Your favorite ID/YEC 'science' paper?

[tas8831]

Haha, cool topic. It's neat that you found an actual paper that looks legitimate

Indeed - when it came out, it made headlines in ID/YECdom as PROOF that ID was a valid, research-bearing foundation.

Nope...

, but when I looked it up I noticed that it was a review article and not a paper describing any new experimental finding, methods, data, etc. It didn't see any explicit YEC conclusions in it, either, except maybe in the conclusion where he says, "In the hypothesis presented here, these organelles are literally tiny turbines that pump fluid through their triplet microtubule blades with a dynein-powered Archimedes’ screw located in their proximal lumens." Ok, you can say something looks like something else. Congrats?

Right? It was not 'research' at all!
It was classic 'this sorta looks designed tome, therefore, it WAS designed by Jeho- er, um, the Designer!'

I've noticed when looking through cited YEC "science" literature that it is generally:
1. Opinion pieces
2. Articles on philosophy (meaning at best it describes an untested scientific hypothesis)
3. Review articles like the one you listed, with some embedded personal interpretations (untested, of course)
4. Research articles entirely unrelated to YEC, but where if they squint really hard they can say it has elements consistent with some of their beliefs
5. Legal analyses (or legal whining) about strategies for describing YEC as science without violating the Establishment Clause

I haven't looked recently, but I have yet to see an actual YEC science article with the format:
1. Here is our YEC conceptual model to describe reality, which...
2. Based on our model, predicts that if we run this new experiment that no one has done before, we will see this specific data...
3. Then, a description of that experiment being run, and...
4. Verification of their prediction based on the resulting data...
5. And a discussion about why this data supports the YEC model to the exclusion of all other existing scientific models.

That kind of article is what would have a chance to sway the scientific consensus. And it's what they can never produce.

EXACTLY.

 

[firedragon]

I've noticed when looking through cited YEC "science" literature that it is generally:
1. Opinion pieces
2. Articles on philosophy (meaning at best it describes an untested scientific hypothesis)
3. Review articles like the one you listed, with some embedded personal interpretations (untested, of course)
4. Research articles entirely unrelated to YEC, but where if they squint really hard they can say it has elements consistent with some of their beliefs
5. Legal analyses (or legal whining) about strategies for describing YEC as science without violating the Establishment Clause

Can you please direct me to a YEC "science" literature that you think is probably the best written? Maybe you think none of them are good, but at least something may have some recognition somewhere.

I would like to read up on this. Thanks in advance.

 

[viole]

There are so many to choose from. These poor guys try so hard to make their target audience think that there is actually scientific support of ID/creationism, but... there really isn't. Certainly if we are to take the current crop of IDC 'scientists' output, then there is nothing but hot air and wishful thinking (and, of course, the requisite dishonesty/incompetence).

Looking through some old threads, I was reminded of this post of mine, a great example of creation science:

Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force?


Wells, J.
Abstract
A microtubule-dependent polar ejection force that pushes chromosomes away from spindle poles during prometaphase is observed in animal cells but not in the cells of higher plants. Elongating microtubules and kinesin-like motor molecules have been proposed as possible causes, but neither accounts for all the data. In the hypothesis proposed here a polar ejection force is generated by centrioles, which are found in animals but not in higher plants. Centrioles consist of nine microtubule triplets arranged like the blades of a tiny turbine. Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes that they are holistically designed to be turbines. Orthogonally oriented centriolar turbines could generate oscillations in spindle microtubules that resemble the motion produced by a laboratory vortexer. The result would be a microtubule-mediated ejection force tending to move chromosomes away from the spindle axis and the poles. A rise in intracellular calcium at the onset of anaphase could regulate the polar ejection force by shutting down the centriolar turbines, but defective regulation could result in an excessive force that contributes to the chromosomal instability characteristic of most cancer cells.​

That is, they look like turbines, therefore they ARE turbines, therefore Jesus.

He never tested his hypothesis. This is because there is no polar ejection force - not the naïve kind that Wells' pretends. The polar ejection force is, as we have known for some time, produced by the shortening of microtubules:

"Motion analysis also allowed us to measure the magnitude of the polar ejection force exerted on chromosome arms during metaphase by individual microtubules."

Not by the spinning like a turbine of the centrioles. Wells should have paid more attention to his instructors at Berkeley than to Father Moon.

YEC Papers? Can they write?

ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are so many to choose from. These poor guys try so hard to make their target audience think that there is actually scientific support of ID/creationism, but... there really isn't. Certainly if we are to take the current crop of IDC 'scientists' output, then there is nothing but hot air and wishful thinking (and, of course, the requisite dishonesty/incompetence).

I have to say that my favourite ID paper is Kent Hovind's PhD dissertation.

... but rather than read it yourself, why not listen to Irreligiosophy's commentary on it? 47: Kent Hovind’s “Dissertation” | Irreligiosophy

 

[Heyo]

Really? If it's valid then he's right. Some people have to be more evolved than others.

Nope. Not only are all people equally evolved but so is anything living. We all have evolved for about 3.8 billion years.

 

[tas8831]

My favorite evolution writings are Darwin's hating on aboriginals because they are obviously less evolved species according to him.

Unable to stay on topic, the plagiarist just engages in some Trump-like ranting..

What about this where a YEC uses Scripture to justify his race-hate:

"As he knew the characters of his own sons, he could foresee that their respective descendants would be characterised chiefly by religious zeal (Shem), mental acumen (Japheth) and materialistic drives (Ham).) [p 128]

The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham’s descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth’s “coloured” races, – yellow, red, brown, and black – essentially the Afro-nation group of peoples, including the American Indians – are most likely to be Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity. [p 129]

Truly they have been ‘servants’ of mankind in a most amazing way. Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilised them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a racial character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.…. The prophecy would be inevitably fulfilled because of the innate nature of the three racial stocks, not by virtue of any artificial constraints imposed by man.” [p 130]

- The Beginning of the World: A Scientific Study of Genesis 1-11
by Dr. Henry Morris​

 

[tas8831]

I have copies of 'Refuting Evolution' by Safarti and 'Defeating Darwinism' by Johnson.

Both are classic in their false portrayals of what the theory of evolution says and misquoting of the scientists.

I have Sarfati;s garbage, as well as Wells' :Icons..." I read 'Defeating; many years ago, and I can only remember two things - that Phil admitted he was a layman on the subject, and that he horrifically misrepresented several aspects of evolution evidence.

 

[tas8831]

Ehhh... "less evolved" isn't really how evolution works, but which writings are you referring to? Maybe you could post some links? I know that in those days, a large portion of people believed that different races had different levels of intellect, and I wonder if Darwin also thought this way. This is something not often discussed, so I'd like to know more about it. Links please!

He is likely referring a classic out of context quote of Darwin that dishonest YECs like to use (especially the ones that have never read his work) in which he 'predicts' what will happen to such folk. He is not endorsin it, however..

Darwin did write this, however:

“It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant.”

“This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.”

“He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. …and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers.”

-C. Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871​

Funny that no YEC sources quote any of that.

If you've not seen it, al of Darwin's work is available online in searchable forms here:

Darwin Online

I have provided that a dozen times to YECs. I doubt any have used it.

 

[tas8831]

"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
Charles Darwin

Cool how creationists copy-paste that quote.

Same source:


“It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant.”

“This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.”

“He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. …and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers.”

-C. Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871

At least Darwin had 'an excuse' - living in the mid 1800s. Creationist Christian evangelical minister Henry Morris, not so much.

From 1991:

"As he knew the characters of his own sons, he could foresee that their respective descendants would be characterised chiefly by religious zeal (Shem), mental acumen (Japheth) and materialistic drives (Ham).) [p 128]
The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham’s descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth’s “coloured” races, – yellow, red, brown, and black – essentially the Afro-nation group of peoples, including the American Indians – are most likely to be Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity. [p 129]
Truly they have been ‘servants’ of mankind in a most amazing way. Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilised them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a racial character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.… The prophecy would be inevitably fulfilled because of the innate nature of the three racial stocks, not by virtue of any artificial constraints imposed by man.” [p 130]
- The Beginning of the World: A Scientific Study of Genesis 1-11
by Dr. Henry Morris​

 

[tas8831]

So Darwin gets a pass, but those Southern conservatives don't?

Are you familiar with the concept of 'apples and oranges'?

Darwin did not advocate slavery like your Christian folk did:

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."​

from The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, the 'great' state of slavery/racism Texas.

A shame that Christian creationists are not nearly as well-read as they pretend to be. Then again, copy=pasting doesn't really count as 'reading' as such.

 

[tas8831]

I have to say that my favourite ID paper is Kent Hovind's PhD dissertation.

... but rather than read it yourself, why not listen to Irreligiosophy's commentary on it? 47: Kent Hovind’s “Dissertation” | Irreligiosophy

The one that starts "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind."??

 

[tas8831]

How about someone like Jerry Fodor? Recognising that you dismiss anything written by any theist because they are simply theists I ask you.

Fodor is a philosopher not a scientist. His book was a philosophical treatise, his 'science' was laughable.
Jerry Fodor: Still getting it wrong about evolution

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The one that starts "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind."??

That's the one!

 

[firedragon]

Fodor is a philosopher not a scientist. His book was a philosophical treatise, his 'science' was laughable.
Jerry Fodor: Still getting it wrong about evolution

So another genetic fallacy.

 

[tas8831]

So another genetic fallacy.

No, his science was crappy. That can be explained/understood by the fact that he is a philosopher, not a scientist.

 

[tas8831]

But now that you brought this up, maybe I should read up a bit. May I request you to kindly recommend the paper which you think is the most sophisticated "YEC science paper" as you put it or a book? I will be really grateful.

Thank you.

Well... that is sort of the problem. Most are not at all sophisticated, and those that sort of are are almost always just attacking evolution, not actually doing anything "positive". Which is why I mention the Wells' paper. It looks like real science, and it sort of is, at least in part. But he never follows through. Anyone can make hypotheses, which is what Wells did. But it was already 'disproved' before he even made it (information is out there about what goes on during mitosis, to include things like real-time microscopy. He ignored all that in favor of his pro-IDC 'hypothesis.'
I guess other than that, Jeff Tomkins does some 'real' science, though he has been "outed" as one prone to ignore data that doesn't fit his narrative, and to have 'rigged' analyses to get numbers that fit his notions (and to be sure, he only does anti-evolution stuff, never any attempts to research 'creation.). See his antics discussed here and here, for just 2 examples.

20+ years ago, a group of YECs and supposedly non-YED allies (like von Sternberg) put out a series of real science papers (real as in how they went about things) exploring 'baraminology', the creationist answer to phylogenetics (looking at how creatures are related via descent). They used standard phylogenetics software and the whole deal. The problem was, they started out with the notion that humans are definitely not related via descent to any other creations - they called this the "Scriptural criterion", which no actual data or analyses were allowed to violate or supersede. So when their analyses using objective data like chromosomal banding data, DNA sequence data, etc. darn it just kept lumping humans with apes - even when they constrained the programs not to do so (so strong is the biological "attraction" between them), they decided to employ non-objective criteria, such as whether or not the taxa built their own dwellings, or the extent of monogamy they engaged in, or the population density of their societies, etc. Really silly and desperate stuff. And when even that didn't work, the Scriptural criterion was invoked. But they tried so hard.... An overview of the field is here.

 

[firedragon]

No, his science was crappy. That can be explained/understood by the fact that he is a philosopher, not a scientist. So more desperation from you.

Genetic fallacy.

How about Jeffrey Scwartz?

 

[firedragon]

Well... that is sort of the problem. Most are not at all sophisticated, and those that sort of are are almost always just attacking evolution, not actually doing anything "positive". Which is why I mention the Wells' paper. It looks like real science, and it sort of is, at least in part. But he never follows through. Anyone can make hypotheses, which is what Wells did. But it was already 'disproved' before he even made it (information is out there about what goes on during mitosis, to include things like real-time microscopy. He ignored all that in favor of his pro-IDC 'hypothesis.'
I guess other than that, Jeff Tomkins does some 'real' science, though he has been "outed" as one prone to ignore data that doesn't fit his narrative, and to have 'rigged' analyses to get numbers that fit his notions (and to be sure, he only does anti-evolution stuff, never any attempts to research 'creation.). See his antics discussed here and here, for just 2 examples.

20+ years ago, a group of YECs and supposedly non-YED allies (like von Sternberg) put out a series of real science papers (real as in how they went about things) exploring 'baraminology', the creationist answer to phylogenetics (looking at how creatures are related via descent). They used standard phylogenetics software and the whole deal. The problem was, they started out with the notion that humans are definitely not related via descent to any other creations - they called this the "Scriptural criterion", which no actual data or analyses were allowed to violate or supersede. So when their analyses using objective data like chromosomal banding data, DNA sequence data, etc. darn it just kept lumping humans with apes - even when they constrained the programs not to do so (so strong is the biological "attraction" between them), they decided to employ non-objective criteria, such as whether or not the taxa built their own dwellings, or the extent of monogamy they engaged in, or the population density of their societies, etc. Really silly and desperate stuff. And when even that didn't work, the Scriptural criterion was invoked. But they tried so hard.... An overview of the field is here.

Baraminology? As in genesis? Already sounds dicy and cliche.

 

[tas8831]

@firedragon - here is another (re:Tompkins) . Most interesting to note that after the initial post and one response, the author was blocked from responding to Tomkins' "rebuttal". I am shocked the the creationists allowed Ace's lengthy, detailed take-down to remain in the first place.

 

[tas8831]

Genetic fallacy.

I see you don't know your fallacies. His science was debunked. Not a fallacy. The explanation for his crappy science may be the fact that he is not a scientist,. That is not a genetic fallacy. But creationists do so love to make such accusations when they have nothing of merit to offer.

How about Jeffrey Scwartz?

What about him? He is not a creationist, he just won't give up his pet notion that orangs are more closely related to humans than chimps are, and has gone so far as to attack an author (who had been killed in a terrorist attack), accusing him of fraud. Well, it was his co-author and lab tech, Grehan, but still. That is pretty sleazy.