Hi, "morrisjo".

You state:

     It seems as though the pendulum has swung to the other
     extreme since the Scopes monkey trial. There are many good
     and brilliant scientist who are creationist and are so not by
     faith alone but because they believe the scientific evidence
     supports that worldview better than the evolutionary one.

Who are these "many good and brilliant scientists" you are referring to?
I'm a former young earth creationist myself. I've been reading young
earth creationist literature for decades where the claim is made that
"many scientists" have learned of the "increasing evidence" for a young
earth (and young universe) and that a revolution is impending in the
scientific community about this. And when I read YEC literature that
goes back decades before my time, I see similar claims. This
"revolution" among scientists never seems to materialize, and yet this
claim continues to be made year after year.

And when you refer to "creationists," what specifically are you
referring to? "Creationists" covers a wide range of beliefs, everything
from theistic evolutionists, to old earth creationists (or "progressive
creationists"), to young earth creationists, and each of these
categories themselves cover a wide range of beliefs and ideas.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

     This being the case and that our educational system should be
     teaching our students to think rather than programming them
     with a the most popular theories, then both should taught
     side by side and let the students think and decide for them
     self. Are we to be information gate keepers. Shame on us for
     doing so.

Uh, in science class we're supposed to teach science, not religious
beliefs. There are philosophy courses and religious survey courses, and
that's where discussions about what you are referring to belong.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

     The evolutionist seem to want to say is that the evolutionary
     theory is more than a theory and it is not. There are many
     problems with the evidence we have. Do we have have any
     diffinitive fossil record of an intermediate speices or any
     demonstratable evidence of the molecule-to-man theory?

What do you know about paleontology? How many geology and paleontology
courses have you taken? How about Icthyostega and Acanthostega? How
about therapsids? How about the triceratopsians? How about the hominids?
How many transitional fossils do you want, and what will it take for you
to acknowledge that they exist?

How old do you think the earth is, anyway?

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

Hi, "morrisjo". (Joe Morris, perhaps?)

When you state that "if what I have truly is truth it will stand up to
any open and more importantly honest scrutiny," I agree with you
completely.

Since I happen to be a former young earth creationist (and a former
old earth creationist as well, in fact), I must tell you that being
open-minded doesn't mean we should let our brains dribble out onto the
floor. That's a cliche, and I'm sure you've heard it dozens of times,
but it is true nonetheless.

You should take a look at my website, especially

   http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Thebes/7755/marslist0.html

which begins a discussion where people were making comments very, very
similar to your

     One thing to think about is that if you boil the facts down
     to the "bare facts" and nothing more they really don't say
     much. It not until you put those facts into a theoretical
     framework do they really say something. That is why it seems
     sometimes that information is "warped". Creationist simply
     do not agree with many of the assumptions that are made by
     evolutionary framework.

Of course, when it got down to the nitty-gritty (we were specifically
discussing SN1987A), it turned out they were more than willing to deny
the facts, not just the "theoretical framework." In other words, I'm
telling you that I'm not buying this particular argument, because
creationists themselves have shown that they don't take their own
argument seriously. (In other words, they use it as a propagandistic
"smoke screen" for apologetic purposes with the unsophisticated, but
when they meet someone who knows better they themselves abandon the
argument.)

You might also want to take a look at

"SN1987A and The Antiquity of The Universe"
http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Thebes/7755/ancientproof/SN1987A.html

and specify which facts you dispute, if any.

You claim that "The information gate keepers seem to do a very good job
of keeping any conflicting views to evolution out of the main stream,"
which is one way to characterize it, if you're a creationist. Of course,
I would simply characterize it as keeping particular religious
prejudices against science out of the science classroom, and I believe
that my characterization is far more accurate. That, by the way, is
"good gate keeping" and those who do it should get our seal of
approval for applying critical thinking in science education, and
keeping religious doctrine out of it.

I close by pointing out that (1) you have not yet named any names nor
cited any references, (2) you did not clarify by what kind of
creationism you were specifically referring to, and (3) you did not
answer my question regarding how old you think the earth is.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene


###### "morrisjo", 4/17/01 4:13 PM ######

I guess if you call being of the creation mindset a "troll", then yes I
am a "troll".

I do not have a list of scientists on the tip of my tongue, but I will
be glad to look some up from some of my resources.  I try to keep an
open mind, simply because if what I have truly is truth it will stand
up to any open and more importantly honest scrutiny.  Being in
education I feel I am in 2 different "worlds".  The information gate
keepers seem to do a very good job of keeping any conflicting views to
evolution out of the main stream.  I have to seek out sources to keep
in touch with what is happening in creation science research.  So I
understand when talking with evolutionist when they say what evidence
or even what scientists.

One thing to think about is that if you boil the facts down to the
"bare facts" and nothing more they really don't say much.  It not until
you put those facts into a theoretical framework do they really say
something.  That is why it seems sometimes that information is
"warped".  Creationist simply do not agree with many of the assumptions
that are made by evolutionary framework.

I do appreciate your thoughts and consideration and will follow with
more indepth information.

Hi, John.

No hurry.

Please understand that it is the antiquity of the earth alone that
demonstrates that that particular young earth creationist interpretation
of that religious doctrine ("no death before Adam") cannot be correct,
in the very same sense(s) that the geocentrist interpretation of certain
biblical texts cannot be correct. What I mean by this is that the fact
that the earth is quite old, along with its fossil record, shows that
physical death existed for many millions of years before humans were
ever on the planet. Thus, it is the antiquity issue alone that
contradicts that particular interpretation of that religious doctrine.
Evolution is irrelevant to that equation, because that would still
remain true even *if* there was never any biological evolution of any
kind at all.

If this particular discussion is considered inappropriate for this
discussion forum, I have a couple of others that I can recommend to you
offline, including one I moderate myself which is specifically intended
for such discussion as this. (Note that I *never* censor discussion
participants who I happen to disagree with in discussion, specifically
because of the unfair treatment I have experienced in some
creationist-related discussion forums with creationist moderators.)

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### John Morris, 4/17/01 4:59 PM ######
Todd,

I am John.

I do believe the earth is around 6000 years old. Creation and evolution
cannot agree. At least from a wholist approach. The creation story
states that creation was good and there was no death.  Not until sin
did death enter the picture and therefore the need for Jesus and
Easter.  Evolution states it is the survival of the fitest.  So the two
do not fit.  I will follow with names tomorrow.  I am at work and it is
tough keeping this conversation going and get my work done even if I
had all the information on the tip of my tongue.

Hi, David.

You wrote:

     John, was it you who mentioned being a former YEC? Whoever
     it was, I would be very interested in receiving a BRIEF
     account of what things (events, arguments, time of life,
     etc.), as specifically as memory and brevity will allow,
     lead to your, ummm, conversion. I already have a file of
     accounts from people who had held other positions and then
     became YEC's, so it would be interesting to have another
     list of people going the other way. I think I have
     something about a Greg(?) Morton, and an anonymous preacher
     who seems to have rolled over upon learning about
     Morganucodon, so I could include those and be off to a good
     start on an interesting study.

That was me. By the way, it's Glenn Morton who was a young earth
creationist. Glenn became a professional geologist. What he learned from
his work in geology demonstrated to him that his YEC beliefs were wrong,
so he rejected them. That's not a "conversion." That simply a natural
thing that we do all of the time, every day, though I will grant that
there is a "level of implications" that is considerably higher with
rejecting an "umbrella idea" like the YEC belief than there is with the
average idea modification we practice every day. There's also Davis A.
Young (whose father was the well known conservative Old Testament
scholar Edward J. Young;
http://www.banneroftruth.co.uk/articles/e_j_young.htm ) who, like Glenn
Morton, went into geology as a profession and ended up rejecting his
YEC belief when he realized that it was incorrect.

Check out my website. I would mention here, briefly, that I became an
old earth creationist (I'm a former old earth creationist, too) after
learning some things in astronomy.

Question for you: Geologists have found over 160 relatively large impact
craters on the earth. How many would that be since the global flood?

Here's another question for you: SN1987A exploded approximately 168,000
years ago. Did that stellar explosion, which astronomers observed
directly, ever really happen, or was that just a "cosmic mirage"?

Just some things to think about.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

Hi, John.

Thank you for the follow-up.

You'll get no flame war from me. I try to offer only honest and
substantive criticism.

Here I requote your original statement:

     There are many good and brilliant scientists who are
     creationist and are so not by faith alone but because they
     believe the scientific evidence supports that worldview
     better than the evolutionary one.

This is pretty much the ICR people (though I don't know if Baumgardner
or Lester are connected with ICR).

   Dr. Henry Morris
   No relevant research published in the professional literature.

   Dr. Duane Gish
   No relevant research published in the professional literature.

   Dr. Ken Cumming
   No relevant research published in the professional literature.

   Dr. Steve Austin
   No relevant research published in the professional literature.

   Dr. David Dewitt
   I'm not familiar with him.

   Dr. Andrew Snelling
   No relevant research published in the professional literature.

   Dr. John Baumgardner
   No relevant research published in the professional literature.

   Dr. Lane Lester
   I'm not familiar with him.

Every single one of these men whom I'm familiar with is clearly and
obviously motivated by religious belief in their acceptance of young
earth creationism, and not by the scientific evidence. The ICR people,
in particular, have worked hard for many years to produce evidence for
YEC, and haven't yet produce even a shred of it. Additionally, Morris
and Gish, in particular, are notorious (and well-known) for their
continued, obstinate advocacy of clearly discredited arguments.

SN1987A really does exist, and wishing it away won't change that.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

"SN1987A and The Antiquity of The Universe"
http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Thebes/7755/essays.html

Hi, David.

Your speculation cannot be correct, because the empirical data
contradicts it. One of the relatively smaller craters, the Barringer
Crater near Winslow, Arizona, is, compared to the others, in relatively
pristine condition. The Manicouagan Crater in Quebec, Canada, has gone
through erosion, lithification, and now re-erosion. Due to the nature
of the lithification of a crater, what used to be the rim of the
Manicouagan Crater is now a circular lake. It makes an interesting image
from the Space Shuttle when its frozen in the winter. And the largest
crater of these I'm referring to, the Vredefort Crater in South Africa
is also the most heavily eroded, having been around far, far longer than
the others. Its sheer size is the only reason that erosion hasn't
obliterated it from the landscape.

In order for your speculation to be correct, the Barringer Crater, being
the smallest (by far) of these three, should be the most obliterated
crater. Instead, what is observed, as expected by what you would perhaps
refer to as "conventional" geology, is that the oldest crater is also
the most eroded.

I apologize for not providing this online reference previously:

   "Impact Craters on Earth"
   http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Thebes/7755/essays.html

At that web page I also list several related online links.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene


###### David L Bump, 4/19/01 12:30 AM ######
Subject: Answering a couple questions

On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:24:43 -0400 "Todd S. Greene"
<tgreene@presortservices.com> writes:
> ...
> Question for you: Geologists have found over 160 relatively large
> impact craters on the earth. How many would that be since the
> global flood?

I couldn't say with such limited data. What strata do they appear in?
What condition are they in? I assume there is quite a range. Some,
perhaps most, may have occured during the Cataclysm.

Hi, David.

You state that SN1987A's distance of approximately 168,000 light-years
is "estimated by red shift to be that many light years away." No, David.
This is completely incorrect. The distance is calculated by
trigonometry on the primary gas ring that surrounds SN1987A. It is a
geometric calculation that is very accurate, within the limits of
the measurement limits of the angular distance between the two sides of
the gas ring. Red shift has absolutely nothing to do with it. See

   "SN1987A and The Antiquity of The Universe"
   http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Thebes/7755/essays.html

where I explain this in detail and step you through the calculation.

Furthermore, since you have an obvious interest in this topic, it is
your responsibility as a professed Christian to make yourself aware of
these facts, including the fact that red shift is simply not used at
all, in any way, in calculating distance estimates *until* you start
talking about galaxies and other entities that are *farther away* from
the earth (i.e., more than a hundred million light-years) than our local
region of the universe. What is used in our local region is more
accurate data based on such techniques as magnitude measurements and
eclipsing binaries, and, in fortuitous circumstances like SN1987A,
trigonometry.

Moreover, if you seriously believe that the universe is no bigger than
6,000 light-years across, then I think we really need to be having a
more fundamental discussion.

Finally, you cite both Barry Setterfield's speculations and D. Russell
Humphreys' speculations. Neither of these men are astronomers or
astrophysicists. Neither of these men has ever published their
speculations in the professional scientific literature. The ICR itself
has explicitly rejected Setterfield's speculations and distanced itself
from Setterfield's idea. Humphreys' speculations have been met by
serious criticism even in the YEC journal *Creation Ex Nihilo*. You
state that Humphreys' model "has become very popular of late." Perhaps
it has among Christians of YEC motivation. But the fact is that there is
not a single professional astronomer or astrophysicist anywhere in the
world who takes Humphreys' idea seriously, because his model is flatly
contradicted by the relevant astronomical data.

We could also get into relevant details regarding specific empirical
data that contradicts both Setterfield and Humphreys. Are you
interested?

I close this post by reiterating the statement I made a couple of days
ago, that...

     ...when it got down to the nitty-gritty (we were specifically
     discussing SN1987A), it turned out they [young earth
     creationists] were more than willing to deny the facts, not
     just the "theoretical framework." In other words, I'm telling
     you that I'm not buying this particular argument, because
     creationists themselves have shown that they don't take their
     own argument seriously.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### David L Bump, 4/19/01 12:30 AM ######
Subject: Answering a couple questions

> Here's another question for you: SN1987A exploded approximately
> 168,000 years ago. Did that stellar explosion, which astronomers
> observed directly, ever really happen, or was that just a
> "cosmic mirage"?

You say it "exploded approximately 168,000 years ago." What is factual
is that there is light coming to earth which conveys the appearance of a
stellar explosion, estimated by red shift to be that many light years
away. Given that, it is not even necessary to posit a recent "creation"
in the usual sense to arrive at the possibility that such an event did
not occur in this universe as we know it, and so could be called a
mirage. But I'll leave it up to you to puzzle out how such a
naturalistic explanation might be derived. Hawking and some others have
certainly come up with some imaginative explanations for some of their
scenarios. Personally, I see such questions as being a matter of
philosophy*, not science, and such mirages as being inevitable in any
universe in which the Creator sees no point in dragging things out
before getting to the really interesting part. (*It's rather like
tortoises in a terrarium asking, "Did these plants really grow here, or
were they placed here fully grown by a terrarium designer?") What's the
point in having beautiful cosmic objects if your little perceptrons
can't see them? You'll just have to explain to them that you made them
that way.

As far as more "scientific" explanations go, two theories being developed
by creationary scientists are

   1) the speed of light was far higher for a brief period
      during creation.

   2) the earth was at the center of a white-hole singularity
      which allowed the distant parts of the universe to actually
      age just as they appear to have done, while relatively
      little time passed on earth.

The second one has become very popular of late. I have not been
particularly interested in these ideas myself, but you may find others
who can tell you more about them and perhaps correct any misperceptions
caused by any failure on my part in describing them.

Hi, David.

Yes, please do cite the "professional astronomers" who believe that
Humphreys' model bears any credibility. Have they published their
investigation of his model in any professional scientific literature?
Cite the articles. Young earth creationists frequently mention such
people (without names) and articles (without references), and, yes,
David, in my experience they are usually nothing more than "rhetorical
mirages."

Perhaps you should be aware that Humphreys' model is not relevant to
SN1987A, because, as I've already mentioned to you, relative to the
earth SN1987A is in our local region of the universe. And at 168,000
light-years from the earth, that's 162,000 years too many for the young
earth aspect of YEC. Additionally, you should be aware that Humphreys'
model predicts that entities at cosmic distances should have a blue
shift, the opposite of a red shift. That right there is a pretty sure
sign (pun intended) that there is something seriously wrong with his
model.

With regard to Setterfield's lightspeed decay, you should be aware that
if any such thing as that were correct, a result of that would be that
the more distant an astronomical entity is, then the slower processes
related to it would appear to occur. In other words, if light was far
faster when it left the entity than it is now as it reaches earth, then
any processes we observed by that light would appear to be occurring
far more slowly than they actually occurred when the light left the
entity in question. Let's say that the entity was a supernova. Well, it
turns out that supernovae go through their own energy decays. In other
words, a stellar explosion goes through a cycle, and their are light
energy curves that can be recorded based on energy coming from the
decay of radioactive elements generated by the explosion, such as
radioactive nickel and cobalt. If there was indeed a radical lightspeed
decay, as speculated by Setterfield, then what astronomers would
observe is that nearby supernova, such as SN1987A, would go through
their light decay cycle thousands of times more quickly than supernova
observed from billions of light-years away. What astronomers observe,
David, is that there is no "slow motion" effect, and what is observed
does indeed confirm that lightspeed was the same (or very close to the
same, within calculation limits) billions of years ago as it was
168,000 years ago and as it is today. And this is just one example
using supernovae light decay cycles.

You can list all of the YEC ideas and speculations that you want,
David. That doesn't mean that they have any credibility, nor that they
should be taken seriously, nor that they are scientific. Should we
talk about YEC arguments for a young universe/young earth such as the
shrinking sun, or ocean salinity, or moon dust, or the Moon & Spencer
shortcut through space conjecture, or earth's magnetic field decay, or
short-term comets, or all of the other bad, unscientific arguments
(all of them still being promoted to this day) in order to demonstrate
that YEC is not scientific and bears no credibility?

Why are these things relevant? I said a few days ago that...

     ...when it got down to the nitty-gritty (we were specifically
     discussing SN1987A), it turned out they [young earth
     creationists] were more than willing to deny the facts, not
     just the "theoretical framework."

When it gets down to the details, as opposed to merely at the level of
rhetoric, creationists themselves have demonstrated time and again and
continue to demonstrate that they couldn't care less about science.
I have never yet met a young earth creationist who was willing to
accept the facts about SN1987A.

For them, this is clearly a battle based on their particular religious
beliefs, and creationism is a religious apologetics movement. (As a
former creationist, David, I can't be misled about these things. I
know, because *I was there*.) Again, if people want to discuss
religious and/or philosophical issues related to the general topic,
then such discussion and education belongs in a philosophy or
religions survey class, not in a science class. If creationists
actually perform some legitimate scientific research that is relevant
to such areas as geology, astronomy, physics, or biology, then it is
that legitimate scientific work that will bear its own credibility,
and not until then. Constantly playing these games of rhetoric and
misrepresentation over the decades has (deservedly) destroyed their
reputation for having any credibility. Engaging in political
maneuvers to cripple legitimate science and science education, all
the while falsely pretending that they are motivated by concerns about
science education rather than by their religious concerns, is just
another demonstration of the fallacies inherent in creationist rhetoric.

HB 4382 deserves defeat because it is based on a lie. Let me reiterate
this, because it is something that needs to be clear to everyone who
considers HB 4382:

   HB 4382 DESERVES DEFEAT BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON A LIE.

If you fear that discussion of creationism is "over the line" for
this forum, why don't you try out

   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism

which is specifically intended for discussion of creationism-related
issues.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### David L. Bump, 4/20/01 12:52 AM ######
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:42:31 -0400 "Todd S. Greene"
<tgreene@presortservices.com> writes:
> ...
> Hi, David.
>
> You state that SN1987A's distance of approximately 168,000
> light-years is "estimated by red shift to be that many light years
> away." No, David. This is completely incorrect. The distance is
> calculated by trigonometry on the primary gas ring that surrounds
> SN1987A....

Forgive me for replying in haste and without having looked at the full
article. I don't carry the limit for triangulation around in my head and
thought it was somewhat closer. At any rate, the means of measurement is
irrelevant to my position, and as far as I know, to those of Setterfield
and Humphreys.

> Furthermore, since you have an obvious interest in this topic,

If you're referring to astronomy, I only have a passing interest. If your
referring to the debate between evolution and creation, well, that's a
very broad topic and, as I do not believe that the distance of
astronomical objects bears upon it, I have left it to others to
investigate in depth.

> Moreover, if you seriously believe that the universe is no bigger
> than 6,000 light-years across, then I think we really need to be having
a
> more fundamental discussion.

Well, I don't, seriously or otherwise, so you needn't worry about that.

> Finally, you cite both Barry Setterfield's speculations and D.
> Russell Humphreys' speculations. Neither of these men are astronomers
or
> astrophysicists.

No, but Humphreys is a physicist, and is quite capable of doing the math.
I do know of a couple creationary astronomers who are supportive of his
cosmology, if I recall. Would you like to correspond with them, as they
would be able to discuss it with you on your level?

>The ICR itself has explicitly rejected Setterfield's speculations and
distanced
> itself from Setterfield's idea.

True — but Setterfield has re-worked his theory and I have heard it may
be more acceptable.

> Humphreys' speculations have been met by
> serious criticism even in the YEC journal *Creation Ex Nihilo*.

Well. "serious criticism." Big whoop. What new idea hasn't been met by
that sort of thing? And it is a whole 'nother question as to the
effectiveness or validity of the criticism. I admit, the math and other
aspects are over my head.

> You state that Humphreys' model "has become very popular of late."
> Perhaps it has among Christians of YEC motivation.

Oh, wasn't it understood I was speaking in such terms? I thought it was
clear I was merely presenting what is going on in these circles. Please
forgive me if I gave some other impression.

> But the fact is that there is
> not a single professional astronomer or astrophysicist anywhere in
> the world who takes Humphreys' idea seriously, because his model is
> flatly contradicted by the relevant astronomical data.
>
> We could also get into relevant details regarding specific empirical
> data that contradicts both Setterfield and Humphreys. Are you
> interested?
>...

I also thought I made it clear that I was simply listing some other
people's ideas. I guess I should have just spelled out "FYI," or
something like that. Sorry. But if you are interested in an in-depth
discussion of Humphrey's views, as I said, I know a couple professional
astronomers... oh, I'm sorry, they must be mirages, eh? Also, if you're
curious as to what Setterfield is up to, I might be able to help somewhat
there also.

Now, if you care to discuss what we can on layman's terms about distant
stars disproving a young universe, you've got my attention.

Hi, John.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not verifiable in the lab." The telescope
is a laboratory instrument. Everything I have discussed is indeed
verifiable, such as the fact that the light from distant cosmic entities
has a distinct red shift that is proportional to its distance, and not a
blue shift. The distance to SN1987A is verifiable, and is corroborated
by independent distance estimates of the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy.
The light energy decay cycles of supernovae is recorded and measured,
and this information is verifiable and verified every time a supernova
occurs and is observed and measured. The magnitude cycles of Cepheid
variable stars is captured by telescope and analyzed and plotted in
detail. (There is no "slow motion" effect observed with Cepheid
magnitude cycles, either.) This is all verifiable information. If you
worked in astronomy, you would be aware of this, and you could get
access to the "lab" equipment and carry out the observations, collect
the data, and analyze it for yourself.

You can indeed verify that light was traveling at the same speed from
distant supernovae (i.e., from distant times in the past), because, as
I previously mentioned, if the light was traveling radically faster in
the past than it travels now, there would exist an equally radical "slow
motion" effect. In other words, the farther the entity in question, the
slower any processes related to it would appear to be occurring. For
example, the decay curve of a very distant supernova, say 10 billion
light-years away, should appear to decay over a period of several
decades, or even several centuries, instead of over just a year and a
half. However, what astronomers actually observe is that the decay
curve of a supernova is not related to distance at all. In other words,
the observed decay is the same whether it's from a close supernova like
SN1987A only 168,000 light-years from the earth or from a very distant
supernova such as the one approximately 10 billion light-years away
which was recently observed by the Hubble Space Telescope.

Regarding your statements related to paleontology, both of these
statements are simply incorrect, so I'm not under any obligation to
"explain" them. I would suggest, as a former YEC, of course, that you
are allowing yourself to be misled by YEC rhetoric rather than
investigating the genuinely scientific literature for yourself.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### John Morris, 4/20/01 10:36 AM ######
Subject: Re: The Ancient Universe, and SN1987A

Todd,

Just a comment and a couple of honest questions.

It seems to me that when we deal with old age we have no way to
scientically verify repeatedly that light was traveling at the same speed or
the origin of the light was actually that far away at the time it began
emmitting light, ect. We are making some basic assumptions that make sense
from what we understand today, or better yet from a certain theoretical
framework, but because they are not verifiable in the lab we cannot say
these are the basic facts removed from any theoretical framework, correct?

I know you probably have explanations for the following so if you would be
as so kind I would like to hear them:

The Cambrian explosion where the basic animal groups suddenly appear with
out any evidence of ancestors.

If evolution took place slowly over millions of years shouldn't there be a
large number of transitional fossils, yet we have so few and those are hotly
contested.

Hi, David.

Please go right ahead and express your views. People are curious about
how such views can be held in this day and age. This does not imply that
they will not also express criticism of the views that young earth
creationists express, because those views are patently false. Especially
since you claim that your views are scientific, even while you
demonstrate that they aren't, and especially since one of the catalysts
of discussion is a piece of proposed legislation that is based on the
same kind of misrepresentation.

Who are the professional astronomers who have published their work in
the professional astronomical or physics literature in support of
Humphreys' model? Either they exist, or they don't. I have stated that
they do not exist. You claim that they do. Cite them, or honestly
acknowledge that your claim was indeed a rhetorical mirage, just as I
said it was. Every single one of the YEC arguments that you and I have
mentioned has been discredited, and yet every single one of them lives
on in YEC literature and is preached from the pulpits of YEC preachers.
Christians are being misled by this misinformation. This is a hypocrisy
and a travesty.

You can claim that "the age of the universe is primarily a philosophical
question" all you want to. That doesn't make it so. If you yourself
don't want to re-hash old YEC arguments which have been slain a thousand
times, then don't. But, so far anyway, this is what you've been doing.
And this argument that "the age of the universe is primarily a
philosophical question" is just another discredited argument, which you
have demonstrated the incorrectness of right here over the past few
days.

I have provided some explanation why your argument that "the age of the
universe is primarily a philosophical question" is incorrect, by
presenting some of the relevant data, such as in the case of SN1987A.
As I predicted, when it gets own to actually considering the data, YECs
(in this case, you) are more than ready to jettison the data because
the data contradicts rather than supports your position. This is a
shame that this is the case, but it is my typical experience with YECs,
and I have come to expect it. You cannot deal with the actual data,
so you ignore it, and yet you continue to promote your discredited
argument that "the age of the universe is primarily a philosophical
question."

Don't get me wrong. I know that acknowledging that it really is a matter
of empirical fact would require you to alter a basic belief of yours,
and as a former young earth creationism I understand how difficult that
can be. At the same time, it is important for you to recognize that
acknowledging what is true is your responsibility. You have no
responsibility to adhere to human tradition.

You state that "given the choice and opportunity, it appears
[evolutionists] are more interested in attacks on creationism rather
than discussing the fascinating positive aspects of evolutionism." Nice
rhetoric, I suppose, but I know that you know the truth, David. What
sense is there in discussing things like *Acanthostega* or genetic
similarities between chimpanzees and humans, when the person you are
discussing it with won't even acknowledge the directly observed fact
that the universe has been around far, far longer than just 6,000 years.
SN1987A sits right there in the sky. We have been observing developments
subsequent to the explosion. Yet here you are claiming that SN1987A is
not even real, that it's just part of a cosmic mirage. That's called
"denying the data," David. In fact, David, here you are claiming that
every single galaxy that we observe in the universe is not real but
merely some kind of cosmic illusion as an "after-effect" of God's
creation of the universe 6,000 years ago. This is totally unscientific.
And yet here you are pretending that this deserves to be taught to our
children as science in science classes. We both know who has the biased
agenda, and it's not evolutionists, especially since "evolutionists"
includes many Christians, such as Francisco Ayala and Kenneth R. Miller.

When you are ready to actually deal with the data instead of ignoring
it, then perhaps you'll be prepared to try to understand evolution.
Until that point, you're showing that you don't even understand basic
science.

This is what "evolutionists say among themselves" about creationists.
They know that creationists have an agenda, and they know that
creationists refuse to deal with the data (are unscientific), and they
know that creationists promote misinformation on these issues like water
from a drinking fountain. So when something like HB 4382 comes up, it's
a good time to draw the line and fight the hypocrisy.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### David L. Bump, 4/21/01 12:24 AM ######
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:42:40 -0400 "Todd S. Greene"
<tgreene@presortservices.com> writes:
> ...
> Hi, David.
>
> Yes, please do cite the "professional astronomers" who believe that
> Humphreys' model bears any credibility. Have they published their
> investigation of his model in any professional scientific
> literature?

Did I say I would cite them? I thought I said I could put you in contact
with them, or vice-versa, if you're interested. You didn't specify
anything about publications. I've heard the aphorism "publish or perish,"
but not being a professional scientist myself, I don't know — has
everybody who has a doctorate and gets paid to do and/or teach astronomy
gotten published in "professional scientific literature" that meets your
standards?

I was told — I guess it was somebody else who wrote it — that you
wanted to hear my views and such. Well, I presented my view, but that was
ignored and the additional information I provided was used as a
springboard to launch a scattershot attack ... sorry, but I haven't got
time to re-hash old arguments. As I said, the age of the universe is
primarily a philosophical question.  There is data that can be used to
generate an apparent age (or ages, as new data comes in), but  these are
based on philosophical assumptions which also guide the gathering of
data.

> shrinking sun

No, I know about that one. I know some creation lecturers still use it,
but it's being phased out.

> or ocean salinity,

That, too, but I think it is still debatable. BTW, have you ever wondered
why the ocean is NaCl salty, and not as much or more loaded with other
salts and soluble materials? It's quite interesting, although it doesn't
bear on age.

> or moon dust,

Nah, I know, the rate isn't as high as thought and it got compacted,
right? Still, there were expectations (predictions, even) that there
would be great depths of loose dust, and I think the standard assumptions
were responsible.

> or the Moon & Spencer shortcut through space conjecture,

Heh, never heard of that one!

>or earth's magnetic field decay,

Magnetic reversals, eh? Well, could be.

> or short-term comets,

Kuiper belt? Wouldn't hold enough for 4 billion years, would it? Oort
cloud, too? Speculative.


> If creationists actually perform some legitimate scientific research
that is
> relevant to such areas as geology, astronomy, physics, or biology, then
it is
> that legitimate scientific work that will bear its own credibility,
> and not until then....

Actually, they have, but mostly before the mass exodus to evolutionism.
The foundations of science were laid without help from evolutionary
ideas. All the practical work in science can be done without reference to
the idea that a prokaryote's descendants could be humans or anything
else.

> If you fear that discussion of creationism is "over the line" for
> this forum, why don't you try out
>
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism
>
> which is specifically intended for discussion of creationism-related
> issues.

Oh, I'm on a listserver for the discussion of creation-related matters. I
came here to try to get a feel for what evolutionists say among
themselves, but, given the choice and opportunity, it appears they are
more interested in attacks on creationism rather than discussing the
fascinating positive aspects of evolutionism. But I have good hope that
that is only temporary. I think I can learn more by watching both sides
at work among themselves than by inciting defensive (or offensive)
reactions with my own limited knowledge.

David Bump

Hi, David.

I'm always amused by the rhetorical maneuverings of those who claim
to be more interested in truth than everyone else while at the same
time they do things like deny that something like SN1987A is even
real — and they want this to be part of the science curriculum of our
public schools. (The stellar explosion took place 168,000 years ago, but
you claim that the data of that event is merely an illusion. Hence,
SN1987A — and all other events and entities that we observe in all of
the other galaxies in the universe — are not real. The entire universe
that we see, and the majority of our own Milky Way galaxy, is nothing
more than a cosmic mirage.)

(By the way, I have asked you repeatedly to name the unnamed
professional astronomers who support Humphreys' model, yet you keep
refusing to name them (while at the same time trying to
misrepresentatively pretend that I'm not interested). What's the big
secret, David? As I predicted, this "support" by a professional
astronomer (what, are we down to just one now?) is nothing more than a
rhetorical mirage. Thanks for confirming all of my predictions! It's
been fun!)

In denying the reality of SN1987A, as you have done, you demonstrate
that you have no genuine interest in science. At that point, there's not
much more to discuss. I must admit that I'm surprised at your clear
acknowledgement of how young earth creationists deny these objective
realities, since I'm typically met with profuse obfuscation on this
particular point, but since you have explicitly acknowledged your denial
of the reality of SN1987A, there's really nothing more that needs to be
discussed, since you've demonstrated the point that creationism is a
belief that is based sole on religious considerations and is completely
unscientific (noting, however, that there are other forms of creationism
besides young earth creationism, but you happen to be a YEC advocate).

Regarding your statement that "Scientific data cannot determine if a
question is primarily philosophical or scientific," I must disagree,
because it is frequently the case that the scientific data determines
that what used to be thought of as primarily a philosophical issue
really is a scientific issue even though it was thought to be otherwise.
This could either be a matter of misperception (incorrect philosophy) or
historical development (i.e., technological advancement that allows
empirical examination that was previously impossible). But, more
importantly in this particular discussion right here, I have shown how
this argument is completely irrelevant in the specific case of the
universe having been in existence far longer than just 6,000 years. When
people start denying the reality of the objective data itself, this is
completely unscientific. While you obviously wish to "soften the blow"
by calling your claim that the data is a cosmic illusion (which is, as
you know, a completely unverifiable position since you have completely
divorced yourself from the reality of what the data shows us) as merely
a "philosophical" position, the fact remains that it is a particular
"philosophical" position based on a religious commitment to a particular
interpretation of a particular religious text, and in denying the
reality of the data of the real world you demonstrate that your
position is unscientific, no matter how else you wish to describe it.

(To make the discussion really interesting, and relevant, why don't you
attempt to deal with the substantive details regarding SN1987, rather
than blatantly ignoring them.)

Your support of something like HB 4382 is precisely the point of what is
wrong with the legislation. HB 4382 is based on the lie that it is
for the purpose of addressing concerns about science and the teaching of
science. Yet all of us know (all of us on all sides of the issue) know
that it is based on religious, not scientific, concerns, and that even
these religious concerns are of a sectarian nature. (I especially like
how you imply that any Christian who would disagree with you on this
issue is not a real Christian.)

So please keep writing, David. Everything you write helps demonstrate
what's wrong with HB 4382, as well as what's wrong with young earth
creationism.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### David L. Bump, 4/24/01 1:11 AM ######
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:48:36 -0400 "Todd S. Greene"
<tgreene@presortservices.com> writes:
> Who are the professional astronomers who have published their work
> in the professional astronomical or physics literature in support of
> Humphreys' model? Either they exist, or they don't. I have stated
> that they do not exist. You claim that they do.

No, I just claimed there were professional astronomers who think
Humphreys is onto something. I don't know if they have published
anything, but I know one who got his PhD from Indiana University and
teaches at the U. of South Carolina, Lancaster. On other subjects, "He
has been published in the Astrophysical Journal, Publications of the
Astronomical Society of the Pacific and the Information Bulletin on
Variable Stars." I offered to put you in touch with him or some other
creationist astronomer — you haven't indicated if you are are
interested.

[snip]

> Christians are being misled by this misinformation. This is a
> hypocrisy and a travesty.

Well, if they are being mislead into believing that God created the
universe and provided us with a reliable account, then they're being
mislead in being Christians as well. Same goes for Jews and Muslims who
believe in creation.

> You can claim that "the age of the universe is primarily a
> philosophical question" all you want to. That doesn't make it so.

Neither does your denying it make it not so.

> I have provided some explanation why your argument that "the age of
> the universe is primarily a philosophical question" is incorrect, by
> presenting some of the relevant data, such as in the case of
> SN1987A.

Scientific data cannot determine if a question is primarily philosophical
or scientific.

> As I predicted, when it gets own to actually considering the data,
> YECs (in this case, you) are more than ready to jettison the data

No, I accept the data — the data is the appearance of celestial bodies.
However, if the universe were created by a Being who desired the
inhabitants of the Earth to see distant stars, He could just as well
create the stars along with the "light cones" indicating their present
state and location by the appearance of a virtual past.

[snip]

> SN1987A sits right there in the sky. We have been observing
> developments subsequent to the explosion. Yet here you are claiming
> that SN1987A is not even real, that it's just part of a cosmic mirage.
> That's called "denying the data," David. In fact, David, here you are
> claiming that every single galaxy that we observe in the universe is
> not real but merely some kind of cosmic illusion as an "after-effect"
> of God's creation of the universe 6,000 years ago. This is totally
> unscientific.

Unscientific, yes — after all I am claiming it is a matter of
philosophy. Actually, philosophically speaking, the universe could have
popped into existence, God or no god, just this moment, with everything
in place — including your memories of past experience. Descartes went so
far as to say the only thing he could be sure of _a priori_ was his
existence as something having thoughts.  One's belief about the actual
age of the universe depends on which other _a priori_ assumptions one
chooses to take up. If you can assume that the known laws of physics must
be extended without bound into the past and throughout space, then the
appearance of celestial objects at great distances is indeed an
indication of the actual age of the universe. If you assume that
something (or Someone) existed before the known universe, capable of
creating the universe and of working within it, then we must seek
elsewhere for the answer to the age of the earth.

> And yet here you are pretending that this deserves to be taught to
> our children as science in science classes.

Yes, I think they should be taught the limitations of science.

> We both know who has the biased
> agenda, and it's not evolutionists, especially since "evolutionists"
> includes many Christians, such as Francisco Ayala and Kenneth R.
> Miller.

There are all sorts of people who call themselves christian, and why
shouldn't christian evolutionists have a biased agenda? They certainly
would want to support their form of christianity over others.


> This is what "evolutionists say among themselves" about creationists.

Yes, and a lot worse, and not just among themselves. But again, I wasn't
wondering what they say about creationists, but what they would talk
about if nobody on earth had ever believed in creation.

David Bump

Hi, David.

Since the stellar explosion that we observe occurred 168,000 years ago,
and since you claim that the universe has not existed for more than
about 6,000 years, this means that SN1987A (which is the name used to
designate the stellar explosion) is not real but is merely an illusion
effect of "light created in transit." Remember, David, I'm a former
young earth creationist. I'm surprised that you don't understand this
implication of your own position. If the universe did not exist more
than about 6,000 years ago, as you claim, then SN1987A never really
happened. Everything that is observed to occur prior to about 6,000
years ago (which means everything beyond our Milky Way galaxy, and also
most of the Milky Way itself) is merely an illusion of past events that
never really happened. None of it is real. I thanked you earlier for
acknowledging the implications of your belief. Don't start engaging in
the typical obfuscation of this point that I thanked you earlier for not
engaging in earlier.

Thank you for naming Danny Faulkner and Ron Samec. I would like to see
Faulkner's article(s) in the professional astronomy literature that
supports Humphreys' model. I would especially like to see the explanation
for why we observe increasing red-shift of light from increasingly
distant cosmological entities, even though Humphreys' model says that
there is supposed to be a blue-shift (the opposite of what we observe). I
would also like to see Faulkner apply this supposed relativistic effect
to SN1987A, which since it is in our local region of the universe is
observed to have no relativistic distortions at all. Your original
statement was

     I do know of a couple creationary astronomers who are
     supportive of his [Humphreys'] cosmology.

If all you can come up as "support" for Humphreys' cosmology is a
statement by some creationist that "I like Humphreys' cosmology," rest
assured that I will be one of the first to point out the fact that
science is not based on subjective expressions of personal amity between
creationists. In fact, you and I both know that neither Faulkner nor
this other guy, Ron Samec, has published any scientific work in support
of Humphreys' cosmology. Look, David, PR statements in a church bulletin
does not constitute serious scientific examination. I know that you know
this. So you've got to come up with something more than that. You know
fully well that I'm talking about serious scientific work. None exists,
not even by Faulkner, that supports Humphreys' model. Indeed, none can,
because, in fact, Humphreys' model is already discredited by what is
already known (by empirical observation) about the universe, such as
the cosmological red-shift, and the fact that SN1987A is observed to
not be distorted by any such relativistic effects as proposed in
Humphreys' model.

I also love your flair for out-of-context rhetoric. Young earth
creationists use this as standard fare, and I'm glad you are
demonstrating this YEC technique for us.

You quote me:
>> But, more importantly in this particular discussion right here,
>> I have shown how this argument is completely irrelevant in the
>> specific case of the universe having been in existence far
>> longer than just 6,000 years.

Your response:
> No, you've just made a flat statement to that effect.

Of course, you state this while completely ignoring the context of my
discussion in previous posts of SN1987A (and such things as the fallacy
of Setterfield's lightspeed decay speculation) and my having referred
you to my online article about the SN1987A distance calculation at
http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Thebes/7755/essays.html . I clearly made
my statement in the context of my preceding posts in which I discussed
SN1987A, but you purposely chose to ignore that and misrepresentatively
pretend that I was merely making a "flat statement to that effect."
Wrong, David. Such smokescreen tactics are good for YEC rhetoric to the
converted, I suppose (for people who aren't concerned with such mundane
ethical principles as accurate representation), but what you need to
understand is that by using them you only serve to effectively discredit
your position even further with your critics, not strengthen it.

(And please keep telling us what you think about Christians who disagree
with your religious doctrine of young earth creationism. People need to
understand your sectarian position. Christians all over the world
accepted the ancient age of the earth over a hundred years ago. Indeed,
historically Christian geologists were actively involved in geology, in
learning that the earth was ancient, and in developing the geologic
column and many other aspects of geology. Several years ago, the Pope
issued an official document regarding there being nothing wrong with the
science of biological evolution from a Christian perspective. Several
major Protestant denominations have made similar official statements
like this over the last several decades. The Scofield Bible, a
Protestant version which was put out in the 19th century, advocated the
antiquity of the earth in the footnotes for Genesis 1.)

Please continue. I sincerely want people to see young earth creationists
in action, because YEC rhetoric provides the best argument against the
YEC position. Everything you've been writing shows why any kind of
legislation such as HB 4382 is deceptive, not being genuinely concerned
about science and science education, and thus why it deserves all of the
opposition that it gets. So thank you for your efforts.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### David L. Bump, 4/24/01 11:23 PM ######
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:55:24 -0400 "Todd S. Greene"
<tgreene@presortservices.com> writes:
>...(The stellar explosion took place 168,000 years ago,
> but you claim that the data of that event is merely an illusion. Hence,
> SN1987A — and all other events and entities that we observe in all
> of the other galaxies in the universe — are not real. The entire
> universe that we see, and the majority of our own Milky Way galaxy, is
> nothing more than a cosmic mirage.)

No, I believe the galaxy is real, and so are the further objects. I only
claim that the light representing those objects farther than "6,000"
light-years away may have been created so that we could see them in a
virtually instantly created universe. The image is real, the object is
real, the only thing which cannot be determined to be real is the
derivation of the "age" of the light creating the image. An image in a
mirror is real and represents a real object. The object appears to be
within or beyond the mirror, but anyone who knows about mirrors is not
concerned with seeing a "false" image.

> (By the way, I have asked you repeatedly to name the unnamed
> professional astronomers who support Humphreys' model, yet you keep
> refusing to name them (while at the same time trying to
> misrepresentatively pretend that I'm not interested). What's the big
> secret, David?

Well, you seem to be so big on this astronomy thing, I thought you'd want
to talk in private to an astronomer. I happen to have some information on
one (Danny Faulkner) so I posted that. It's not "down to one," I just
haven't got any detailed information on Ron Samec and haven't gotten in
touch with him yet.

> Regarding your statement that "Scientific data cannot determine if a
> question is primarily philosophical or scientific," I must disagree,
> because it is frequently the case that the scientific data determines
> that what used to be thought of as primarily a philosophical issue
> really is a scientific issue ...

I'll grant that there may be exceptions, but can you name one? I also do
not feel you've begun to demonstrate that this is such a case.

> But, more importantly in this particular discussion right here, I have
> shown how this argument is completely irrelevant in the specific case
> of the universe having been in existence far longer than just 6,000
> years.

No, you've just made a flat statement to that effect.

...
> (To make the discussion really interesting, and relevant, why don't
> you attempt to deal with the substantive details regarding SN1987,
> rather than blatantly ignoring them.)

I'm ignoring them because you have failed to provide an argument as to
why these particular details change the import of the philosophical
considerations.

> these religious concerns are of a sectarian nature. (I especially
> like how you imply that any Christian who would disagree with you on
> this issue is not a real Christian.)...

I don't claim to be the arbiter of who is a Christian or not, and I do
believe someone can be a Christian and believe in an Old Earth and all
that. However, I can't help having my doubts or concerns about their
faith, based on several observations. 1) Major proponents of such views,
such as those you mentioned, also differ on a number of other doctrines.
2) To be logically consistent, if you rule out a recent creation, any
other passage in the Bible may be considered allegorical or even
misleading, and subject to one's own "interpretation." 2a — this applies
especially to "unscientific" things like miracles, including the
incarnation of God and the resurrection of Christ, core doctrines of
Christianity. 3) I imagine if I came to believe that the book of Genesis
did not clearly reveal how (in a very general way) God created the
heavens and the earth, I would see no reason to believe anything else the
Bible appears to teach outside of some dry historical points, and would
rather live according to the true nature of my origins. I don't know why
anyone would do otherwise, so it seems likely they have a very different
sort or set of beliefs.

David Bump

Hi, John (Morris).

Just as an additional point regarding the quotes of scientists, is that
creationists typically use these kinds of quotes out of context. While
we agree on the very general point that many scientists are Christians,
this does not imply that these same scientists agree with ID.
Additionally, even those who do agree with the general concept of ID
would acknowledge that this in conjunction with evolution as opposed to
being anti-evolution. It is the reputation of creationists (a deserved
one) that they seek rhetorical advantage by misportraying things.
Whether this is by carelessness due to their personal bias or by
intention due to their personal bias is irrelevant. It's habitual
misrepresentation all the same.

I'm not making accusations, John. I'm stating accurate descriptions of
YEC concepts and their implications. That's not "accusations" but just
the simple truth.

Scientists don't disagree about the facts regarding SN1987A, and they
don't disagree that they are facts. The only ones who are pretending
that the facts aren't the facts are young earth creationists. Now if
these same young earth creationists would step off their pedestal of
believing that their young earth belief is infallible (regardless of
what we actually observe about the real world), and would care to
actually deal with the facts instead of waving their hands and blithely
dismissing the facts as being "not real," then we could get somewhere.
The facts are not in dispute. When YECs such as yourself claim that
even though we have directly observed such events from the distant past
as SN1987A, these events never really occurred but are merely illusions,
then you part company with science. When you start treating the real
world itself as merely an illusion you have abandoned science and
embraced the subjectivism of believing whatever it is you wish to
believe regardless of the fact that what is observed about the real
world disproves your belief. Your belief has been tested against the
real world and has been shown to be an incorrect belief about the real
world.

It's these games that YECs play about, "Well, these facts that
contradict our position are not really facts but just misinterpretations
of the data based on philosophical assumptions," but the "philosophical
assumption" they happen to be referring to is that the data of the real
world itself is real rather than illusory, and yet YECs are pretending
to be scientific while they themselves are promoting their subjectivist
philosophy that objective observations of the real world will deceive us
if we think they represent reality, then we have some serious problems
about it being YECs themselves who are being deceptive.

Don't get me wrong. You have every right to choose to ignore the data,
to choose to believe whatever it is you want to believe. However, you
do not have the right to misrepresent the data, you do not have the
right to misrepresent these kinds of beliefs as being scientific (nor
to pretend that students are shortchanged by science education that
excludes such anti-scientific notions), and you do not have the right to
impose policies based on these kinds of misrepresentations on others
with the force of law. It is the profuse misrepresentation in the YEC
literature and by YEC advocates about these kinds of things that you
sense little "grace" from me. I take a "no nonsense" approach, and if
people don't like it — Tough! I state matters honestly and forthrightly.
I'm not about to play along with these silly rhetorical games that YECs
play, such as by allowing them to claim that SN1987A having occurred
about 168,000 years ago is merely a "philosophical assumption" rather
than an actual observation about the real world. I refuse to make any
apology for seriously criticizing YEC distortions about this matter.
These distortions deserve criticism and clarification. Let's dig into
the facts about SN1987A more, John. I know that I have absolutely
nothing to fear from the truth, because the antiquity of the world is as
factual as the revolution of the earth about the sun. I know what the
relevant data is, and what it shows. And unlike young earth
creationists, I'm not the one going around pretending to be scientific
while claiming that objective data of the real world is illusory.

You state that what keeps you anchored in your YEC beliefs is what you
know about the Bible. The geocentrists condemned Galileo on this same
principle. And the fact remains that there exists a wide variety of
interpretations of the Bible related to this issue among Christians
whose beliefs are anchored on what they know about the Bible. (But thank
you for the implicit acknowledgement that HB 4382 is based on religious
concerns, and not on scientific concerns as it pretends to be.) What
about Howard J. Van Till? What about Keith B. Miller? What about Davis
A. Young? What about George Murphy? What about Glenn R. Morton? What
about Kenneth R. Miller? What about Robert J. Russell? What about Roger
C. Wiens? What about Francisco Ayala? What about John F. Haught? And
millions of other Christians. Since they accept the facts that the
universe and the earth are ancient, are you implying that they are not
"anchored" and that their belief in the Bible is not as good as your
own? Be very careful about the implications of your statements. Do you
even acknowledge the possibility that if the YEC interpretation of the
Bible is wrong, then these other Christians' understanding of the
Bible (and of biblical hermeneutics) could be better than your own?

As an example of the objective data about the real world that
demonstrates that young earth creationism is an incorrect belief about
the world, SN1987A is a stellar explosion that occurred approximately
162,000 years *before* YECs' speculated origin time of the universe.
Obviously, stars can't explode if they don't exist. Claiming that this
stellar explosion never really happened is not scientific. Go to

   http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/novaesupernovae.html

and look at all of these observations of events surrounding SN1987A that
you claim never really happened. And then keep trying to pretend that
YEC is scientific, and that children need to be taught these
anti-scientific notions about "these astronomical observations of the
past are just illusions" in their science classes in order to have a
good science education. Those who know better know that this is absurd.

Incidentally, we know where the water below the firmament is. Where is
the water above the firmament? I suggest you take a look at a good
commentary on Genesis, such as the one by Nahum Sarna. The literalistic
interpretation used by YECs is not all it's cracked up to be. Many other
Christians are already well aware of this, and have been aware of it for
a long time. Young earth creationists need to take their own preaching
about truth-seeking seriously and acknowledge the truth about the
antiquity of the world.

That's what I did.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### John Morris, 4/25/01 12:37 PM ######
Subject: Re: Hmmmmm

[snip]

My point being that there is enough disagreement by those at the top as well
as throughout the science community that evolution is not the only valid
scientific explanation for our origins (even though it is not the most
popular) that we should allow opposing theories to be taught (strengths and
weaknesses of both).

Todd, you as may others as well, have said in the past your conversations
with YEC people end with them simply denying the "facts".  The more honest
explanation I think is the differing opinion of what is fact.  The basic
understanding of science on the street is that science is the study of
facts.  And true, pure science is, and their conclusions are repeatable in
the lab over and over again.  Any study of our origins is based on
assumptions,  assumptions granted that appear to be true, but we have no way
of validating those assumptions without a time machine.  So no I  and others
do not simply deny the facts, but disagree with your assumptions.  I wish I
was at your level where I could discuss SN1987A with you, but I am not and I
see from yours and David's conversation we still would end up at the same
point , agreeing that we simply disagree.  And really not even that since
you do not acknowledge David's point but call it rhetoric accuse him of
making illusions out of old age objects.

    What keeps me anchored is what I know about the Bible.  Bear with me,
I'm not going get religious on you.  There is much evidence in support of
this book.  Some of it scientific, and some of it not.  From a literature
stand point we know what we have today is very true to the original text.
From a historical perspective we know  the history we have agrees with it.
Archeology in the last century has taken the "myth" out of many of the
stories, in other words we now know they were real people and real places.
Yes there are some problem areas,but when you weigh what we know to be true
verses the problems, the former far outweighs the latter.  And there are
reasonable explanations for the apparent problem areas.

Then there is what I call the supernatural evidence.  We know many of the
prophecies were written well before the actual events happened.  There are
so many for the person of Jesus and of course we have the empty tomb.

    Even though this evidence is not all scientific, it is evidence that is
just valid to consider.  It is the same type of evidence we use in the court
rooms to convict criminals.  So for all of us, it not denying evidence, but
seeing conflicting evidence and having to decide which has more validity.
And obviously we have made different choices.  I feel I have given you much
grace in the sense that even though I don't agree with you I know you
believe whole heartedly you are right for reasons you feel are valid.  I do
not sense that same grace from you. I sense there is a generic belief YEC
people are right wing fanatics out to buffalo others with our assumptions
(or rhetoric)that are different than yours and therefore wrong.  I am sure
you would have to agree we are still discovering what we don't know and may
find in the process we were wrong in some "facts" we thought we knew.

John Morris

Hi, David.

Thank you for your comments regarding the observed universe being a
cosmic illusion. I appreciate your clear statements. In another
discussion forum, I would perhaps pursue the implications of your
comments in terms of epistemological and theological considerations
of your apparent age concept. But in this forum, the whole point is
that it isn't science, which your statements clearly acknowledge.

I have just one response to one of your comments.

I wrote:
>> Everything you've been writing shows why any kind of
>> legislation such as HB 4382 ...

You responded:
> Except HB 4382 does not endorse or support any specific theory of
> origins or even deal with the age of the earth.

My point is that HB 4382 pretends to be concerned about science and
science education, and then pretends to be concerned about evolution
being taught improperly based on this fake concern about science. Yet
the fact of the matter is that everyone on all sides of the creationist
issue knows that this is a pretence and knows that the anti-evolution
sentiments are actually based on religious concerns based on particular
(sectarian) religious beliefs, not scientific concerns. HB 4382 deserves
to be opposed for many reasons. The fact that it is based on pretension
is one of them. ID is not science, having no scientific research to its
credit. Using politics to dictate it as science education rather than
having it end up getting into science education by actually being
scientifically fruitful is just another demonstration of what's wrong
with that creationist approach.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### David L. Bump, 4/26/01 12:23 AM ######
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:31:41 -0400 "Todd S. Greene"
<tgreene@presortservices.com> writes:
>
> Hi, David.
>
> Since the stellar explosion that we observe occurred 168,000 years
> ago, and since you claim that the universe has not existed for more
> than about 6,000 years, this means that SN1987A (which is the name
> used to designate the stellar explosion) is not real but is merely
> an illusion effect of "light created in transit."

True, in my view, the star didn't explode, and the appearance of the
explosion is a light show illustrating the virtual (not actual) past of a
cloud of "star ashes."  It's an unsettling thought, perhaps, but the
light cones from celestial objects are as much an inevitable part of an
"instantly" created universe as would be the branches and leaves of
full-grown trees in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve would have been
surrounded by things that appeared to be obviously older than a few days
— we've just got geological and astronomical things that look older than
they are.  A full-grown tree a couple days old gives the illusion that
there once was an acorn that it grew from. To say that God couldn't, or
wouldn't create celestial objects complete with light reaching Earth is
the same as saying he couldn't or wouldn't create anything instantly.

> (And please keep telling us what you think about Christians who
> disagree with your religious doctrine of young earth creationism.
> People need to understand your sectarian position.
>  ...

I didn't really say anything about what I think of them, I was just
pointing out why I think there's often a larger gap in our beliefs than
just how old the earth is. The YEC position is held by people in
religious groups that I disagree with on other things as much as I
disagree with those in old earth/evolutionary endorsing churches.  I'll
grant it is certainly a minority position.  Still, I haven't seen it
written anywhere that Christianity is determined by consensus or majority
rule.

> Everything you've been writing shows why any kind of
> legislation such as HB 4382 ...

Except HB 4382 does not endorse or support any specific theory of origins
or even deal with the age of the earth.

David Bump

Hi, John (Morris; since there's another John writing here).

Here's the exchange:
[Todd]
>> As an example of the objective data about the real world that
>> demonstrates that young earth creationism is an incorrect
>> belief about the world, SN1987A is a stellar explosion that
>> occurred approximately 162,000 years *before* YECs' speculated
>> origin time of the universe. Obviously, stars can't explode if
>> they don't exist. Claiming that this stellar explosion never
>> really happened is not scientific. Go to
>>
>>    http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/novaesupernovae.html
>>
>> and look at all of these observations of events surrounding
>> SN1987A that you claim never really happened.

[John]
> Never made such claims that I can remember, I think you are
> having illusions (humor now Todd, this is beyond where I want
> it to be). You must be reading more between the lines than I
> meant there to be. 168,000 years ago is the question.

[Todd]
>> And then keep trying to pretend that
>> YEC is scientific, and that children need to be taught these
>> anti-scientific notions about "these astronomical
>> observations of the past are just illusions" in their
>> science classes in order to have a good science education.
>> Those who know better know that this is absurd.

[John]
> Boy did you get carried away with your "illusions" here.

No, John. I'm discussing ideas that are part of the young earth
creationist position and implications of those ideas. Pull out your copy
of *Scientific Creationism* by Henry Morris (either the "public school"
edition, or the blatantly-based-on-religious-doctrine edition). And
don't forget that I was a YEC myself. I'm not a dummy on this, and I'm
not misrepresenting the YEC position (and David was "graceful" enough
to acknowledge by his comments in his most recent post that I have
represented the matter accurately).

Did you visit the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) website? Have you read
my article:

   "SN1987A and the Antiquity of the Universe"
   http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Thebes/7755/essays.html

Do you understand the fact that the uniformity of lightspeed is observed
and not merely an assumption? Did you understand my point that if
lightspeed was radically faster in the past then we would observed an
equally radical "slow motion" effect, but that no such slow motion
effect is observed to exist?

You state that you "see two bodies of 'facts' that are in opposition."
You do? Where? I've seen the facts that show antiquity, and I have
discussed some of them here. Where are the YEC "facts" in opposition?
Please present the facts that show that SN1987A occurred less than
6,000 years ago. In fact, we all know that no such facts exist.

I certainly grant that you might not be "up to speed" on the relevant
details of these kinds of things. I'm absolutely not going to criticize
someone merely for not being aware of the details. I don't expect you to
swallow anything I state hook, line, and sinker. Not at all. I expect
you, who is arguing in direct opposition to all of science and who yet
argues that young earth creationism is "truth" about the world, to
demonstrate your claimed respect for truth by digging into the details
and making yourself aware of them. What I criticize is not being aware
of the details while then making arguments based on ignoring the details
and then even after having been made aware of the details that
contradict the argument obstinately refusing to acknowledge that either
(1) the argument did not take the contrary details into account, or (2)
the contrary details don't really count because they are not real but
are merely "philosophical assumptions." It is the constant pretension
that I criticize. If you aren't engaging in such pretension, then I
won't criticize you in particular for it. At the same time, I may very
well point out such pretensions, since that is what your arguments are
based on, whether you yourself personally realize it or not. (Again, I
state this as a former YEC myself.)

I'm glad that you don't hold your YEC belief as infallible (regardless
of what we actually observe about the real world). (I didn't look at it
that way either, and that's one big reason I'm not a young earth
creationist today.) What we actually observe about the real world shows
us that it has existed far longer than just 6,000 years. So the
question, then, is, what part of these observations are unclear to you?
And then it becomes a matter of you digging into the relevant details,
and working to understand them.

There is some equivocation in your statement that we "may learn that
what we think we know to be true today is not true tomorrow." This is a
conceptual obfuscation that has been presented to me often. I've read
comments just like this for over twenty years. Please tell me, which
part of "the earth revolves around the sun" is equivocal? Does Jupiter
have moons, or not? Is disease caused by evil spirits, or
microorganisms and biological dysfunction? There are fuzzy ideas about
the real world, and there are ideas about the real world that are so
well known that they are facts about the real world. The fact that the
universe is ancient is known by direct observation. It is just as
factual as knowing that Jupiter has moon and that there are planets
beyond Saturn. The only ones who are arguing otherwise are people who
demonstrate (despite their pretensions otherwise) that they are clearly
and obviously motivated by religious belief and not by the relevant
objective data.

I reiterate that there is no question here about the factual details
showing that, as one explicit example, SN1987A occurred approximately
168,000 years ago. The YEC idea that the universe did not exist prior to
about 6,000 years ago has been unequivocally disproved by direct
observation. The only question with regard to you personally is, how
much are you aware of these details and how much do you understand about
them?

In closing this post, I wish to thank you for your kind personal
comments regarding my knowledge and abilities. I respond by claiming
that, in fact, I'm no more knowledgeable and able than the next guy. I'm
simply someone who in being raised in Christian belief (my father was
a minister in our denomination) took our stated veneration of truth
seriously. Truth and the results of my truth-seeking demanded that I
abandon my belief in young earth creationism, and so I did.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### John Morris, 4/26/01 8:42 AM ######
[snip]

>> I'm not making accusations, John. I'm stating accurate descriptions of
>> YEC concepts and their implications. That's not "accusations" but just
>> the simple truth.
>>
>> Scientists don't disagree about the facts regarding SN1987A, and they
>> don't disagree that they are facts. The only ones who are pretending
>> that the facts aren't the facts are young earth creationists. Now if
>> these same young earth creationists would step off their pedestal of
>> believing that their young earth belief is infallible (regardless of
>> what we actually observe about the real world), and would care to
>> actually deal with the facts instead of waving their hands and blithely
>> dismissing the facts as being "not real," then we could get somewhere.
>> The facts are not in dispute. When YECs such as yourself claim that
>> even though we have directly observed such events from the distant past
>> as SN1987A, these events never really occurred but are merely illusions,
>> then you part company with science. When you start treating the real
>> world itself as merely an illusion you have abandoned science and
>> embraced the subjectivism of believing whatever it is you wish to
>> believe regardless of the fact that what is observed about the real
>> world disproves your belief. Your belief has been tested against the
>> real world and has been shown to be an incorrect belief about the real
>> world.

    I never said my assumptions were infallable, do not twist what I said.
In fact I believe I specifically said the opposite (I do not have my
original text). If I remember correctly I said that we (for you and me
included), are still learning and may learn that what we think we know to be
true today is not true tomorrow. And I know I could be wrong in some things
I believe to be true today. So if anybody is on an infallible pedestal, it
is not me. At this point I am I see two bodies of "facts" that are in
oppostion and I'm chosing to stick with what I believe the scriptures to be
saying.


>> It's these games that YECs play about, "Well, these facts that
>> contradict our position are not really facts but just misinterpretations
>> of the data based on philosophical assumptions," but the "philosophical
>> assumption" they happen to be referring to is that the data of the real
>> world itself is real rather than illusory, and yet YECs are pretending
>> to be scientific while they themselves are promoting their subjectivist
>> philosophy that objective observations of the real world will deceive us
>> if we think they represent reality, then we have some serious problems
>> about it being YECs themselves who are being deceptive.

     I have never stated nor implied SN1987A is an illusion. What I am
saying is in a day when so many refuse to believe in absolutes how can
anyone claim without a shadow of a doubt that something occured thousands
of years ago? I am sure your figures are very accurate from what we know
today. My problem is how can we be sure the figures were accurate for what
was going on thousands of years ago?  What you are asking me to swallow
hook line and sinker is there is no possible way something different could
have happened in history that would cause things to be different today than
thousands of years ago and therefore change your results. I cannot accept
that. I would say that would be acting more like a deity than acting in
honesty.

[snip]


>> These distortions deserve criticism and clarification. Let's dig into
>> the facts about SN1987A more, John. I know that I have absolutely
>> nothing to fear from the truth, because the antiquity of the world is as
>> factual as the revolution of the earth about the sun. I know what the
>> relevant data is, and what it shows. And unlike young earth
>> creationists, I'm not the one going around pretending to be scientific
>> while claiming that objective data of the real world is illusory.
>>
>> You state that what keeps you anchored in your YEC beliefs is what you
>> know about the Bible. The geocentrists condemned Galileo on this same
>> principle. And the fact remains that there exists a wide variety of
>> interpretations of the Bible related to this issue among Christians
>> whose beliefs are anchored on what they know about the Bible.

 Yes the church has made its share of error in the past and still does
today.

[snip]

Hi, David.

"Philosophical Naturalism," or whatever you want to call it, is not
taught in science classes in public schools. It certainly isn't part of
the science curriculum or testing. Additionally, I do not in any way
argue for the status quo. I believe science education should be
substantially different, and better, than the status quo.

Philosophical discussion regarding religious ideas and other
philosophical ideas should be taught in a philosophy class or a
religions survey class. As I've already stated, ID will become part of
science when it actually does become part of science, and not before.
Trying to dictate it as science by political decree is patently absurd.
And as I've already pointed out, advocates of HB 4382 have clearly
demonstrated that they are in actuality motivated by religious concerns,
not by scientific concerns. If you want to call the idea that "we should
teach science, and not religion, in science class" an "unscientific
motivation," go right ahead.

There is no such thing as "unguided forces" since all forces are
"guided" (influenced) by the context of the environment within which
they are operating. "Spontaneous order" is a relevant concept in science
in everything from physics and chemistry to economics. Positing an
intelligence behind the universe in discussions of the Big Bang is
indeed mentioned by some science teachers if and when the subject is
discussed. (I'm stating this based on my own experience as a student,
from other people I've talked to, and from my own children [three of
them, with a fourth, a 4-year-old, coming up fast] being in school.) As
mere speculation (not "probability"), it just isn't part of the science
curriculum.

Discovering by objective examination of the real world that geocentrism
was false had very definite effects on people's "beliefs about the
existence or workings of God," and "were formulated largely by people
who had very strong opinions in that regard," and "are considered pure
science." We can say exactly the same things about discovering that the
earth is ancient instead of young (geology and physics), and discovering
that the universe is ancient instead of young (astronomy), and
discovering that life on earth has changed radically over time
(paleontology). I agree with you completely. I don't think anyone claims
that the process of science and that scientific discoveries don't affect
people's religious beliefs. (Of course, there's the related idea that
"real" religion and "real" science are relevant in separate areas and
thus don't "really" conflict with each other.) It's just that subjective
religious beliefs are irrelevant to trying to objectively determine what
constitutes "the real world" and how it operates. Again, ID will become
part of science when it actually does become part of science, and not
before.

Have a good weekend.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene
http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Thebes/7755/CreatPoliticsMichigan.html



###### David L. Bump, 4/26/01 9:46 PM ######
Subject: Re: The Ancient Universe, and SN1987A

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:43:40 -0400 "Todd S. Greene"
<tgreene@presortservices.com> writes:
> ...
> My point is that HB 4382 pretends to be concerned about science and
> science education, and then pretends to be concerned about evolution
> being taught improperly based on this fake concern about science.
> ..

It seems to me that there is just as much unscientific motivation in the
desire to maintain the status quo. The only difference is that
philosophic Naturalism has become identified with science, and many
people have a vested interest in maintaining that everything can and must
be explained by unguided interactions of matter and energy — even
extrapolating into the indefinite past and future.

We know that calculations of physical forces fail as they are
extrapolated backward in time, and in the region of massive stars as they
collapse — and yet the first conditions would represent the origin of
the universe, and the latter are observed affecting our universe.
Therefore we cannot rule out — indeed, we should suspect — that there
are forces beyond the limits of our universe that can affect it.

We affixed packets of information to space probes in the belief that
other intelligences may exist within the universe and would be able to
decipher the messages, and many people are engaged in an effort to detect
radio waves with some pattern that would be recognized as the result of
intelligent control. Therefore it is accepted that design, even the
product of an alien intelligence, is recognizable even in a simple
phenomenon.

I conclude that it should be considered a valid scientific endeavor to
explore the possibility that an intelligence, perhaps unlimited by known
physical laws, is responsible for features of the known universe,
particularly phenomena that are more analogous to designed objects than
to those known and demonstrated to be produced by unguided forces.

Of course, as current calculations leading to the description of the
"Big Bang" and "Black Holes" can only go so far, so too, such an endeavor
as just described would merely posit the probability that such an
intelligence did exist, without providing any significant further
details. Nobody would have a problem with this, except similar beings
have already been described (with details) by various religious
traditions (as God or gods). Thus, even nonreligious (having nothing to
do with the nature of God, our behavior toward God or other humans, nor
of ritual, etc) observations are described as "teaching religion."
Meanwhile, endeavoring to describe the universe in other terms that also
affect one's beliefs about the existence or workings of God, and were
formulated largely by people who had very strong opinions in that regard,
are considered pure science.

Maybe this current bill has its faults, but as long as our science
education in the area of origins is restricted entirely to naturalistic
explanations, we ARE providing students with conclusions derived from
religious (and/or anti-religious) concerns, disguised as "facts."

David Bump

Hi, David.

###### David L. Bump, 4/28/01 11:43 PM ######
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 07:38:07 -0400 "Todd S. Greene" writes:
>> ...
>> "Philosophical Naturalism," or whatever you want to call it, is
>> not taught in science classes in public schools. It certainly
>> isn't part of the science curriculum or testing.

> Yes it is — not explicitly, but when students are required to
> take tests in which the "right" answers are based on the
> assumptions of philosophical naturalism and have not been
> scientifically verified.

I believe you need to take a look at Christian-oriented discussions of
the distinctions between what has come to be called "methodological
naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism." Here are two good online
references for you to get started.

   When Faith and Reason Clash
   http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/

   Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?
   http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/

Additionally, while we may certainly term the birth of a child as a
miracle (and I do), at the same time we all recognize that scientific
examination of the processes of conception, fetal development, and birth
will not note any empirical details regarding "supernatural
intervention." Does this mean that you will acknowledge that God has
absolutely nothing to do with the origin of a new human being? No, I
didn't think so. But what you *should* recognize is that such religious
considerations do not belong on the science tests.


>> Additionally, I do not in any way
>> argue for the status quo. I believe science education should be
>> substantially different, and better, than the status quo.

> Well, we agree on that, but I was referring to the status quo of
> teaching speculations about the past as equivalent to verified
> facts.

Uh, David, we've already been over this ground. I have already
demonstrated that creationists have a very bad understanding of what
"teaching speculations about the past" even means. We know that SN1987A
occurred about 168,000 years ago, and that YEC has been disproved by
direct observation, and yet YECs are still using this terminology of
"teaching speculations about the past" (or "making assumptions about the
past based on uniformitarian assumptions"). Thus, I know that
creationists do not possess a good understanding of what they are
talking about when they use this concept for rhetorical purposes.


>> Philosophical discussion regarding religious ideas and other
>> philosophical ideas should be taught in a philosophy class or a
>> religions survey class.

> Science is a branch of philosophy. There is a philosophy of
> science — several, actually. Students should have an
> age-appropriate understanding of the nature of scientific
> endeavor.

I agree with you, and I wish you success in getting Philosophy Of
Science classes added to the high school curriculum. And when you
attempt to promote religious belief under the guise of science in those
classes, I will criticize and oppose it then, too.


>> As I've already stated, ID will become part of
>> science when it actually does become part of science, and not
>> before.

> I think it always has been — ID is simply the ability to
> recognize design when we see it, and life appears to be
> designed.

You think so? I have never, in all my life, observed the manufacture of
a living organism. And I will even go so far as to claim that no one
else has either (and I would challenge anyone who would claim that they
have). While I expect that scientists will one day learn to do this
(though perhaps not in my lifetime), the point is that every living
organism that comes into existence today develops according to natural,
scientifically examinable processes, completely without any
scientifically examinable intelligent "intervention" (natural or
supernatural) at all. I don't recognize design in that. I recognize the
existence of natural processes that produce varying degrees of
complexity.


>> If you want to call the idea that "we should
>> teach science, and not religion, in science class" an
>> "unscientific motivation," go right ahead.

> I don't believe that is the motivation behind opposition to the
> bill.

Sorry, David. As a practical matter of fact, we already know who
sponsored the bill, and we already have a good idea of the religious
motivations of those who sponsored it and of those who support it.
You've demonstrated it right here in this forum. We should teach
science, and not religion, in science class. Additionally, ID will
become part of science when it actually does become part of science, and
not before. You can't add things to science by political decree. That's
absurd, and all of us know this, including you.


> I believe
> the real motivation is to maintain the illusion that science can
> make definite statements about the unobserved origins of the
> universe, life, and all the variations of life, but cannot
> conclude that an intelligent source may have been involved.
> That's not science, that's philosophy or even religion.

That's an interesting opinion, but the fact of the matter is that the
bill is an anti-evolution bill seeking to inject a religious belief into
science education by political decree. ID will become part of science
when it actually does become part of science, and not before. HB 4382 is
a bad bill. It is misrepresentative of science, and attempts to
masquerade religious belief as science, and thus should be opposed.


>> There is no such thing as "unguided forces" since all forces
>> are "guided" (influenced) by the context of the environment
>> within which they are operating. "Spontaneous order" is a
>> relevant concept in science in everything from physics and
>> chemistry to economics.

> All forces are "guided"? This is like saying all missiles are
> "guided" missiles because they are guided straight through the
> air by their fins. — ah, hmmm, and come to think of it, all
> missiles are intelligently designed.
>
> Spontaneous order, yes — producing such things as destructive
> whirlpools and pretty but homogeneous and rigid crystals.
> Spontaneous order goes in the opposite direction from the
> delicate interplay of discrete and heterogeneous parts required
> in living things.

And yet when we empirically examine the delicate interplay of the
"parts" of living things, we see fascinatingly complex natural processes
resulting in fascinatingly complex natural orders that occur from
physical and chemical interactions. But besides individual living
organisms, we have the spontaneous order of things like stars and
planets (and comets), ecosystems involving interactions of physical
environment and living organisms, and national economies in capitalist-
oriented countries, none of which are designed.

Currently, ID is nothing more than a "rhetorical update" of Paley's
"natural theology." It is based on analogy, not science, and, as most
analogies do, it breaks down when you push it too far.


>> Positing an
>> intelligence behind the universe in discussions of the Big Bang
>> is indeed mentioned by some science teachers if and when the
>> subject is discussed. ... As mere speculation (not
>> "probability"), it just isn't part of the science curriculum.

> Exactly, it is dismissed without a fair hearing, while other
> speculation is presented as what actually happened, as surely as
> if a scientist was standing there taking notes all the while.

What do you mean by "it" in "it is dismissed," and "other speculation"?
Careful now, your anti-evolution biases are peeking through the cracks.


>> Discovering by objective examination of the real world that
>> geocentrism was false had very definite effects on people's
>> "beliefs about the existence or workings of God," and "were
>> formulated largely by people who had very strong opinions in
>> that regard," and "are considered pure science."

> Actually, there have been a couple studies lately that show that
> the story of Galileo has been horribly oversimplified. Whereas
> the Church of Rome had been lead by its Aristotle-bound academics
> to read heliocentrism into Scripture, it wasn't otherwise an
> important part of church doctrine and at any rate said nothing
> about the existence of God or the way in which God worked, only
> the way the He'd set up the solar system. Furthermore...

I do not deny that the historical details surrounding the specific case
of Galileo have been oversimplified. But in the interplay of "frictions"
between religion and science, geocentrism, and reactions against
astronomy in general, have indeed been an important part of church
doctrine, and not just of the Catholic Church. Again, you had the idiocy
of people proclaiming the absurd concept that relevant, detailed
information acquired by objective examination of the real world is
supposed to be disregarded and contradicted in favor of relying solely
on equivocal interpretations of Hebrew written in the context of an
ancient culture addressing ill-understood religious concerns, even if
and when such interpretation were contradicted by the data.

     "I think, my Kepler, we will laugh at the extraordinary
     stupidity of the multitude. What do you say of the leading
     philosophers here to whom I have offered a thousand times of
     my own accord to show my studies but who have never consented
     to look at the planets, moon, or telescope."
        — Letter from Galileo to Kepler

     "Nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions
     than in the sacred statements of the Bible."
        — Galileo

   The Galileo Project
   http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/

   Galileo Galilei
   http://www-isds.jpl.nasa.gov/cwo/cwo_54ga/html/cd/galileo.htm

   Galileo and the Rise of Mechanism
   http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/galileo.html

Somewhere in my physical files, I have an article that I cut out of
Scientific American about 15 or so years ago by Harvard astronomer and
science historian Owen Gingrich about Galileo. The history should
certainly not be oversimplified. And the deserved criticism of
overreaching theologians for fallacious reasoning based on the fallible
biblical hermeneutics of human beings should not be swept under the rug,
either.


>> We can say exactly the same things about discovering that the
>> earth is ancient instead of young (geology and physics), and
>> discovering that the universe is ancient instead of young
>> (astronomy), and discovering that life on earth has changed
>> radically over time (paleontology).

> No, we can observe the motion of the sun and test the
> gravitational effects, all these other things deal with unique
> past events, and are based on assumptions that either deny the
> possibility that God exists, or posit that He could or would not
> use extra-universal powers to create the universe.

I've already discussed the irrationality of your apparent age concept.
Certainly Abraham Lincoln could be a figment of our collective
imaginations based on the "assumption" that the objective data that we
acquire from the real world is actually real. We could all have been
created last week sometime, which our fake memories of the past merely
being "apparent" memories of an "apparent" past, but that isn't science
(and it isn't even good philosophy, either). If you wish to believe that
SN1987A is not real, that it never happened, please go right ahead. I
will continue to point out the subjectivism of your point. The rest of
us are going to continue to know and understand that that concept has no
place in science, nor in science education. Incidentally, I'm sure you
understand that you have absolutely no data to support this purely
subjectivist position, and I'm sure you also understand that it is the
very nature of its subjectivism that renders all data, all evidence, as
completely irrelevant, that you can believe whatever it is you wish to
believe, since the data doesn't matter.

Deciding that earth impact craters were really made by meteorites,
asteroids, and comets, instead of being "poofed into existence" as
deceiving marks of a fake past, has nothing to do with anything you can
call science. Sorry, but that's the way it is.


>> (Of course, there's the related idea that
>> "real" religion and "real" science are relevant in separate
>> areas and thus don't "really" conflict with each other.)

> In two ways — the original way was that science dealt with
> things that we could safely assume to be natural. This sort of
> science has produced all the real benefits of science. The new
> way is to say that any natural explanation or speculation is
> scientific, and anything science makes a pronouncement about
> can't even posit the possibility of a god and therefore any
> previous religious views of such matters are to be considered
> illustrative fairy tales.

Au contraire, monsieur. You are now arguing from your particular
creationist concept of what science is and isn't, which in considering
the specific cases of SN1987A and earth impact craters we have already
observed to be incorrect.

Second, the problem with ID is not its positing of an intelligent
designer. The problem is with ID advocates pretending that their
particular ID concept, as they have presented it, is science and should
be in the science curriculum. Their ID concept is not part of science,
and they have not done the scientific work to make it so.

Third, there are many (including myself) who see the values of science
and religion, each in their proper realms. In living our lives,
considerations of morality and ethics are just as important as
considerations about the nature of the real world. Recognizing the value
of each in its scope does not imply that religious beliefs should be
taught as science.


>> It's just that subjective
>> religious beliefs are irrelevant to trying to objectively
>> determine what constitutes "the real world" and how it
>> operates. Again, ID will become part of science when it
>> actually does become part of science, and not before.

> And it is subjective religious beliefs that determine that the
> origin, age, and everything else about the real world can be
> known scientifically,

Yes, of course it is, David. Your YEC beliefs are showing. If your
statement was correct, then why is it that scientists deal with the
substantive (not subjective) details while creationists run away from
them (or habitually misrepresent what they are; moon dust, shrinking
sun, ocean salinity, lightspeed decay, Moon & Spencer's shortcut through
space, short-term comets have no explanation, etc. and *ad nauseum*).


> and must do so without considering the
> possibility of evidence for the influence of an
> extra-"universal" intelligent entity.

There might be life on other planets. That doesn't mean the religious
beliefs of the Heaven's Gate people are either scientific, or even
credible.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene
http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Thebes/7755/CreatPoliticsMichigan.html

Hi, David.

I can't believe you're still on this "what we observe about the real
world is not real" tack.


I wrote:
>> Certainly Abraham Lincoln could be a figment of our collective
>> imaginations based on the "assumption" that the objective data
>> that we acquire from the real world is actually real. We could
>> all have been created last week sometime, which our fake
>> memories of the past merely being "apparent" memories of an
>> "apparent" past, but that isn't science (and it isn't even good
>> philosophy, either).

You responded:
> I've pointed out that last bit myself. However, I also pointed
> out that there is a difference between things we (as individuals
> or collectively as humanity) have experienced first hand and
> things which are said to have happened before humans were around
> to observe them.

It's an old example. I've been using it myself for years.

We have observed SN1987A "first hand." Yet you claim it is merely an
illusion, that the explosion never really happened. You are being caught
up in your contradictions.


>> If you wish to believe that
>> SN1987A is not real, that it never happened, please go right
>> ahead. I will continue to point out the subjectivism of your
>> point.

> I believe in an objective reality, I just believe that it is
> possible that the real appearance of distant objects does not
> reflect a real past.

We'll never really know whether or not Abraham Lincoln every really
existed. No one alive today has observed him.

Just as I've pointed out all along. You refuse to accept the fact that
the real world data contradicts your belief, so you adhere to your
falsified-by-the-data belief and simply claim that the data is fake.


>> Incidentally, I'm sure you
>> understand that you have absolutely no data to support this
>> purely subjectivist position, and I'm sure you also understand
>> that it is the very nature of its subjectivism that renders all
>> data, all evidence, as completely irrelevant, that you can
>> believe whatever it is you wish to believe, since the data
>> doesn't matter.

> You have no data to support your "objectivist" position in this
> matter, only the dogma that natural forces must be assumed
> constant into the past indefinitely.  Just because I do not
> share this confidence in extrapolation does not mean I am a
> subjectivist. There are, as you've mentioned, natural mirages
> and illusions. Those on earth we can thoroughly examine and
> understand their nature — we cannot travel back in time or to
> stars thousands of light years away.

Here's SN1987A at the click of a button:

   http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/novaesupernovae.html

But you pretend that I "have no data to support [my] 'objectivist'
position." When you demonstrate how blatantly you disregard the data
that falsifies your belief and how quick you are to make this pretension
of "no data," it helps others to see so clearly the lack of credibility
of the YEC position.

Actually, you have the answer, yet you allow the prejudice of your
belief to cause you to refuse to accept it. The stellar explosion
SN1987A has been observed directly. There is no extrapolation. There are
indeed mirages and illusions, and this is learned about and known by
digging into the details of the specific situation you happen to be
dealing and finding the data that demonstrates the nature of the mirage
or illusion. You yourself have run away from the data. You have
absolutely no data at all to support your position. I'm asking you for
the data that demonstrates your claim that SN1987A is merely an
illusion. You refuse to produce any data that supports your claim, and
merely choose to call the data that does exist an illusion because this
data contradicts a personal belief that you hold dear. That's not
truth-seeking. That's called obstinate pride. All of us, including you,
know fully well that you have no data to support your position that
SN1987A, and almost the entire universe, is merely an illusion. I call
your position subjectivism because that is precisely what it is. You
choose to believe what you believe regardless of the fact that the data
has falsified your belief, and you do this by choosing to call the data
itself fake without have any objective (data-based) reason for making
this claim.


>> Deciding that earth impact craters were really made by
>> meteorites, asteroids, and comets, instead of being "poofed
>> into existence" as deceiving marks of a fake past, has nothing
>> to do with anything you can call science.

> Who claimed craters were not made by impacts?

Do you acknowledge that these impacts actually occurred on earth, and
are not merely parts of an "illusory past" as part of an "appearance of
age"?


>>>> (Of course, there's the related idea that
>>>> "real" religion and "real" science are relevant in separate
>>>> areas and thus don't "really" conflict with each other.)

>>> In two ways — the original way was that science dealt with
>>> things that we could safely assume to be natural. This sort of
>>> science has produced all the real benefits of science. The new
>>> way is to say that any natural explanation or speculation is
>>> scientific, and anything science makes a pronouncement about
>>> can't even posit the possibility of a god and therefore any
>>> previous religious views of such matters are to be considered
>>> illustrative fairy tales.

>> You are now arguing from your particular
>> creationist concept of what science is and isn't, ...

> "Incorrect" within "your own particular" naturalistic concept of
> what science is and isn't, based on untestable assumptions. And
> I'm just going by the history of science. It started out very
> "tight" and practical, and has become bloated with impractical
> and untestable additions.

Yes, I've already shown how SN1987A disproves YEC with testable data,
not "untestable assumptions," and you have demonstrated for us how you
yourself refuse to present any data at all that supports your position
against SN1987A and refuse to even accept that the objective data of the
real world is real. And then while you refuse to accept the data by
which your belief has been tested and falsified, and refuse to even
address the data (why should you since you propose that all of it is
fake, even though you yourself merely assume this without presenting one
shred of evidence for your ludicrous concept), you have the temerity to
accuse your critics of basing their ideas on "untested assumptions."

So, next time you accuse your critics of "untested assumptions," your
task is to present the data that shows that what we observe of the
entire universe is merely a gigantic cosmic illusion. You need to
explain what the difference is between the observations we make of a
Cepheid variable star 300 light-years away and 160,000 light-years away.
What is the data that shows that the first one is real but the second
one is fake? Stop pretending that you even care about testing ideas, as
you imply with your "untested assumptions" rhetoric, while you continue
to spit on the data that discredits your belief.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

Hi, David.

You aren't the first guy to falsely accuse me of merely making a
"characture" (caricature) of your position. Tough criticism is hard to
take, I know, and it's no wonder you would attempt to distance yourself
from an absurd implication of your own position. Fortunately for me, you
were right here stating your position, and you yourself acknowledged the
implication of young earth creationism that the universe that we observe
"first hand" is nothing more than an illusion, that you deny the reality
of these "first hand" observations even while you obstinately pretend
that this data that shows the fallacy of your position is nothing more
than "untested assumptions."

I reiterate here what I closed my previous post with:

     So, next time you accuse your critics of "untested
     assumptions," your task is to present the data that shows
     that what we observe of the entire universe is merely a
     gigantic cosmic illusion. You need to explain what the
     difference is between the observations we make of a
     Cepheid variable star 300 light-years away and 160,000
     light-years away. What is the data that shows that the
     first one is real but the second one is fake? Stop
     pretending that you even care about testing ideas, as
     you imply with your "untested assumptions" rhetoric,
     while you continue to spit on the data that discredits
     your belief.

I'm waiting for your data.

I note here that you didn't even bother to try to present any. Of
course, I know that you are fully aware that you don't have any, because
you know that there is no objective examination of the world that
substantiates this implication of your position. In lieu of objective
data to support your position, the only thing you have is
misrepresentative rhetoric about what has and hasn't been tested and
what has and hasn't been observed.

I shall continue to describe the young earth creationist position as an
"assumption" that has been tested and falsified, because that is exactly
what it is, and when YEC advocates use the standard YEC rhetoric about
the antiquity of the world being nothing more than "untested
assumptions" and "teaching speculations about the past" I shall continue
to point out the fallacies and self-contradictions of their thinking.
And when they trot out the "apparent age" concept as an attempt to
disregard the falsifying data, I will continue to point out the
subjectivist nature of the concept.

Let me know when you are ready to present the data that substantiates
your position that the first hand observations of SN1987A are merely an
illusion. I'm always ready to ponder the actual data.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### David L. Bump, 5/2/01 10:45 PM ######
On Wed, 2 May 2001 18:02:38 -0400 "Todd S. Greene"
<tgreene@presortservices.com> writes:
>
> Hi, David.
>
> I can't believe you're still on this "what we observe about the real
> world is not real" tack.

No wonder, since you've apparently realized your arguments about
organizational complexity arising spontaneously are totally invalid.
There's nothing left for you to do but make a strawman characture of my
position and keep beating that dead horse to death. I do not believe in a
subjective world, but I am careful to distinguish between data that has
truly been observed first hand, in the presence of human observers, and
what is assumed by extrapolation.

When I first started corresponding with you, I was under the impression
that you had a high intellect and a deep understanding of astronomy and
epistomological issues, but the more you carry on, the more it seems that
you're like a dog-and-pony show than a full circus.

The only reason I'm "still on" the same tack about your pet supernova is
that you have shown complete disregard for my actual position and
continue to parrot your attacks on your own, altered image of what I
believe.

You indicate on your "My Motivations" page that you are filled with a
sense of betrayal, anguish, hatred, and a desire for revenge, and it is
increasingly clear that these feelings are hindering you from even trying
to comprehend the difference between what I am actually saying and
believe, and the mock image that you erect in your mind to protect
yourself from seriously considering a position you have sworn never to
return to.

There are several details (which seem important) that page did not make
clear, however. I would very much like to know them for my comparative
study of people switching from one position to another.  Especially, how
personally involved in your church were you? What about personal
religious commitments? And how old were you when you began to doubt that
the Earth was young? What particular influences began the process, at
what point in your education were you at, and ditto for when you finally
decided for sure that the Earth was very old?

Of course, you don't have to share any of this, or you could send some
info to me directly, but again I'm only asking. So far it seems there is
quite a bit of parallel factors going both ways, but I haven't much data
for instances such as yours yet, and every data point counts.

David Bump

Hi, David.

Your habitually false rhetoric haunts you.

You wrote:
> It's apparent you continue to cling to your boogie-man image of
> my position and have no interest in trying to comprehend what
> my position actually entails. I must either argue from your
> viewpoint, which rules out mine by _a priori_ assumptions, or
> ... nothing. As long as you insist on wearing your tunnel
> vision glasses, there's nothing I can do for you.

It's so very easy for you to make the false claim that I have
misrepresented your position by caricature — you just type the words.
But making that false claim stick is impossible for you. It is by your
own words, David, and by the YEC concept itself, that we know that I
have not misrepresented your position. How quickly you have forgotten
what you yourself wrote only about a week ago, under this same subject
heading.

I had written (4/25/01 11:31:41 -0400):
>> Since the stellar explosion that we observe occurred 168,000
>> years ago, and since you claim that the universe has not
>> existed for more than about 6,000 years, this means that
>> SN1987A (which is the name used to designate the stellar
>> explosion) is not real but is merely an illusion effect of
>> "light created in transit."

This was your response (4/26/01 12:23 AM):
> True, in my view, the star didn't explode, and the appearance
> of the explosion is a light show illustrating the virtual (not
> actual) past of a cloud of "star ashes."  It's an unsettling
> thought, perhaps, but the light cones from celestial objects
> are as much an inevitable part of an "instantly" created
> universe as would be the branches and leaves of full-grown
> trees in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve would have been
> surrounded by things that appeared to be obviously older than
> a few days — we've just got geological and astronomical
> things that look older than they are. A full-grown tree a
> couple days old gives the illusion that there once was an
> acorn that it grew from. To say that God couldn't, or
> wouldn't create celestial objects complete with light
> reaching Earth is the same as saying he couldn't or wouldn't
> create anything instantly.

Young earth creationists can always be counted on to be long on
speculation, but so very short on data. Yet YECs have the gall to then
go around hypocritically using this rhetoric about the "untested
assumptions" of their critics.

I have not at all "ruled out your viewpoint by *a priori* assumptions."
I have ruled out your "viewpoint" because your viewpoint is falsified
by the data. I have ruled out your viewpoint for the exact same kind of
reason that I have ruled out the viewpoint that the sun and the stars
orbit the earth. The "first hand" observations that we possess
demonstrate that those viewpoints are wrong. They are not the truth
about the real world, and thus anyone who is interested in the truth
about the nature of the real world must reject those wrong ideas. You
really should stop trying to misrepresentatively pretend that we are
merely talking about assumptions here. I'm the only one who presented
any data, such as that regarding SN1987A. If you wish to assume that the
SN1987A data (and all of the other data like it) is merely illusory,
please go right ahead and do so, but understand that this does not
relinquish you from the responsibility to have data that corroborates
such a claim. You can speculate all you want to, but where is the data
that substantiates what you are claiming? Again, I know that you are
fully aware that it is the YEC position that is based, not on "untested
assumptions," but on assumptions that have been tested and falsified.
And I also know that you are fully aware that the falsification of YEC
is based on first hand observations of the universe itself.

I reiterate my request again:

     So, next time you accuse your critics of "untested
     assumptions," your task is to present the data that shows
     that what we observe of the entire universe is merely a
     gigantic cosmic illusion. You need to explain what the
     difference is between the observations we make of a
     Cepheid variable star 300 light-years away and 160,000
     light-years away. What is the data that shows that the
     first one is real but the second one is fake? Stop
     pretending that you even care about testing ideas, as
     you imply with your "untested assumptions" rhetoric,
     while you continue to spit on the data that discredits
     your belief.

When you can present some data that substantiates your speculation that
a Cepheid variable star observed from 300 light-years from the earth
is real while a Cepheid variable star (or a supernova) observed from
160,000 light-years away is only an illusion, then your idea that one
is real while the other is fake can be considered objective. Until such
time, all you have is pure assumption (i.e., no data) which is actually
contradicted by all of the data that we do have.

So I'm still waiting for your data. (Of course, we both knew that you
never had any data to substantiate your assumptions in the first
place. YECs like you aren't interested in the truth, but are merely
interested in maintaining your personal beliefs in the face of contrary
evidence.) I have held your feet to the fire on this, David, because
I have understood this implication (among many others) of your position
all along, and I've understood the hypocrisy of the "untested
assumptions" rhetoric for many, many years. My criticisms cut right to
the fallacies that exist in your arguments, and I make absolutely no
apology for being forthright in pointing out these fallacies.
Truth-seeking demands it, and I know that you agree that it does.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

"SN1987A and The Antiquity of The Universe"
http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Thebes/7755/essays.html

   He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....
      — Proverbs 12:17

   The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
   the ears of the wise seek it out.
      — Proverbs 18.15

Hi, David.

First of all, thank you for implicitly acknowledging that I have not in
fact misrepresented your position by caricature. I'm also amused with
your attitude of just sweeping the idea of considering the relevant data
away: "Anyway, that's all just an aside..." But I have to agree with you
that people who believe whatever it is they wish to believe regardless
of the data (subjectivists) certainly shouldn't consider themselves
limited in any way by the data of the real world. (However, pretending
to be scientific, now that's another matter!)

I have asked (more than once):

     ...next time you accuse your critics of "untested
     assumptions," your task is to present the data that shows
     that what we observe of the entire universe is merely a
     gigantic cosmic illusion. You need to explain what the
     difference is between the observations we make of a
     Cepheid variable star 300 light-years away and 160,000
     light-years away. What is the data that shows that the first
     one is real but the second one is fake?

To this I added:

     When you can present some data that substantiates your
     speculation that a Cepheid variable star observed from 300
     light-years from the earth is real while a Cepheid variable
     star (or a supernova) observed from 160,000 light-years away
     is only an illusion, then your idea that one is real while
     the other is fake can be considered objective. Until such
     time, all you have is pure assumption (i.e., no data) which
     is actually contradicted by all of the data that we do have.

     So I'm still waiting for your data. (Of course, we both knew
     that you never had any data to substantiate your assumptions
     in the first place....)

     ...Let me know when you are ready to present the data that
     substantiates your position that the first hand observations
     of SN1987A are merely an illusion. I'm always ready to
     ponder the actual data.

So yet again you have demonstrated that you implicitly acknowledge in
your discourse the fact that the objective data that does exist
contradicts your belief, that you have no data to substantiate your
belief, and that your belief is by its very nature genuinely untestable.
That's what I have stated all along. This is what makes it purely
subjective. You may believe whatever it is you wish to believe,
regardless of the evidence, since you have by the nature of your belief
chosen to actually disregard the reality of the data of the real world
itself. Thus, you have demonstrated that your rhetoric against your
critics basing their beliefs on "untested assumptions" is completely.
The rhetoric is wrong, and it is just as wrong for you to use that
rhetoric. It is young earth creationists who base their beliefs on
untestable assumptions. (I can't even call YEC belief an "untested
assumption" because it has in fact been tested and falsified by the data
of the real world.)

     Here's SN1987A at the click of a button:

       http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/novaesupernovae.html

     But you pretend that I "have no data to support [my]
     'objectivist' position." When you demonstrate how blatantly
     you disregard the data that falsifies your belief and how
     quick you are to make this pretension of "no data," it helps
     others to see so clearly the lack of credibility of the YEC
     position.

The biggest problem with young earth creationism and young earth
creationists is the profuse pretensions and misrepresentations that
thoroughly permeates creationist rhetoric. If this were to stop, I would
guess that YEC critics would drop to less than a tenth of what they are
now. It is this constant misrepresentation and hypocrisy that is flatly
wrong and that deserves every bit of criticism directed at it.

You state:
> Also, I do not say that the appearance of age must be so, but
> only that it is a possibility that we cannot rule out
> scientifically....

This statement is incorrect. It can be and has been ruled out
*scientifically*, because of the very fact that there is no difference
between stars observed from 300 light-years and stars observed from
100 million light-years. The science, the objective nature of the data,
shows that all of these are equally "real." You have no data indicating
that any of these stars, or stellar explosions, or interstellar gas and
dust, are merely illusions. You tried to claim in a previous post that,
somehow, it is because we can't physically travel to the more distant
stars that we can't actually know whether or not they are real. Gee,
that's such a good argument. We can't physically travel to even the
closest star. Therefore, it's not real. None of the stars are real.
Everything outside of the solar system is an illusion. This is good
logic, I suppose, for a subjectivist, and a YEC. For science, it's
absurd.

And this is precisely the point. Young earth creationism is not
scientific. It is a religious belief that many people have committed to
believing regardless of the evidence. I have no particular criticisms of
people who choose to do that. However, when they spew canyons-full of
false and hypocritical rhetoric to misrepresent their critics, and their
own position, then it's time to baptize this rhetoric in the flames of
reason. YECs pretend that creationism is scientific, even as they
demonstrate that it isn't. YECs pretend that the criticisms of their
critics are merely based on "untested assumptions," even as their
critics present the tested data that contradicts creationist ideas. In
their habitually careless handling, and typical outright spurning of the
data, YECs demonstrate that they don't really care in the least about
the concept of testing ideas, which in turn demonstrates the
hypocritical basis of their rhetoric.

Humphreys' cosmology (not cosmogony) and Setterfield's ideas represent
nothing more than typical YEC crackpot-ism. (I find it amusing, David,
that you, not unlike many other YECs, don't even seem to realize that
Humphreys' model and Setterfield's ideas contradict each other.) You
have completely failed to address the fact that the red-shift of
entities at cosmic distances contradicts Humphreys cosmology; that in
terms of the size of the universe, SN1987A is actually too close to
earth to be affected by the relativistic effects in Humphreys' model,
and that the 168,000 years is not affected by any time dilation of
Humphreys' model; that since no "slow motion" effect is observed of
entities at cosmic distances, Setterfield's lightspeed decay idea is
wrong. But that's all right, David. It's par for the YEC course that
YECs will continue to preach these already discredited ideas to us for
at least the next 20 years. After all, here you are still preaching, as
arguments for YEC, ocean salinity, earth's magnetic field decay,
short-term comets, moon dust, etc., and *ad nauseum.*

(Incidentally, back on April 25th, I stated to you that "I would like
to see Faulkner's article(s) in the professional astronomy literature
that supports Humphreys' model." As usual, I'm still waiting. As I've
stated before, it's really easy to make the claim. For YECs, it's
usually excruciatingly difficult to back it up.)

So I thank you for acknowledging, implicitly or otherwise, that my
criticisms have been directed at the fallacies that exist in what are
indeed the arguments of young earth creationists (you being one
example).

To bring this back to my original point that got us off onto this
tangent in the first place:

     ...creationists have a very bad understanding of what
     "teaching speculations about the past" even means. We know
     that SN1987A occurred about 168,000 years ago, and that YEC
     has been disproved by direct observation, and yet YECs are
     still using this terminology of "teaching speculations about
     the past" (or "making assumptions about the past based on
     uniformitarian assumptions"). Thus, I know that creationists
     do not possess a good understanding of what they are talking
     about when they use this concept for rhetorical purposes.

When creationists try to claim that something like HB 4382 is required
since science has somehow been improperly excluding their particular
religious ideas, and then they go off into some discussion about
epistemological considerations, we typically see such basic
philosophical errors as we have seen with the subjectivist position you
have been espousing, along with the rhetorical pretence that much of it
has been couched in. This is not science, and by its very nature it
cannot be made to be science because that simply is not what it is. All
the rhetoric in the world cannot change the genuine nature of the
matter.

As I've been stating all along,

     For [creationists], this is clearly a battle based on their
     particular religious beliefs, and creationism is a religious
     apologetics movement.... Again, if people want to discuss
     religious and/or philosophical issues related to the general
     topic, then such discussion and education belongs in a
     philosophy or religions survey class, not in a science class.
     If creationists actually perform some legitimate scientific
     research that is relevant to such areas as geology,
     astronomy, physics, or biology, then it is that legitimate
     scientific work that will bear its own credibility, and not
     until then. Constantly playing these games of rhetoric and
     misrepresentation over the decades has (deservedly) destroyed
     their reputation for having any credibility. Engaging in
     political maneuvers to cripple legitimate science and science
     education, all the while falsely pretending that they are
     motivated by concerns about science education rather than by
     their religious concerns, is just another demonstration of
     the fallacies inherent in creationist rhetoric.

Will HB 4382 be resurrected? I doubt it. Will its descendent be any
improvement? Of course not. Are the proponents of these political
decrees about science really concerned about science and science
education, or about religion? All of us on all sides of this issue know
that their concerns are based on particular religious beliefs, and are
not based on science. Thus, the deceitful nature of the bills in itself
shows why they should be defeated. Since they can't rest on the truth,
they lie to promote their position.

Don't get me wrong. There are some serious religious considerations
regarding this general issue as well. They simply aren't directly
relevant to the discussion of HB 4382 and its pretensions of being
concerned about science and science education. But I close this post
with the comments of Davis A. Young, a young earth creationist, who
rejected his YEC beliefs after his serious study of geology. [See at
the bottom.] (By the way, you will note in Young's discussion the quote
of YEC John Byl in which Byl uses the typical fallacious YEC rhetoric:
"[Genesis] can conflict not with our present geological data but only
with certain theoretical extrapolations of that data." Hmmm... Where
have we heard that before?)

Regards,
Todd S. Greene


###### David L. Bump, 5/5/01 11:30 PM ######
Subject: Re: The Ancient Universe, and SN1987A

On Sat, 5 May 2001 16:45:37 EDT LZANGER@aol.com writes:
> ...
> Perhaps a different approach is necessary. Mr. Bump has demonstrated
> via his arguments that his YEC belief is dependent on a high degree of
> Omphalism.

I would like to emphasize that this is indeed my own personal view, and
probably a minority view among those in the larger and more active
creationary groups. Also, I do not say that the appearance of age must
be so, but only that it is a possibility that we cannot rule out
scientifically, as you point out. I think the white hole cosmogony is
another interesting possibility, but I haven't studied it enough to
defend it. I also know some people are encouraged by new work of
Setterfield's on the speed of light, but again I have not "gotten into"
that myself. Still, these are ongoing works and who knows how things may
turn out in the future? There may be yet other possibilities. Anyway,
that's all just an aside...

[snip]

 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -

From:
   Scripture and Geologists: A Reply to John Byl
   by Davis A. Young
   http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Thebes/7755/young_davis_a_4.html


Is Interpretation of the Bible Unproblematic?

Because Byl was troubled that established geological theories conflict
with literalistic or concordistic interpretations of parts of Genesis
1-11, he questioned the validity of the allegedly "secular" geological
theories. He asked, "Is it not more plausible that any deficiency lies
in our fallible scientific theories rather than in God's written Word?"
(p. 147). He asserted that "rather than modifying the contents of
Scripture, a better approach would be to base our science on biblically
valid presuppositions" (p. 150). And he said that "since Genesis deals
with the distant past, it can conflict not with our present geological
data but only with certain theoretical extrapolations of that data" (p.
145).

The quotations imply that interpretation of the Bible is unproblematic.
The content of the Bible was repeatedly confused with his interpretation
of it. Byl seemed to assume that "Scripture" is identical to "the
traditional understanding of Scripture." In response to the three
quotations we may assert that, of course, there is no deficiency in
God's written Word. Maybe, however, the deficiency lies in our fallible
theological theories rather than in God's creation. My original article
suggested that not God's written Word but our exegesis of parts of that
Word may be deficient. I no more advocated any modification of the
contents of Scripture than Byl advocated a change in the contents of the
created world. I advocated the possibility of a modification of
interpretation of those contents. And Genesis can't conflict with the
realities of creation, but our fallible exegesis can conflict with our
fallible scientific interpretation.

Byl's critique implied that natural science, especially geology, is the
only discipline that needs to distinguish between observation and
theory. He ignored the fact that our understanding of the biblical text
is also filtered through theoretical frameworks. All one needs to do is
to look at the profession of biblical studies to realize how value-laden
and subjective is that discipline! Exegesis and theology are as strongly
affected by the approach one takes as is science. There is more
consensus among geologists about the proper interpretation of rocks than
there is about the proper interpretation of the Bible among theologians
and biblical scholars, even among those guided by the Holy Spirit.

Christians do well to remember that church history is rich in examples
of scientific discovery and theory assisting the church to arrive at an
improved interpretation of the text. Ps 93:1 says: "The world is firmly
established; it cannot be moved." But we do not question the rotation of
the earth, its revolution about the sun, or its movement through the
galaxy. Although the heliocentric theory of solar-system mechanics
flagrantly violates the literal interpretation of the text, it is
compatible with the Bible. Ps 93:1 does not affirm heliocentricity, but
the verse's pronouncement about the immobility of the earth is not a
comment on the physical motion of the planet, so there is no
inconsistency. Heliocentric theory "agrees" with Scripture by not being
inconsistent with it. Heliocentricity and Ps 93:1 are complementary.

We could insist that any valid theory from the realm of physics,
chemistry, or geology must also be consistent with biblical knowledge. A
scientific theory, for example, the kinetic theory of gases, may not
necessarily be in clear harmony with Scripture for the simple reason
that Scripture may say nothing directly relevant about that theory.
Nevertheless a valid theory must not be inconsistent with the biblical
data properly interpreted.

Given the rapid developments today in biblical studies we need caution
in making pronouncements about what is certain in Genesis 1- 11. We
cannot always assume ahead of time that we already have the correct
biblical interpretation when a new scientific theory comes along.
Frequently it has required establishment and acceptance of a valid
scientific theory to point out that what was thought to be valid
biblical knowledge needed to be rethought and that a new interpretation
of the Bible had to be developed. Such may be the case in the matter of
geology and the early chapters of Genesis.

Hi, Leonard.

You wrote:
> Todd, may I suggest that the exchange with Mr. Bump stems from
> trying to counter a theological position with evidence. This is
> the reason empirical data only is used to describe and explain
> natural phenomena, that these considerations exclude supernatural
> explanations. We cannot prove or disprove supernatural
> mechanisms, or even their existence, by observations of the
> natural world.

I agree. While I could certainly discuss the YEC position in the context
of theological considerations, I have purposely chosen to set that
mostly to the side in my discussion here in this forum. I have purposely
focused on the claims that YECs make regarding science and
epistemological concepts related to scientific examination of the real
world. This is because the discussion here should be, to my mind, in
some way related more or less directly to HB 4382 in the general context
of the idea that creationism (and creationism as anti-evolution) is to
be imposed on science education and science by political decree. So I
have tried to stay somewhere under, or close to, that umbrella. I have
mentioned theological considerations incidentally, from time to time,
but have chosen to refrain from delving into substantial discussion of
them.

The "apparent age" concept specifically leads YEC into all kinds of
philosophical and theological mischief, but the primary point I have
chosen to focus on is that the concept is completely unscientific, and
the rhetoric that YECs have built up around it is misrepresentative for
the very purpose of trying to mask its unscientific nature. It is YECs
who have based their idea on pure speculation ("assumption"), which has
been tested and falsified (i.e., worse than just "untested"), yet while
advocating this apparent age concept they very hypocritically try to
challenge their critics for basing criticisms on "untested assumptions."
Additionally, as I have shown, the criticisms are not in fact merely
untested assumptions but are based on objective data of the real world,
thus showing that the YEC rhetoric is absolutely wrong (and
misrepresentative) as well as being hypocritical.

Again, all of us know that such things as HB 4382 are based on religious
concerns, not scientific concerns. It is the pretension that advocates
surround things like that with that indicates to us that something is
seriously wrong, because otherwise why would they employ such
subterfuge?

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### Leonard Zanger, 5/5/01 4:45 PM ######
[snip]

Todd, may I suggest that the exchange with Mr. Bump stems from trying
to counter a theological position with evidence. This is the reason
empirical data only is used to describe and explain natural phenomena,
that these considerations exclude supernatural explanations. We cannot
prove or disprove supernatural mechanisms, or even their existence, by
observations of the natural world.

Perhaps a different approach is necessary. Mr. Bump has demonstrated via
his arguments that his YEC belief is dependent on a high degree of
Omphalism. In short, the appearance of age is an illusion created by God
(or whoever). It is a massive deception.

Mr. Bump should now answer the following: Does he believe that God only
presents us with truth in works as well as word? If so, how does he
reconcile this with his position that this same God has created a
universe intended to deceive us? Consider this from a Christian
viewpoint: Who in the Bible is described as the "Lord of Lies"? If the
creator of the universe has committed this grand deception, does he say
that creator is Lucifer rather than YHWH? If not, and if God is always
truthful and does not deceive, then the universe was not created with
the appearance of age and our observations are not illusions.

It seems reasonable that if an Omphalic God has gone to the effort of
creating with apparent history, then we should take that apparent
history seriously and not ignore it. We should, it appears, treat the
creation of an Omphalic God as if the Omphalic God had not intervened.

Hi, David.

Leonard took the approach of humor. To state it forthrightly, the
pragmatic point is that people who choose to believe that such
things as SN1987A, which are objective observations of the real world,
are not real — subjectivists — have no business discussing the limits
of science since they do not in fact even accept the areas in which
science is not limited. In other words, it is a waste of time to
discuss reasonable philosophical details with someone who does not
accept reality. Try talking about the state of current political
relations between the U.S. and China with someone who is clinically
schizophrenic. I will admit it's a way to kill time, but it's also a
rather pointless exercise.

Incidentally, in fact I have previously pointed to online references
to serious philosophical discussions in this context, such as

   "The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and
   arguing from ignorance"
   http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/BIPH_164-00.htm

   When Faith and Reason Clash
   http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/

   Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?
   http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/

and your responses have been to rhetorically sweep them under the rug
and ignore them.

In closing, I must mention that I'm still waiting for your data that
shows why a Cepheid variable star 300 light-years from Earth is real
while a Cepheid variable star 160,000 light-years from Earth is fake.
Where's your data? It's hard to pretend to be genuinely concerned
about serious philosophical considerations regarding science while
you demonstrate that you don't care in the least about science. And
that's a very fundamental problem of young earth creationism.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### David L. Bump, 5/10/01 8:13 PM ######
Once again, your humor is quite entertaining! However, it's been years
since I was a formal student, and I think in any forum that discusses
scientific matters, it is important to explore foundational issues —
what is reality, what is science, and what are the limits of science. My
favorite answers were all "C," BTW.

David

On Thu, 10 May 2001 10:00:39 -0400 "Zanger, Leonard"
<Leonard.Zanger@comaupico.com> writes:
> ...
> Good morning, Dave.
>
> Look, if you need help with your home work, just say so...
...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David L Bump [mailto:davidbump@juno.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:32 PM
> To: evolutiontalk@listbot.com
> Subject: Re: MSEEI Evolution Talk Test -- Seed questions
> ...
> Since nothing is being discussed right now, how about some responses
> to my original "seed questions"?
>
> It seems to me that before endeavoring to practice or teach science,
> one should logically consider some fundamental philosophical
> questions. It is important to be aware that such questions are not
> scientific or part of science (or are they? it depends on your
> answers — or does it? ;), but are unavoidable in practicing or
> teaching science. It's not that one must consciously think about
> them, but that some assumption regarding them is inevitable, if only
> by default.
> >
> > Here's examples of what I am talking about:
> >
> > 1) What is reality?
>
> <<snips>>

Hi, everyone.

Here are some interesting excerpts from a recent addition to the ASA
website.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/ResearchNews1-01Gordon.html

Intelligent Design Movement Struggles with Identity Crisis
by Bruce Gordon

Design theory has had considerable difficulty gaining a hearing in
academic contexts, as evidenced most recently by the the Polanyi Center
affair at Baylor University. One of the principle reasons for this
resistance and controversy is not far to seek: design-theoretic research
has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement.
In particular, the theory has been prematurely drawn into discussions of
public science education where it has no business making an appearance
without broad recognition from the scientific community that it is
making a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the natural
world.

[...]

...it is crucial to note that design theory is at best a supplementary
consideration introduced alongside (or perhaps into, by way of
modification) neo-Darwinian biology and self-organizational complexity
theory. It does not mandate the replacement of these highly fruitful
research paradigms, and to suggest that it does is just so much
overblown, unwarranted, and ideologically driven rhetoric.