News Is Creationism Gaining Support in Congress?

[SixNein]

That guy, together with the "women have a way to deal with rape" guy, are members of the so-called committee of space, science and technology?

The US is doomed...

http://science.house.gov/about/membership

My favorite quote from Ralph Hall on the science committee:

NJ: Do you think climate change is causing the Earth to become warmer?

Hall: I can't say it doesn't have a percentage of effects on it - one percent, three percent, five percent. But I don't think it's the cause. I don't think we can control what God controls.

Sigh...

 

[Angry Citizen]

And that, my friends, is why the Republicans have no business in politics. We need a separation of church and state amendment that bars even the mention of God in politics.

 

[CAC1001]

Astronomers are as sure the universe started in a big bang as doctors are sure that HIV causes AIDS. It's a bit of a stretch to say that the universe started exactly with "let there be light." The universe started with "let's be in a hot, dense state" if anything.

I would dispute that there's any way scientists can be 100% sure that the universe started with the Big Bang in the way they are sure that HIV causes AIDS. These guys were not around back when the universe started. It's a theory. It's a very good theory and one with a lot of evidence that makes a large amount of sense, but still a theory. Look at what happened in 1998, when the astronomy and physics community were rocked when two independent teams inadverdently found that the universe is continuing to expand, and expand faster and faster, which up until then if one had said this, they'd have been going against most of the astronomical community. This told astronomers that they actually know a lot less about the universe then what they thought they did (it's only the UNIVERSE for crying out loud).

 

[Jack21222]

I would dispute that there's any way scientists can be 100% sure that the universe started with the Big Bang in the way they are sure that HIV causes AIDS.

Dispute it all you want, you'd be wrong. There are some fringe scientists who still believe in the steady state theory of the universe just like there are some fringe scientists who deny HIV causes AIDS. I wouldn't claim that either is known 100%, but it's known so close to 100% that denying it would be crazy.

Every piece of evidence we've ever found points to the universe beginning in a hot dense state. Astronomers have considered the case where there is no big bang, and observations rule it out by so many standard deviations that you might as well call it a 0% chance that there was no big bang.

It's a graph of Omega_m vs Omega_Lambda, let me try to find one...

Image from lbl.gov, the Lawrence Berkeley Lab. Our universe is in the intersection of those red and blue curves. You can see the "no big bang" case far up and to the left. It's been ruled out by observation.

Argument from incredulity is no argument at all.

On one hand, this is a bit off topic, but on the other hand, logical fallacies like argument from incredulity are some of the tools that congresspeople use to dismiss science.

 

[CAC1001]

Dispute it all you want, you'd be wrong. There are some fringe scientists who still believe in the steady state theory of the universe just like there are some fringe scientists who deny HIV causes AIDS. I wouldn't claim that either is known 100%, but it's known so close to 100% that denying it would be crazy.

Every piece of evidence we've ever found points to the universe beginning in a hot dense state. Astronomers have considered the case where there is no big bang, and observations rule it out by so many standard deviations that you might as well call it a 0% chance that there was no big bang.

It's a graph of Omega_m vs Omega_Lambda, let me try to find one...

Image from lbl.gov, the Lawrence Berkeley Lab. Our universe is in the intersection of those red and blue curves. You can see the "no big bang" case far up and to the left. It's been ruled out by observation.

Argument from incredulity is no argument at all.

On one hand, this is a bit off topic, but on the other hand, logical fallacies like argument from incredulity are some of the tools that congresspeople use to dismiss science.

Not arguing from incredulity here. The evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming. But with something like the universe, while we can be 99.99% sure about something regarding it, no one can be 100% sure is my point as no one was around back then to observe it. There is always the small chance that there is something missing that can pop up and change people's understanding around.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think that guy took a time machine here from the dark ages.

 

[daveb]

Whether he was being disingenuous and pandering to his constituents (though why I can't fathom since the article said he was running unopposed), or actually believed it is neither here nor there. I have a friend with a degree in biochem, specializing in microbiology, and she completely rejects evolution and says the Earth was created almost 7000 years ago in 6 days. So the idea that he has an MD and rejects evolution isn't all that odd. Tipler believes he has mathematically proven the existence of life after death, so it's not uncommon for otherwise well educated scientists to hold unscientific views.

The problem occurs when those views are used to set science policy. I haven't seen any evidence that it has (though I'm sure his views have been used to set policy - I just haven't found evidence yet). Anyone find any links that say this?

 

[Ken Natton]

Well there is another possibility. There is a school of thought that in some ways is more consistent than most of the anti-evolutionary arguments, that does not necessarily deny the science but holds that it is sinful even to make scientific enquiry. We should not presume to poke out noses into Gods affairs and should just accept the word of God as given to us in the bible, this view holds. Of course there is an inconsistency in holding that view and yet being prepared to enjoy other fruits of human technology. But just leaving that aside for a moment, it is the only argument I can perceive that has any basis on which to object to embryology, because, while the arguments that evolution is not testable are actually false, patently embryology is perfectly observable in action. The fact that it offers such powerful evidence in support of evolution might indicate why it is despised by anti-evolutionists, but they have to know that they are walking right into an unavoidable trap if they try to build any logical argument against it. Of course, this congressman was not building any logical arguments, he was offering only bluster and white noise. But somewhere in his heart, he must know that what he is saying is just so much nonsense.

 

[Jack21222]

while we can be 99.99% sure about something regarding it

We are much more than 99.99% sure. To characterize it as only 99.99% is to be disingenuous. Observations have ruled out a "no big bang" case to much more than the 3.8 sigma you're suggesting.

 

[CAC1001]

We are much more than 99.99% sure. To characterize it as only 99.99% is to be disingenuous. Observations have ruled out a "no big bang" case to much more than the 3.8 sigma you're suggesting.

I understand what you are saying, but when dealing with something as mysterious and complex as the universe, no one can ever be 100% sure about something such as the beginning of the universe. If you were to time travel 100 years into the future, and look into astronomy research, you might find quite a few things that astronomers and physicists right now think they are certain about that they turned out to be wrong about.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There is a school of thought that in some ways is more consistent than most of the anti-evolutionary arguments, that does not necessarily deny the science but holds that it is sinful even to make scientific enquiry. We should not presume to poke out noses into Gods affairs and should just accept the word of God as given to us in the bible, this view holds.

The kosher laws in the old testiment make it impossible to to forego scientific inquiry. For example, it is forbidden to eat fish that don't have scales. Birds, of course, do not have scales and yet are edible. Why shouldn't they be, birds aren't fish. As you can easily tell just by looking. That is to say, by scientific enquiry.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

What I want to know is what God was doing before he made the universe. Genesis says "In the beginning..," but God must have existed before the beginning in order that he could begin the beginning. So what was God supposed to have been doing before beginning the beginning?

 

[rootX]

What I want to know is what God was doing before he made the world. Genesis says "In the beginning..," but God must have existed before the beginning in order that he could begin the beginning. So what was God supposed to have been doing before the beginning?

Some religions say God creates and destroys universes. So, he must be busy with universes that existed before ours. But, it's an interesting question where all this began.

I wonder if someone can answer it but I am satisfied with some questions left unanswered.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Some religions say God creates and destroys universes. So, he must be busy with universes that existed before ours. But, it's an interesting question where all this began.

I wonder if someone can answer it but I am satisfied with some questions left unanswered.

Well, if there are an infinite number of universes being created and destroyed, then we don't need a beginning, so Genesis must be wrong.

Second question. Christians (or at least Roman Catholics) believe that Jesus was the product of an "Immaculate Conception" but a conception nonetheless. Therefore he must have been an embryo at one time. What might the good Congressman think about that?

EDIT: I suppose Genesis is just referring to our universe. But if God is infinite and eternal, as I think most Christians would believe, then the mere creation of one universe out of an infinite number would hardly be worth mentioning, would it?

Then again, this is supposed to have happened only 9,000 years ago, so maybe it's relevant to our history: Creation, some ice, some arrowheads, some cave paintings, some mammoths, then agriculture and before you know it the Pyramids and the Tower of Babel. (Lies put some of this stuff earlier than 7000 BC). I'm not sure about things like the dinosaurs and trilobites. Those fossils must have been put there by the devil.

 

[leroyjenkens]

What I want to know is what God was doing before he made the universe. Genesis says "In the beginning..," but God must have existed before the beginning in order that he could begin the beginning. So what was God supposed to have been doing before beginning the beginning?

Just sitting around doing nothing. You know, kinda like what he's doing right now.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Just sitting around doing nothing. You know, kinda like what he's doing right now.

No! No! We can't have that! Idleness is a sin. Read my last post (and the quote of rootX) above. (#44)

 

[SixNein]

I would dispute that there's any way scientists can be 100% sure that the universe started with the Big Bang in the way they are sure that HIV causes AIDS. These guys were not around back when the universe started. It's a theory. It's a very good theory and one with a lot of evidence that makes a large amount of sense, but still a theory. Look at what happened in 1998, when the astronomy and physics community were rocked when two independent teams inadverdently found that the universe is continuing to expand, and expand faster and faster, which up until then if one had said this, they'd have been going against most of the astronomical community. This told astronomers that they actually know a lot less about the universe then what they thought they did (it's only the UNIVERSE for crying out loud).

I could proclaim: It's just a theory that you exist.

Substitute theory for: The best possible explanation provided by the current accumulation of evidence.

 

[phinds]

I understand what you are saying, but when dealing with something as mysterious and complex as the universe, no one can ever be 100% sure about something such as the beginning of the universe.

You misunderstand the Big Bang theory. It is totally agnostic (has no comment about) how the universe BEGAN. It is all about what happened starting at one Plank time AFTER the singularity (whatever that was) occurred. You can argue all you want about what the singularity is (which is what I think your arguemnt really is about) but arguing against the Big Bang theory is just foolish.

Your misconception about what "Big Bang" means is VERY widespread, since it certainly SOUNDS like it means an explosion that started everthing.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I could proclaim: It's just a theory that you exist.

Substitute theory for: The best possible explanation provided by the current accumulation of evidence.

Personally, I don't think God did such a great job with our universe. It seems to be coming apart.

 

[BobG]

Well, if there are an infinite number of universes being created and destroyed, then we don't need a beginning, so Genesis must be wrong.

Second question. Christians (or at least Roman Catholics) believe that Jesus was the product of an "Immaculate Conception" but a conception nonetheless. Therefore he must have been an embryo at one time. What might the good Congressman think about that?

EDIT: I suppose Genesis is just referring to our universe. But if God is infinite and eternal, as I think most Christians would believe, then the mere creation of one universe out of an infinite number would hardly be worth mentioning, would it?

Then again, this is supposed to have happened only 9,000 years ago, so maybe it's relevant to our history: Creation, some ice, some arrowheads, some cave paintings, some mammoths, then agriculture and before you know it the Pyramids and the Tower of Babel. (Lies put some of this stuff earlier than 7000 BC). I'm not sure about things like the dinosaurs and trilobites. Those fossils must have been put there by the devil.

You're mixing at least two different religions together (and maybe more) that don't necessarily have the same beliefs and at least one (Catholic) that doesn't apply to the Congressman.

I'm not exactly sure how his church views Mary, but the semi-deification of Mary was one of the reasons Protestants split away from the Catholic church. On the other hand, he would be more likely to take a literal view of the Bible than Catholics would.

Aside from that, even if there were an infinite number of universes, ours would be worth mentioning to us. It's only the others that wouldn't be worth mentioning. With over 6 billion people in the world, your life is hardly worth mentioning to the vast majority, but you probably find it worth mentioning to your friends family.

 

[daveb]

What I want to know is what God was doing before he made the universe. Genesis says "In the beginning..," but God must have existed before the beginning in order that he could begin the beginning. So what was God supposed to have been doing before beginning the beginning?

It's the beginning. When a plan goes wrong, you go back to the beginning. So he's waiting for Vizzini.

 

[ImaLooser]

He calls evolution a lie from the "pit of hell", not to mention embryology and the Big Bang theory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121006/us-congressman-creationism/

If he doesn't like evolution, he doesn't have to participate.

 

[lisab]

If he doesn't like evolution, he doesn't have to participate.

+1

nice

 

[AlephZero]

I think the problem here is not so much that you don't like non-scentific congresspersons, but that you don't like representative democracy.

If about 40% of the population of a country believe in a literal interpretation of a holy book, then it seems entirely reasonable to me that 40% of thir elected representatives should believe the same as the people they represent

 

[Oltz]

Alpha +1

The desire to denigrate those you disagree with is always interesting to me and quite "anti-science" as we all know science is about disagreement and further research to better support ones hypothesis or create a better one.

For the record many Christians accept evolution as the tool used by god in creation. I personally have no idea how long a day is to god but understand the need to put it into terms humans would understand in a book made for out consumption. I currently see no scientific theory that is a contradiction of my faith or my profession as a geologist.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Alpha +1

The desire to denigrate those you disagree with is always interesting to me and quite "anti-science" as we all know science is about disagreement and further research to better support ones hypothesis or create a better one.

For the record many Christians accept evolution as the tool used by god in creation. I personally have no idea how long a day is to god but understand the need to put it into terms humans would understand in a book made for out consumption. I currently see no scientific theory that is a contradiction of my faith or my profession as a geologist.

I'm very specifically mocking the stated extreme anti-scientific views of this Congressman. This is a scientific forum and I will mock or disparage (within the rules of this forum) the publically stated irrational beliefs of those who are elected to govern us. That's my right as much as it is the right of those who would vote for such a person to vote as they choose.

 

[lisab]

I'm very specifically mocking the stated extreme anti-scientific views of this Congressman. This is a scientific forum and I will mock or disparage (within the rules of this forum) the publically stated irrational beliefs of those who are elected to govern us. That's my right as much as it is the right of those who would vote for such a person to vote as they choose.

Thanks for clarifying your stance, SW.

Disparaging beliefs or decisions is one thing - we can't make it personal, though. Remember, some may prefer reason-based decisions, others are quite comfortable with faith-based decisions. That's just reality.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think the problem here is not so much that you don't like non-scentific congresspersons, but that you don't like representative democracy.

If about 40% of the population of a country believe in a literal interpretation of a holy book, then it seems entirely reasonable to me that 40% of thir elected representatives should believe the same as the people they represent

Two points: firstly criticism of elected government is not synonymous at all with criticism of the governmental system in question. Secondly you are confusing representative democracy with proportional representation voting which are very different things. The United States government is a representative democracy that utilises electoral district voting for elections. Because of this it is very unlikely that the proportion of votes for a party matches their proportion of the seats.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

You're mixing at least two different religions together (and maybe more) that don't necessarily have the same beliefs and at least one (Catholic) that doesn't apply to the Congressman.

I'm not exactly sure how his church views Mary, but the semi-deification of Mary was one of the reasons Protestants split away from the Catholic church. On the other hand, he would be more likely to take a literal view of the Bible than Catholics would.

Aside from that, even if there were an infinite number of universes, ours would be worth mentioning to us. It's only the others that wouldn't be worth mentioning. With over 6 billion people in the world, your life is hardly worth mentioning to the vast majority, but you probably find it worth mentioning to your friends family.

I agree. I should have been more precise and not given the impression of conflating the different faiths. The Roman Catholic stance is more progressive and does not deny evolution or the Big Bang. As regards embryology, the Vatican considers the human embryo as sacred and therefore opposes the use of oral contraceptives.

In my post, I did say we have a legitimate interest in the beginning of our universe, especially from a fundamentalist perspective which holds the beginning was quite recent compared to the evidence based scientific view.

 

[CAC1001]

I could proclaim: It's just a theory that you exist.

Substitute theory for: The best possible explanation provided by the current accumulation of evidence.

Except that you can know for a fact a person exists as you can actually see them.

You misunderstand the Big Bang theory. It is totally agnostic (has no comment about) how the universe BEGAN. It is all about what happened starting at one Plank time AFTER the singularity (whatever that was) occurred. You can argue all you want about what the singularity is (which is what I think your arguemnt really is about) but arguing against the Big Bang theory is just foolish.

Not arguing against it at all, I'm just pointing out that no one can say with 100% certainty that that is how things occurred. All the evidence we have points in that direction. But just because there aren't any logical alternatives doesn't mean an alternative doesn't exist, as not all of the universe functions according to logic. Look at the laws of physics. Some of it flat-out doesn't make sense and is almost mystical, and very illogical, but yet it is reality. There could be an alternative explanation regarding the universe that we can't even comprehend with our current brains.

Sure, based on what we know and can observe, the Big Bang makes great sense, but what if there are aspects about the universe that we cannot observe yet, that we cannot even comprehend, that change things around? It's like trying to visualize more than three dimensions. Just because the brain can't do it doesn't mean they don't exist.

I am not at all dismissing the Big Bang, but I think when talking about the state of the universe 13+ billion Earth years ago, that there's the slight chance we could be wrong about something. From what I understand, no astronomer or physicist claims the Big Bang theory is 100% accurate, just that it is the most accurate theory we have right now. The original Big Bang theory had some problems. One theory that was devised that seems to solve a lot of these problems is inflation. Andrei Linde, one of the experts on inflation, said about it, "Inflation hasn't won the race, but so far it's the only horse."

Your misconception about what "Big Bang" means is VERY widespread, since it certainly SOUNDS like it means an explosion that started everthing.

That's not a misconception I have, although I can see that I gave that impression from what I wrote. By "beginning of the universe," I meant the belief that the universe was very compressed in the past and then expanded outwards very quickly. But I am aware that the Big Bang doesn't deal with the beginning (as in the literal creation) of the universe itself.