may be dead wrong on some issues but the main point still stands that some people advocate “destroy[ing] the careers of aspiring scientists who make positive contributions to society”. Do you agree with Moran that supporters of ID or creationism should automatically be flunked? Personally, even if I thought a student was pursuing an idea I considered worthless I’d still allow it as long as the student clearly understood the opposing ideas I was teaching by the end of the semester. The student doesn’t have to believe them, they just need to know them and be capable of using them in practice.

    So Dr Giertych (in common with others) gets a free pass on his pseudoscience because “mine enemy’s enemy is my friend”?

    I don’t think anyone is advocating “destroying the careers of aspiring scientists who make positive contributions to society”. As to flunking creationists of any stripe, I can see the attraction of teaching someone who (i) isactually going to make use of what you have taught them and (ii) isn’t going to treat you as someone either deluded or actively deceptive.

  29. No one is asking for a “free pass”, just that the data be looked at without any bias attached.

    As for The Flood I find it ironic that Creation is said to be untestable because of “acts of God” then someone says to have not only tested one of those acts but to have refuted it.

    And perhaps if what was being taught could actually be substantiated there wouldn’t be any Creationists or IDists to worry about. But when what is being taight contradicts what is observed both in the lab and in nature perhaps there is some other problem.

  30. Joseph

    No one is asking for a “free pass”, just that the data be looked at without any bias attached.

    As for The Flood I find it ironic that Creation is said to be untestable because of “acts of God” then someone says to have not only tested one of those acts but to have refuted it.

    I agree that the data should be looked at without any bias (save perhaps in favour of reality) attached. You have referred me to AiG – a site I have seen. Do you agree that evidence that contradicts a literal reading of scripture may be valid?

    As for the Noachian Flood; it is possible to investigate whether a worldwide flood has occurred in historic times, as required by a literal interpretation of Genesis. The investigations reveal no evidence that such a flood occurred. to that extent, the issue is testable and has been tested and falsified.

    To the question of whether the flood would have produced a genetic bottleneck you have told me that hypermutation directed by an Intelligent Designer (aka God) obcured the traces of such a bottleneck. That is where the story becomes untestable; not even by reference to scripture, since scripture contains no such assertion..

Leave a Reply