Scientific Fact, Theory, and Law: A creationist tutorial

 

There is a common error made by creationists discussing evolution regarding the ideas of "fact," "scientific theory," "hypothesis," and "scientific law." It is common enough to warrant a separate comment.

Quoting from the National Academy of Science (USA):

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions. 2008 "Science, Evolution, and Creationism"

Now lets consider the idea of a hypothesis. In science, it is a statement that there exists an unobserved phenomena, or event which is a critical prediction of a scientific theory. This was proposed as a way to test the validity of a scientific theory called "the experimental method." We trace this back to Francis Bacon in the 1600s. By the 20th century, the notion that a "good" theory must generate experimental tests became a central topic of philosophers like Carl Hempel, and Karl Popper. Even before actually testing a hypothesis Hempel and Popper in a rare point of agreement between them, thought that a "good" theory had to generate hypotheses.

When asked if evolutionary theory was testable, J.B.S. Haldane famously replied, "Show me a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian." This was reportedly in reply to a question about the falsifiability of evolutionary theory.

Next there is the gross misunderstanding of what a "scientific law" is, and how it is related to a scientific theory. A scientific "law" is a generalization of empirical observations that is typically reduced to a mathematical formula. These "laws" are always bound within the observational frame, or external conditions of the observations. They are not explanations of the observed phenomena. My favorite example is Ohm's Law, I = V/R. It will always work under the conditions that Ohm used to observe electrical current (I), voltage (V), and resistance (R). However, you cannot find in Ohm's Law a theory of the electromagnetic field. You cannot even derive one. Further, Ohm's Law is invalidated at extreme temperatures- the classic example is resistance free superconductors- variable voltages, and extreme voltages. This does not mean that Ohm's Law is not useful, but it is only useful for the external conditions that allow it be applied.

A scientific theory does not "graduate" to being a "law" or a "fact." There is a second common error made by creationists which is repeated in nearly every discussion with creationists, and that is that evolution has not been expressed in the mathematical precision of a "law." It will surprise some people, but this was published in 1908, over a century ago. The exact example is the generalized Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation. For computational reasons, they presented it as, "IF evolution did NOT occur, then ...Equilibrium" which can confuse some students.


Hardy, G. (Jul 1908). "MENDELIAN PROPORTIONS IN A MIXED POPULATION.". Science 28 (706): 49–50. doi:10.1126/science.28.706.49. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 17779291

Weinberg, W. (1908). "Über den Nachweis der Vererbung beim Menschen". Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg 64: 368–382.

Kent Hovind's resume derived from public documents

This is a short examination of creationist Kent Hovind's phony "Doctorate," and claims of being a "high school science teacher for 15 years." Between 1976 and 1989, Hovind was the "teacher" of unaccredited church schools he often started himself. Plus, he rarely lasted long even then. I am linking this from "Big Daddy is Dead," in recognition that Hovind is essentially cited as a co-author of "Big Daddy." and nearly all of the pseudoscience found there is referenced to Hovind's video "seminars."

Hovind opens his public presentations, videos, and weirdly, his bogus dissertation with nearly the same words every time, "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976." He added "I have a doctorate in Education," starting in 1991.

Kent Hovind's Teaching Experience

Recorded in Public Records 08/10/2005 at 1:30 PM OR Book Page 878, Instrument #2005406964, Ernie Less Magaha, Clerk of the Circuit Court Escambia County, FL.


"In 1972 I transferred to Midwestern Baptist College, in Pontiac, Michigan." Midwestern Baptist College is an unaccredited Bible school.

"I completed by (sic) Bachelor of Religious Education at Midwestern in 1974" Ordained by Emmanuel Baptist Church in Pontiac, Michigan, May 25, 1974.

Bethel Baptist Academy, Pekin, Illinios [1976-1978]
"I returned to Pekin, Illinois and became Assistant Pastor of Bethel Baptist Church. In 1976 the Pastor resigned and I was voted Pastor (Bethel Baptist Church). My first accomplishment as Pastor was to start a Christian school, Bethel Baptist Academy."

Faith Baptist Academy, Bourbonnais, Illinois [1978-1981]
"In 1978 my family and I moved to Bourbonais, Illinois, where I continued to minister for the Lord as a teacher."

Longview Christian Academy and Texas Baptist College, Longview, Texas [1981-1985]
"1981 we moved to Longview, Texas, where I took position teaching science and math at Longview Christian Academy and at Texas Baptist College." Today, LCA is a K-5 - 12th grade school that uses A Beka creationist curriculum. The entirety of "Texas Baptist College" is a single building that houses the dormitories, classrooms, library (if any), and laundry. Married students are forced to enroll their children in the unaccredited "Christian Academy."

Calvary Baptist Christian School, Fairfield, California [1986-1989]
"... we moved the family to Fairfield, California, where I became Assistant Pastor and principal at Calvary Baptist Christian School as well as a science teacher." This school has a current enrollment Pre-kinder to 12th grade of 59 students. The most students they ever had was 149. EVER!

East Hill Christian School, Pensacola, Florida [1989-?]. This is another church school created by Hovind. (A commenter, JohnLake has posted that East Hill Christian School was founded in 1958. They expanded to a K-12 in 1987. This of course raises the question of how long did Hovind teach there?)

"In 1989, I took a vow of poverty and to commit all my resources to spreading the word of God and truth about God’s hand in creation. That event gave birth to Creation Science Evangelism."

Hovind went on to boast that he was soon on the road giving lectures, sermons, and debates nearly full-time. Hovind verbally amended his biography in several videos recorded in the early 2000s to add 16 years after 1989 as a full time evangelist. In his 1991 "dissertation," Hovind claimed to be making 400 creationism presentations to schools and churches around the nation. He filed a fraudulent bankruptcy petition in 1996 claiming to have been a full time evangelist since 1989. There is also the question of "academic years, versus "calendar years." For example, Hovind's first teaching was at a church school he started in 1976 and left in 1978. That could be counted as 3 calendar years, but only 2 academic years: Sept. 1976 to June 1977, and Sept. 1977 to June 1978. Even giving Hovind the broadest interpretation, and allowing him the sham title of "science teacher," 1976 to 1989 is not 15 years.

Kent Hovind's "Doctorate"

Hovind claims a doctorate in "Christian Education." Hovind's dissertation is a bad joke written at a low high school grammar and vocabulary level. This vacuous work was sold to Hovind from "Patriot University," an unaccredited mail order degree shop.

In fact, Patriot U. has had to publish the following disclaimer regarding their "degrees."

DISCLAIMER

ACI accreditation (Accrediting Commission International which is as phony as Patriot U. and has been successfully sued for fraud) is not to be confused with regional accreditation which is governed by the U.S. Department of Education. A school or employer which requires a regionally accredited degree will likely not accept a non-governmentally accredited degree. Patriot Bible University nor ACI are responsible for a student's employability.

Student Advisory:

1. PBU's accreditation may or may not allow you to receive transfer credits to a secular school. If you are seeking a secular education degree, you would be best served to attend a secular institution. We grant Bible and religious degrees. If you hope to apply your Bible degree towards a secular degree at some time later on, the PBU courses and degrees are not likely to be fully applicable.

If you are going to seek employment with a particular church denomination or wish to transfer to a certain Christian college or university, you might confer with them first. Please consider what YOUR educational goals are.

2. A Patriot Bible University degree is recognized by many churches and ministry organizations. It will demonstrate to employers a higher level of study through the attainment of a degree. We have trained thousands of students during the last 30 years.

3. PBU's accreditation with this agency is a religious non-governmental accreditation, rather than secular - voluntary, rather than mandatory. The laws of Colorado give us the authority to grant religious degrees. The authority to grant degrees comes from the individual State, not the school's accrediting agency.

4. ACI monitors educational and religious standards for PBU, and their accreditation is accepted by many religious organizations. However, this accreditation would not be accepted by some secular organizations, as ACI is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as one of the seven official regional accrediting agencies.

This non-recognition may have some implications that include, but are not limited to:

1. Patriot Bible University is not eligible to participate in the Federal Student Loan/Financial Aid program.
2. Patriot Bible University is not authorized to accept the GI Bill.
3. Patriot Bible University is unable to guarantee acceptance of its degrees in other postsecondary institutions, except those also accredited by ACI
4. Corporations are not required to recognize degrees from Patriot Bible University.
(down loaded on 8 April, 2013 from Patriot U.'s website).

I downloaded Hovind's "dissertation" from wikileaks. To anyone familiar with Hovind's videos, the text will be very familiar. It is in most ways a transcript of Hovind's standard presentations. I am always impressed by how consistently bad it is.

Kent Hovind's Current Career

Kent Hovind, Federal Prisoner Register number 06452-017, began serving a ten-year prison sentence in 2007 following his conviction on 12 tax fraud offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of illegally structuring cash transactions. He is scheduled for release from prison on August 11, 2015 after serving the minimum allowed portion of his 10 year sentence. If you have a taste for court documents, this court's reply (PDF) to a petition filed by Jo (Mrs. Kent) Hovind gives the business structure of Kent Hovind's fortune.

Recently, Patriot Bible University has sold another doctorate to Kent Hovind. He has claimed to have gotten two masters and three doctorates in education, theology, and divinity (honorary). He now claims to have added a doctorate in "biblical ministry."

His most recent 'dissertation' titled "What on Earth is about to happen for Heaven's Sake," is available on-line as a PDF. I think it is better to Google for a current URL in case there are copy right issues.


Obviously Kent Hovind's account of his "doctorate" and "15 years teaching high school science" are as bogus as his creationism, and tax filings. As the courts found repeatedly, the numbers don't add up.

Kent Hovind released to Home Confinement, July 8, 2015.

There are several people who have been writing detailed reviews and assessments of Kent Hovind's legal woes. Rather than rehash what they have documented, I suggest you read their sites. Two I particularly recommend are Hovindology, and income tax expert Peter J Reilly. Mr. Reilly has two separate blogs, one for Forbes dot Com, and "Your Tax Matters Partner."

Kent Hovind is fresh out of prison. He has a one month home confinement up in August 2015. However, he has wasted no time in posting YouTube videos that contain many of his old lies. The first is of course that he "was a high school science and math teacher for 15 years."

A big frustration

I have said for years that I would not get sucked into the global warming debate. Warming is real. It is likely to end the current global civilization, to the extent one can say there is a global civilization.

But, there is only so many hours in a day to deal with ignorant assholes.

But this, 2010 – where does it fit in the warmest year list? is just too much.

Not just the stupidity of climate change denialism, but Easterbrook has manipulated data, and just plain lies as much as any creationist ever did. Even the recently departed Duane "Galloping" Gish would have respected this pile of bullshit.

The main issues are with Easterbrook's selective and dishonest manipulations of data. The main problem I have is in using graphic software to illustrate his lies. But I will keep working on it.

GermsGermsGerms

There is the frequent assertion that evolutionary biology is wrong because.... well, just because. Mostly because creationists don't like it, they invent a lot of absurd objections, one of them that there is a difference between a "scientific theory," and a "scientific law." Now this is an ignorant and silly thing to say, but it seems to be emotionally gratifying to creationists. In public debates, the pro-science advocate commonly replies that "Evoluiton is as well established as the "Theory" of gravity, or the Germ Theory of Disease."


Of the two, I think that the germ theory is a far better example, because "germ theory" is in fact weaker than evolution. Consider that "germs" are very far from the cause of all medical diseases. Plus, there are typically individuals with sub-clinical infections, and in cross-species transmissions, there are wild-type reservoirs. Even expanding the notion of "germs" to any infectious agent- nematodes, protozoa, yeast, fungal, bacterial, viral, or prions- there are still major and common diseases that are caused by totally different agents. Take for example environmental toxins. Arsenic in ground water, selenium in "loco weed," particulate carbon, or asbestos are all inorganic causes of serious, and common diseases. Traumatic injuries, malnutrition, and genetic accidents are leading causes of death today. Ironically, over eating is gaining in industrial nations as a cause of death. These events are exceeding the deaths caused by infection, although they may have been more evenly matched with infectious disease prior to the development of antibiotics.

We enfold all of these etiological factors in medical practice, and theory. The parallel to evolutionary theory is fine grained. Not all mutations are positive, not all negative mutations are eliminated. Even positive mutations are not necessarily spread through-out a population if they are beneficial. The pace of evolutionary change can be rapid like an epidemic, or very slow and environmentally conditioned like secondary hypertension, or trace-element poisoning. A particular mutation can be beneficial in one habitat to one sort of organism, and lethal in another. And, all of life on earth has been profoundly altered by shear accidents. Meteors smashing into the planet are not conditions that are adapted to, or predictable.

(Random thoughts waiting for the truck to get fixed).

This is too good to miss

I have recently written a brief comment on the ENCODE project, and the great joy the creationists have taken with their overstated "product."

Here is the fully orchestrated four part harmony exposure of the gross errors of fact and logic made by the ENCODE project leaders. This is how real science works. Free download PDF: "On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE."

"The ENCODE results were predicted by one of its authors to necessitate the rewriting of textbooks. We agree, many textbooks dealing with marketing, mass-media hype, and public relations may well have to be rewritten." Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ February 24, 2013.

I must give love to any scientific paper that can open with Frank Zappa, "Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, wisdom is not truth," —Robert Royar (1994) paraphrasing Frank Zappa’s (1979) anadiplosis.

This came over the transom from a Christian site:

Hello
i am Christiana by name a young pretty girl is my pleasure to meet you,so
how are you doing i hope all is well with you.I come across your profile today
in this site them i decided to contact you,i want us to have a good
relationship together if you do not mind i will like you to E-mail me at my private
Address(christ_lugard@yahoo.com.sg)so that i can tell you more about my self and my photo.i will be waiting for your mail soon,because i have something very important to tell you,thank you?

Do I play the fool, or just flag the come-on?

While I have been busy, I came across Chris Rodda

A teahadist creationist named Linda Athens has been writing extremist bullshit for the Kingman, Az "Daily Miner." Here is an example. I had never run head on into a follower of the revisionist "historian" David Barton before, and I was rushing off to start a major debunking. After a very interesting week or two, I found the work done by Chris Rodda. She saved me from any further need to debunk Barton. Her website is Liars for Jesus, which is also the title of her book debunking Barton. She has posted a slew of short YouTube videos well worth the time spent.


David Barton Lies About Chris Rodda - Part 1

Winter fishing

I have maintained some psychic equilibrium by fishing. Even the winter bite has been fairly good, especially when we have good bait.

The fish went back into the ocean, and the $135 jackpot went to the crew of the Sum Fun out of Dana Point Wharf.

Ms. Chatman goes balistically stupid

She watched the propaganda film, "Expelled." And because we know Ms. Chatman so well, her tiny brain predictably exploded.

For the reality based world's opinions on "Expelled," see Expelled Exposed. And, I egotistically hope you enjoy my article on Expelled for the National Center for Science Education, Why Re-Invent the Crystal?

We had a great day fishing

Dec. 31, 2012 aboard the Clemente out of Dana Warf.

In other news, life goes on.


Best Wishes for a Happy New Year!

By the way, I added a new post to Big Daddy is Dead

I am not an astrophysicist, but I don't need to be one.

I have my news feed tuned to show articles with any connection to evolution, creationism, science education, and a half-dozen other tags. In the Dec. 23, 2012 trawl there was this gem by the "Reverend" Michael Bresciani. A Google search failed to show any reason this guy should be revered for anything. He claims to be a Prophet of God Almighty, and has pages of prophecies. I read a few. As far as I can tell he is about as successful, and specific as the daily horoscopes on newspaper comic pages.

Judging from his, Christmas Speaks to the Evolutionist, this guy has a low high school reading ability. Or, he is possibly really smart, and has a huge scam working. His screed was reposted in a far-right on-line "journal."

The only "science" in this lump of creatocrap was a garbled remark,

The Big Bang theory recently took a big bang itself at the discovery of a galaxy that is almost all black holes according to scientists at the University of Texas in Austin. The discovery punches some serious black holes in the assumption that the universe developed spontaneously without outside or intelligent intervention.

This is only one of hundreds of new discoveries made by creation scientists in the last few decades that have loaded a preponderance of proof onto the side of intelligent design. So why aren’t evolutionists taking a look see?

The actual science was discussed Here: in the University of Texas press release. The original paper was published in Nature on the 28th of November this year, "An over-massive black hole in the compact lenticular galaxy NGC 1277." There was also a brief news item in the same issue.

The Creatocrap
"a galaxy that is almost all black holes"

The Facts
There is only one "Black Hole" in any known Galaxy. There is only one core Black Hole in galaxy NGC 1277, the subject of this idiots remarks (as if he knew it). *Clarification added March 16, 2013: There is only a single core black hole in elliptical galaxies like the Milky Way, or NGC 1277. Small black holes can form in super novas of very massive stars.

The Facts
There is no known galaxy that is "almost" all Black Holes. Even galaxy NGC 1277 which this fool is yammering about, has a Black Hole that is only 14% of the mass of the galaxy. Galaxy NGC 1277 is actually small, only 1/10th the size the Milky Way.

The Creatocrap
The discovery punches some serious black holes in the assumption that the universe developed spontaneously without outside or intelligent intervention.

The Facts
This discovery does not challenge any origin of the universe theories- it is about the evolution of galaxies. This observation cannot suggest any form of "intelligent intervention."

The Facts
It merely challenges a single idea about the ratio of Black Hole mass to galaxy mass, and how that related to the formation of new stars.

The Creatocrap
This is only one of hundreds of new discoveries made by creation scientists

The Facts
This was not a discovery made by "creation scientists." It isn't even that new. (See below)

Just a year ago, Nature also published a news item, "Record-breaking black holes fill a cosmic gap: Largest black holes ever discovered shed light on the early Universe" (06 December 2011). The original article was, "Two ten-billion-solar-mass black holes at the centers of giant elliptical galaxies" Nature
480, 215–218 (08 December 2011).

Here is a rare "you must go see this" post.

This is a great, and short response to the creatocrap about the Grand Canyon.

Deleted by the Kingman Arizona "Daily Miner"

I wrote a reply to the following creatocrap. It was deleted due to "excessive length."


Linda Athens Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Kingman Arizona "Daily Miner"

It is NOT a fact 99.9% of scientists believe in evolution. In fact, most good scientists believe in God. That is FACT.
*****************

Ms. Athens repeats a number of common creationist, and fundamentalist errors about science, faith, and history. I doubt that any of them are original with her, as they are easily found in creationist pamphlets. She makes an interesting misstatement claiming, "In fact, most good scientists believe in God." This was compounded because she prefaced it with the false assertion that significant numbers of scientists reject evolutionary theory in biology. (I'll ignore the trivial argument about 99.9% of anything. For the purpose of exposing Ms. Athens, 98.0%, or 69.99% are equally acceptable numbers).

We need to work backwards through this chain of errors. Her conclusion was that "good scientists believe in God." I reject that trivial falsehood that "good" can only be applied to a Christian, although Ms. Athens probably thinks so. In that case a "good" scientist is someone expert in, and professionally successful in science. The question of how these scientists think about the existence of gods, or a non-material immortal soul has been studied going back nearly a century. The following paragraph is closely adapted from Larson and Witham (1998).

James H. Leuba surveyed American scientists in 1914 regardering their belief, or non-belief in a personal god, and an immortal soul. 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 “greater” scientists within his sample. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67% and 85% (1933). Larson and Witham repeated Leuba’s 1914 survey in 1996 and found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt in the existence of gods. (Larson, E. J. & Witham, L. Nature 386, 435–436 1997).

Leuba had also identified "great scientists" as opposed to those merely employed in science. To try and match that population, Larson and Witman in 1998 surveyed members of the American National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS is the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States. Established by Congress in 1863, membership is highly restricted. Larson and Witham found that, "Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3*

* There was a typographic error. The agnostic position is likely ~16%.

Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.

Leuba, J. H. The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study (Sherman, French & Co., Boston, 1916).

The Augusta Chronicle

I made a few posts yesterday to the Augusta Chronicle following a published Letter to the Editor by a typically ignorant creationist.

As it happens, the Chronicle has a policy blocking anyone not subscribed to their paper from reading, or looking in anyway to more than 5 items per month.

As of last night, I cannot see- let alone reply to- anything on the Augusta Chronicle's discussion board.

Readers are welcome to leave any comments here that they care to make. Perhaps we could carry on the discussion.

Junk DNA, and Junk Creationism

(Heads up Feb. 24, 2013: There is a new paper "On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE," published in the "Genome Biology and Evolution" journal that does a total debunking of the absurd claims made by the ENCODE project).


The creationists, particularly the intelligent design breed, have been shouting that discovering some functions in "junk" DNA somehow proved their fantasy is correct. Discotute fellow Jon Wells even wrote a book about it, "The Myth Of Junk DNA."

Soon after the discovery of how DNA stored sequences used to replicate proteins there began a bidding war for research funds to specify the DNA sequences and identify their function. In the battle, non-coding sections were called "junk DNA" since there was no obvious function that could be intuitively connected with a particular gene. A protein coding sequence clearly had a function, even if what the protein did was unknown at the time. Since building a sequence data base was then extremely expensive (and boring), the argument against deciphering non-translated "Junk DNA" won out. But, the possible functionality of "Junk DNA" was raised in the late 1970s. The argument was simple: there was an evolutionary cost to making copies of useless DNA. Since this cost was being paid, the "Junk" must have a function. The human genome project was conceived after the discovery of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in 1983. Many researchers were still objecting to spending scarce research money on non-coding sequences as late as 1989.

Some likely functions of this "junk" were discovered by geneticists in the late 1980s, reaching journal publications by the early 1990s. The development of automated sequencing machines around 2000 finally eliminated the last objections to sequencing "junk."

(See;
AD Riggs (1990) “Marsupials and Mechanisms of X-Chromosome Inactivation”.
Australian Journal of Zoology 37(3) 419 – 441 (Suggested that "junk DNA" would not be preserved without some function, identified control functions specifically as promoters of spreading).

J Brosius and S J Gould (1992) “On "genomenclature": a comprehensive (and respectful) taxonomy for pseudogenes and other "junk DNA"” PNAS November 15, vol. 89 no. 22 10706-10710 (They propose that “junk DNA” is evolutionarily significant by providing raw material for future functions, is implicitly the source for current gene functions, and preserves the evolutionary history of organisms. Received 1991).

Emile Zuckerkandl, 1992, “Revisiting junk DNA” Journal of Molecular Evolution Volume 34, Number 3 / March, 1992 (Received 1991) (Suggested that "junk DNA" would not be preserved without some function, speculated that there were control functions).

What did the creationists have? ... The best they can do is a 1998 article by William Dembski. In an article for the Christian magazine “First Things,” he noted the discovery of functionality by scientists (not by creationists) in portions of the human genome that had been considered as uninteresting “junk DNA” by many. Specifically, Dembski quotes Bodnar et al’s 1997 abstract from, “Deciphering the Language of the Genome.” To a competent reader, Dembski is defending creationism’s position from scientific advances by attempting to co-opt them.

Bodnar, JW, J Killian, M Nagle, S Ramchandani (1997) “Deciphering the Language of the Genome.” Journal of Theoretical Biology Vol 189, Issue 2, 21 November 1997 Pages 183-193).

Dembski, William A. (1998) “Science and Design” First Things 86 (October 1998): 21-27.

The ENCODE project began releasing reports with 30 articles published in the first week of September this year. They generated a great deal of excitement, and controversy. The first highly controversial topic was how they chose to define "functional" for DNA sequences. Basically, any segment of DNA that was transcribed by RNA was anointed as "functional." The directors of the project are already walking back from that claim. They weakly explained that the "public" might have been confused. Days later, a key project leader, Ewan Birney, Ph.D., was trying to justify using "80% functionality" in his press releases. His answer was to redefine "functional." In practical terms, "functional" became anything they could find that could bind somewhere. For what Birney admitted most people think of as "functional," the percentage falls hard to ~20%.

Here is a portion of his self commentary;.

Q. Ok, fair enough. But are you most comfortable with the 10% to 20% figure for the hard-core functional bases? Why emphasize the 80% figure in the abstract and press release?
A. (Sigh.) Indeed. Originally I pushed for using an “80% overall” figure and a “20% conservative floor” figure, since the 20% was extrapolated from the sampling. But putting two percentage-based numbers in the same breath/paragraph is asking a lot of your listener/reader – they need to understand why there is such a big difference between the two numbers, and that takes perhaps more explaining than most people have the patience for. We had to decide on a percentage, because that is easier to visualize, and we choose 80% because (a) it is inclusive of all the ENCODE experiments (and we did not want to leave any of the sub-projects out) and (b) 80% best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity. We refer also to “4 million switches”, and that represents the bound motifs and footprints.

We use the bigger number because it brings home the impact of this work to a much wider audience. But we are in fact using an accurate, well-defined figure when we say that 80% of the genome has specific biological activity.

http://genomeinformatician.blogspot.com ... ughts.html

The only thing holding back "the progress of genomic research" has been lack of money, and the religious-right blocking stem cell research.

Creatocrap from James Nienhuis, Article 1, part 2

Link to Part 1

Nearly all cultures surveyed by ethnographers have a creation myth. They have some common features. They delineate a "time" before the creation of humanity when the universe was populated by magical beings, and then some reason these gods decided to create humans. They give some explanation for death, for another example. When the creation took place is either left open (long long ago, etc.), or ignored altogether. The creation story in Genesis is of the latter type actually making no temporal references at all.

Humans need reliable freshwater. Nearly all humans live where there are rivers. Even in tropical regions, rivers and the bays at the mouths of rivers are preferred living places. We see the same thing in archaeological site locations. Nearly all Mesopotamian agricultural societies relied on irrigation following the major drying trend from about 6,000 years before present, to about 3,000 years B.P. There is an interesting geological correlation here, 6K YBP is about when the sea level raise from the end of the last major glaciations stabilized to current average pool levels. The Neolithic origin of agriculture was about 2,000 years before that. It seems obvious that as declining rainfall, and then declining river flow reduced available water for crops, irrigation was developed as a substitute. The oldest recorded creation myth from Sumeria, the Epic of Atrahasis, rationalized the creation of mankind as workers used by the gods to maintain their irrigation canals.

It is a simple, and obvious fact that even during long term droughts, rivers will flood eventually. To a Neolithic farmer the flood that washed away her crops, house, and perhaps most of her community was one that did destroy her whole world. To people who had no idea how large to world really was, the "whole world" was just a little larger than the distance they had walked. It should be obvious to the most naive observer that all cultures will have a flood story about the "big one" that destroyed the world. And if everyone had died there was nobody to tell the tale, so there will always be a hero protected by the gods.

Mr. Nienhuis spins the notion in the last of his first article that all the creation myths, and all the flood myths originated from the biblical account in Genesis 1-11. This isn't original. I suspect that as agricultural populations expanded these myths of floods, and gods, and paradises expanded. The declining nomads, and hunter and gatherer populations under physical and cultural assault, retreated to marginal habitats while replacing their old origin stories with those of the more powerful invaders. But, the Genesis flood stories were themselves derived from the Sumerian, and Babylonian myths we know today as the Epic of Atrahasis, and of Gilgamesh.

Mr. Nienhuis also ventures into the weirdness with unsupportable claims that Einstein's General Relativity, and "the deterioration rates of cosmological entities" are supports for a thousands of years old creation. He then scattered a slew of falsehoods about the "scientific support" for a global flood, lack of transitional fossils, and the "recent dispersion from the Mesopotamian region" of all humanity. We finally reach the end of his sermonette with his pitch to "READ MY BOOK." Always a classic. After all he presents "extremely compelling information" that "science is severely in error regarding earth and cosmological history."

Creatocrap from James Nienhuis, Article 1, part 1

I was pointed to the "scientific proofs" for young earth creationism published by a man called James I. Nienhuis, and his website "Genesis Veracity." Specifically, someone called "Apologia717" wrote,

"I have weighed the validity of genesisveracity.com against the more than 1000 + page biology or geology textbooks citing thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers and genesisveracity makes the most logical sense...."

Will you discuss with me???? After the debate I can turn an atheist into a believer? I pray that is my mission to further GODS Purpose...."

So, I proposed we take the creatocrap one article at a time. (This seems to be very similar to debunking Mrs. Chatman, but maybe a bit deeper pile). Here we start with Article #1: You Have Not Been Told the Whole Story.

Mr. Nienhuis has a real talent for the Gish Gallop method of debate. This is named for the famous creationist Duane Gish who could spout so many lies and half-truths in a single breath that his opponents were left dumfounded. Nienhuis adds the refinement of using far-right political buzzwords intended to play up his audience's prejudices. In the first sentence he highlights that, "The "elites" of various scientific communities," are not to be trusted because, well that they are "elites." In the fake populist far-right, only billionaires are to be trusted because they are not "elites." Just ask Mittens Romney.

His first assertion of a "fact" is, "However, the assumptions that are the "building blocks" of the derivational dating methods of the physical world are severely cracked. The "assumptions" that Mr. Nienhuis, and his YEC associates most object to are the actual facts which irrefutably demonstrated the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. These are the many radiometric dating methods. The single most important question is "Are Constants Constant?" which I answered at the linked post. The answer is yes they are constant, and have been constant for over six billion years.

Mr. Nienhuis continued, "Most of the scientists throughout human history have believed that the earth and universe are young." Aside from the fact that there have not been any scientists for most of human history, the Hindu tradition claims the cosmos is infinitely ancient. That tradition is older than the Bible by many centuries. In various other traditions there are cyclic creations, an example currently popular with the New Age folks is the Mayan creation myth. In the Sumerian, and other Mesopotamian traditions there was specific creation of the Earth, but from older material of unspecified age. Genesis is of course familiar to anyone likely to be reading this little article.

Mr. Nienhuis next makes several assertion (mostly wrong) in a sentence that will need to be broken down into its components. He wrote, "Only in the 1700's and 1800's did old-earth and universe theories become popular, "thanks" to Lyell, Darwin, Hutton, and Marx, among others.

Before addressing the historical failures of this claim, I want to highlight the political manipulation that is the hallmark of Nienhuis. He mentions (Charles) Lyell (1797-1875), (Charles) Darwin (1809-1882), (James) Hutton (1726-1797), and (Karl) Marx (1818–1883) as proponents of an ancient Earth. Only three of these men were contributors to geology. The only possible reason to mention Karl Marx in this context is to trigger far-right hostility to communists. Marx had nothing what so ever to say regarding the age of the earth, or any other topic in geology. When he wrote about miners, he was totally uninterested in what happened geologically in the mines.

The notion that the Earth could not possibly be anywhere near the 6,000 years old computed by James Ussher in 1650 was not popular until the 20th century. One might think that with the prolific young earth creationists, it is not popular even now. But, popularity is not a scientific proof of anything. Among informed scientists, the knowledge that the Earth was ancient preceded evolutionary biology by over a century, and was not first proposed by atheists. However, prior to the geological discoveries of Smith, and Hutton in the late 1700s, scientists were too afraid of religious persecution to publish their conclusions. The earliest non-biblical idea of the age of the Earth seems to have come from Benoit de Maillet (1656-1738). His ideas were only published posthumously in 1748. Both Newton, and von Leibniz thought that the Earth's original state was molten and both offered ideas of how the Earth's surface could have been molded in a plastic state. Neither men, in spite of their public renown dared publish any non-biblical estimate of the age of the Earth. The first scientist to publicly dispute any biblical age calculations while still living was Comte de Buffon (1707-1788). His experiments on the cooling time of iron spheres allowed him to conclude the Earth must have had at least 74,832 years to cool. In private papers not published until many years after his death, he expressed the thought that the actual age could be as high as 3 billion years. For other early attempts to find extra-biblical estimates of the age of the Earth see; Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple, "The Age of the Earth" (1991 Stanford University Press).

Darwin was first regarded as a geologist, and his proposed mechanism for the formation of pacific ocean coral atolls is still recognized today as the correct one. But, it was the discoveries of Hutton, and William Smith (1749-1817) that truly established geology as a science. Smith showed that geological strata were deposited sequentially, and that the fossils in sedimentary strata were temporally ordered. Hutton is best known for his demonstrations that the same physical forces acting today could account for the entire geological record.

Charles Lyell is still best known for his three volume text, Principles of Geology published between 1830 and 1833. It was Darwin's college professor Sedgwick who sent him off on the HMS Beagle with the first volume of Lyell’s "Principles," which Darwin said, “Allowed me to see with the eyes of Hutton.” Darwin cared little about the age of the Earth. When Lord Kelvin insisted that the Earth was no more than 100 million years old, Darwin accepted this, although he had privately speculated it was much older. It didn't matter to him how long evolution had taken- it had happened in what ever time was available. (Additional materials on Darwin's education are available, Here.

Link to Part 2

The opening lines from Mrs. Chatman's latest screed...

There is a great deal of controversy over how old the earth is. Darwinian evolution has a theory that the earth is millions and billions of years old. Is there proof that the earth is that old? NO! However, there is a multi-faceted theory, supported by many unproven assumptions. All the assumptions of an old earth support the theory that there is no Intelligent Designer or Creator. Old earth theories teach that all things just accidentally occurred over billions of years.

had passed by without drawing my attention. They are the common creato rant that I have seen so often that it just slides by, and away. But, there are six full sentences and six falsehoods. That score is good even for a creationist.

1) There is no controversy about the age of the Earth in science. There is a political movement called creationism that has created a political controversy. These are two very different things. For example, while there isn't any doubt among scientists about the age of the Earth/Moon system (4.5 billion years), a major Republican politician named Marco Rubio was just exposed as too afraid of his radical religious rightwing to tell the truth. How could such a coward ever honestly represent the United States against foreign enemies?

2) Then "Darwinian theory" has little or nothing to say about geology, and the age of the Earth. Darwin was publicly of the opinion that geology and the fossil record were too fragmented to be useful. When Lord Kelvin insisted that the Earth was no more than 100 million years old, Darwin agreed. It didn't matter how long evolution had taken- it had happened in what ever time was available.

3) Next, Mrs. Chatman denies there is "proof that the earth is that old." I am not a post-modernest "truth is all just what you believe kind'a guy." Nor do I subscribe to that idea that "nothing can be really known." We do have sufficient evidence that the Earth/Moon system resulted from the collision of two planetesimals just over 4.5 billion years ago that the counter claim must be able to overturn physics, chemistry, astronomy, and geology. This must be done without any reference to biblical passages, as Mrs. Chatman is pretending she is motivated by facts, not emotion, dreams, hallucinations, or revelations.

4) The "unproven assumptions" that Mrs. Chatman, and her YEC associates most object to are those which irrefutably demonstrated the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. These are the many radiometric dating methods. The single most important question is "Are Constants Constant?" which I answered at the linked post. The answer is yes they are constant, and have been constant for over six billion years.

5) Mrs. Chatman's hollow assertion that the science which proves the Earth is ancient require that, "there is no Intelligent Designer or Creator" is easily falsified. First there are many people who are "old earth" creationists. An American example is Huge Ross, president and CEO of "Reasons to Believe Ministry." But, an even larger population of old earth creationists are the billion Hindus around the world. Not only do they believe in an ancient earth, but they have even more gods on their side than Mrs. Chatman.

6) Finally, the only people who think that a scientific perspective is that all events "just accidentally occurred" are people without the least understanding of science. What is the single outstanding feature of all science? The thing that sets science apart from all other activities by humans?

Science makes predictions. And if those predictions do not come true, then that scientific theory is subject to serious revision, if not rejection. This is the total, 180 degree difference from "just accidentally occurred." Only an idiot would claim science relies merely on accidents. (Although, accidents do happen).

I had decided to limit the time I waste on Mrs. Chatman's foolishness. She seems to have no readers other than a few pro-science readers like myself. Her nonsense turns up in my news feed since I have it look for anything with "creationism" and a half-dozen other buzz words. So, I wanted to pick just one of the last 5 of her "evidences" to debunk. It was too hard to chose.

Item #5 of her "evidences" was about radiocarbon dating. There are five gross errors, and three minor errors. There was only one lonely true statement she made, radiocarbon is made in the upper atmosphere from nitrogen, and decays back to nitrogen. There is a qualification to even that: minor amounts of C14 are generated from neutron capture. I didn't even count this as an error.

Here is her claim:

5. Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old? NO! The sun's radiation hits the earth during the day. That energy is able to convert 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. The radio active carbon 14 eventually decays and turns back into nitrogen. Laboratory tests have shown that about half the C-14 molecules have a life of 5,730 years, and the remaining half will decay after another 5,730 years. Tests reveal that there is more C-14 now than there was 40 years ago. This proves that the earth is not even 30,000 years old and its atmosphere has not reached its equilibrium yet.

Her first gross error is particularly amusing because it was accidentally a true statement: "Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old? NO!"

Radiocarbon dating is theoretically limited to about 100,000 years. Technical limitations in our field conditions, and laboratory instruments reduce this to commonly reported dates between 50 and 60 thousands of years. So, even if we had perfect field conditions, and perfect laboratory measurement, we could only "prove" that the Earth was more than 100,000 years old- just 1/10 of a million. Even when Mrs. Chatman is right, she is wrong. Nobody ever has used radiocarbon dating to "prove the earth is millions of years old." That would be stupid.

Back in 1948 when the radiocarbon dating method was first proposed, the assumption was made by Willard Frank Libby that the production of C14 in the upper atmosphere would reach a break-even point with the decay of C14 back to nitrogen. This would have made radiocarbon dating a very tidy, and easy method to apply. However, nature is rarely tidy. Our sun is a variable star, so that the amount of solar radiation producing C14 in the upper atmosphere is also variable. This does lead to the first minor error, that 21 pounds of C14 are produced annually. The production of C14 is variable over the millennia. Then, there are physical, geochemical events that can store carbon, and release carbon. These can effect the available mix of C12, and C14 particularly in marine animals. This can under some conditions substantively change the radiocarbon age of an object. This was discovered in the 1960s, and the first calibrations were being published in the early 1970s. This means that for over 50 years we have known that the "equilibrium" of atmospheric C14 was meaningless. I wish creationists like Mrs. Chatman could catch-up with the rest of us.

The first calibrations were made by counting tree-rings, and taking measure of the amount of C14 in the wood of known age. Over the many years of work, we have a very solid calibration from dendrochronology for the last 12,000 years. The most recent calibration published just this month was "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kyr B.P." (Science 19 October 2012: 370-374. [DOI:10.1126/science.1226660} This research used the annually deposited algal, and sediment layers (varves) in a Japanese lake. Other calibrations have used trapped carbon in ice caps, and marine sediments, and cross-correlation with Uranium/Thorium decay. The measurement errors have been reduced to less than 5% of the age of the material.

Here is the single most stupid thing Mrs. Chatman wrote since I first encountered her many stupid claims, "The sun's radiation hits the earth during the day." The sun's radiation hits the earth somewhere all the time except for the tiny fraction of time our sun is eclipsed by the moon. Upper atmosphere circulation effectively mixes gasses including carbon dioxide loaded with C14. There isn't anything I can say that can make it any better.

Mrs. Chatman wrote that the half-life of C14 was known as, "... C-14 molecules have a life of 5,730 years, and the remaining half will decay after another 5,730 years." We have one minor error, and one gross error in these few words. Above average even for a creationist. The minor error (and I am being charitable) is that there are "C-14 molecules." C-14 is an isotope, and atom of carbon with an excess of neutrons making it radioactive. It is not a "molecule." The gross error is about what a half-life is. If we start with some amount of a radioactive isotope, X, the amount left after one half-life will be X/2. After a second half-life there will be X/4, or one half of that from before. Then after the next interval, there will be X/8 or one half of X/4.

And finally, we have the true but misunderstood statement that, "Tests reveal that there is more C-14 now than there was 40 years ago." There is a considerable excess of C14 over the amount generated by solar radiation currently circulating in biosphere. It was produced by the insanity of open atmospheric atomic weapons exploded between 1945 and 1963 when they were limited by international treaty (France continued until 1974 China continued until 1980). Increasing amounts of ancient C14 depleted carbon released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and by volcanic eruptions has not significantly diluted the atomic test C14 signal. The last gross error associated with Mrs. Chatman's lack of science reading skills is that this excess could possibly be confused as something that "proves that the earth is not even 30,000 years old."

Mrs. Chatman's items #2 and 3

Mrs. Chatman makes some very weird assertions. One that is outstandingly weird is;

"2. It is not known what light really is or if it travels the same speed through out time and space."

What light is, is really well known. It has been really well known for many decades. The scientific understanding of light is called electromagnetic theory. It is a central part of physics. Electromagnetic radiation ranges from the low of radio waves to the upper extreme of high energy gamma radiation. Light, limited to what we humans can typically see, falls in the frequency range of 380 nanometres to about 740 nm. For more information about the physics of light, read up on "photons."

We are also certain that the speed of light had been constant for over 6 billion years at a minimum. This isn't from theory, but from direct measurement. See my short item "Are constants constant?"

Mrs. Chatman's argument for a 6,000 year-old Earth and Universe item #3 seems to feature a brief, and not very well stated description of some parts of general relativity. There is her confusion about the differences between relativity, and quantum mechanics. That is easily forgiven since most people (even physicists) can be confused. What is totally missing is why these are an issue relevant to young earth creationism? I wonder if she just needed some fillers to get to "10 arguments." Maybe 10 is a magic number.