Support NeoGAF

[Dead Man]

Source: BBC

It is one of the great questions of the past 150 years.

Did God or evolution drive the emergence of life in all its resplendent variety?

This blog, the US education system, and even American politics have to a degree all become dominated by the debate at various times, which goes to the heart of our world view and our ideas of where we, and all other forms of life, came from.

But I’ve just come across an intriguing piece of research that may, to coin a phrase, put an evolutionary cat among the believing flock of creation scientists, many of whom believe in the literal account of Genesis.

One scientist has decided to use creation science to test the validity of evolution.

Because, he says, if it turns out that creation science proves evolution, then by its own logic, it will have to reject its own canon of research that previously denied it.

It’s a clever idea, because it once again puts evidence, rather than faith, at the centre of the debate.

Biologist Phil Senter of the Fayette State University in North Carolina, US, has published the second of two papers that uses creation science techniques to examine the fossil record.

In the first, published in 2010, he used a technique called classic multidimensional scaling (CMDS) to evaluate the appearance of coelurosaurian dinosaurs over geological time.

That long, detailed paper was published in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, and you can read the abstract.

CMDS is derived from a branch of creation science called baraminology, which classifies organisms according to a creationist framework. Animals fall into types, or baramins, which were created independently, but have diversified since.

So cats, for example, are a single baramin or type of animal, that was created once by God, and have since diversified into those we see today (including lions, tigers, house cats etc).

Dr Senter has no real issue with the methodology – as he points out in the 2010 paper, mathematics has no creed.

But he argues that if CMDS shows that dinosaurs do show transitional forms, and are in fact genetically related to each other, then creationists are in a bit of a bind.

Either they must accept that to be true, and therefore contradict their own position that these groups appeared without evolution. Or they must throw out the assertion, but also reject their own methodology, which they have used to validate their creationist claims.

Dr Senter’s 2010 study, did of course, show that coelurosaurian dinosaurs are related, in particular that tyrannosaurs (to which T. rex belongs) form a continuous group with other dinosaurs belonging to a group called the Compsognathidae.

It also showed that one of the most famous animal fossils of all, Archaeopteryx, which has the appearance of a transitional form between birds and reptiles, is also morphologically closely related to other dinosaurs.

In a study published this week in the Journal of Evolution, he shows how another creationist science method, a baraminological technique called taxon correlation, also shows enough morphological continuity between dinosaurs to prove, by creationist standards, that dinosaurs are genetically related.

If you read that abstract, it shows that a continuous morphological spectrum unites the basal members of a range of dinosaur groups including the Saurischia, Theropoda, Sauropodomorpha, Ornithischia and Thyreophora.

Within these groups are the dinosaurs familiar to most of us: the huge sauropods, the bird-like theropods such as Velicoraptor depicted in Jurassic Park and so-called bird-hipped dinosaurs such as the three-horned Triceratops.

The full paper is 20 pages long, and its conclusions will make for uncomfortable reading for creationists embracing an evidence-based approach to make their case.

Even some of Dr Senter’s results, which at first glance, may give succour to creationists, actually create new problems for them, he says.

For example, it shows that dinosaurs can be grouped into eight kinds, or baramins.

That is helpful to creationists. Many creationist scholars answered the problem of how so many pairs of gigantic dinosaurs fitted onto Noah’s Ark by saying there were only 50 “kinds”, and therefore only 100 animals were carried on the Ark. If only eight “kinds” existed, then there’s even more room on the Ark for all the other life forms that needed sanctuary.

But if just eight “kinds” of dinosaur existed, then that means that ever more types of dinosaur have to fit into each group, or baramin, that creationists believe was directly created by God. Which means of course, that somehow, in just a few thousand years, each “kind” of dinosaur begat the huge variation in fossils we see today.

It is reminiscent of evolution, just even faster paced.

Dr Senter points out that creationists' room for manoeuvre, when citing the evidence, continues to diminish.

Since 1990, Dr Senter says that at least 13 transitional fossils have been found that do bridge the morphological gaps between groups of dinosaurs that creationists once held were independently created.

Nothing like a nice scientific reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Dice]

Religious people stop embarrassing me.

 

[Witchfinder General]

Aaaaaah! Why does evolution have to go through this clap-trap? You don't see gravity put through this.

Actually, I know full well why evolution gets targeted I'm just sick of it.

 

[Ushojax]

Creationist makes fool of self, news at eleven.

You won't ever get a group of people who think the first female human was created from a single male rib to think evolution is true.

 

[Raist]

Oh snap.

Someone contact Hovind & Co. about this. Fun times ahead.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Why would you need fairytales to prove science?

 

[slidewinder]

Actually, I know full well why evolution gets targeted I'm just sick of it.

Your vehement intolerance has been noted and will be duly scorned.

 

[Dead Man]

Creationist makes fool of self, news at eleven.

You won't ever get a group of people who think the first female human was created from a single male rib to think evolution is true.

Maybe not the rank and file, but if the 'science' of Creationism can be destroyed, there won't be so much publicity to baffle open minded but unsure people. Maybe. At least it's better than ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

"That is helpful to creationists. Many creationist scholars answered the problem of how so many pairs of gigantic dinosaurs fitted onto Noah’s Ark by saying there were only 50 “kinds”, and therefore only 100 animals were carried on the Ark. If only eight “kinds” existed, then there’s even more room on the Ark for all the other life forms that needed sanctuary."

It boggles my mind that people actually believe this. I mean, I can somewhat understand theistic claims in a broader sense, but a literal interpretation of the bible given what we understand is just...

 

[operon]

Maybe not the rank and file, but if the 'science' of Creationism can be destroyed, there won't be so much publicity to baffle open minded but unsure people. Maybe. At least it's better than ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

Problem is no matter how much you show people that something is wrong or rubbish they ignore it. Hence why you have people who believe this, with homeopathy and why lots of people won't get their children the mmr vaccine because of one lot of discreditted research

 

[Orayn]

Omphalism 2: Batshit Apologetics + Faulty Assumptions Boogaloo

 

[Zaptruder]

Maybe not the rank and file, but if the 'science' of Creationism can be destroyed, there won't be so much publicity to baffle open minded but unsure people. Maybe. At least it's better than ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

People unsure are simply people that don't understand the methodology and importance of the scientific method and become torn on who to listen to (i.e. they can't tell between charlatan and professor).

It follows (I mean, I'd elucidate, but I can't be assed) that education... particularly education in a broad swathe of general knowledge as well as knowledge that helps you refine more knowledge (i.e. critical/free thinking) is not just important, but a moral imperative for society as a whole.

 

[Dead Man]

Problem is no matter how much you show people that something is wrong or rubbish they ignore it. Hence why you have people who believe this, with homeopathy and why lots of people won't get their children the mmr vaccine because of one lot of discreditted research

Yeah, you probably will never change those minds that are made up, but you can diminish the influence of bad ideas on subsequent generations. I think there will be a better uptake on MMR for instance, as it becomes more common knowledge the scare was based on fraud.

People unsure are simply people that don't understand the methodology and importance of the scientific method and become torn on who to listen to (i.e. they can't tell between charlatan and professor).

It follows (I mean, I'd elucidate, but I can't be assed) that education... particularly education in a broad swathe of general knowledge as well as knowledge that helps you refine more knowledge (i.e. critical/free thinking) is not just important, but a moral imperative for society as a whole.

Carl Sagan talked about that a lot in Demon Haunted World. About a guy who wanted to talk to him about science and then started talking about crystals or something. Lots of people want to learn, they just don't have the basic tools to differentiate fact from bullshit.

 

[Esch]

 

[Ushojax]

Problem is no matter how much you show people that something is wrong or rubbish they ignore it. Hence why you have people who believe this, with homeopathy and why lots of people won't get their children the mmr vaccine because of one lot of discreditted research.

Yep. People prefer to cling to their ignorance rather than accept uncomfortable truths. When you consider the vast sums of money that are involved in creationist organisations and the penetration they have throughout American schools and media, it becomes difficult to fight. Unless somebody is properly educated about evolution and scientific method/critical thinking at a young age, they are pretty much set in their ways.

 

[Pandaman]

Oh snap.

Someone contact Hovind & Co. about this. Fun times ahead.

pretty sure he's still in prison, i can tell because i haven't stopped smiling yet.

 

[snacknuts]

creation science

Does not compute.

 

[Qwomo]

Creation science sounds like a fancy term for engineering.

 

[Zenith]

Sad that he thinks logical arguments will make creationists change any of their beliefs.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Sad that he thinks logical arguments will make creationists change any of their beliefs.

I don't think that is the intend. It's more about stopping creationists selling their beliefs as science.

Creationism is a huge danger to science. Throwing out scientific methods in favor of a relatively recently written work of fiction. Next thing you'll know you'll have historians claiming the holocaust never happened... oh wait...

 

[Souldriver]

Why sure you can. You just have to rewrite some stuff so that evolution becomes a-okay. Solid religious proof right there!

 

[theBishop]

The headline frames the work in a very odd way. The "creationist techniques" aren't proving evolution correct. Senter is demonstrating that the technique doesn't live up to its own standards.

If "Creation Theory" was correct, the so-called "Transitional Forms" wouldn't be genetically related to these (arbitrary) baramin groups. Except they are.

I like this approach because it turns the "Gaps in the Fossil Record" arguments on their head. Creationists love to point out the supposed gaps between colloquially recognized species. But every fossil ever found creates 2 gaps: One "before" the species, and one in transition to something else. But the study doesn't appear to move (sane) human understanding forward.

 

[ReBurn]

I don't know why it has to be an either/or with creation and evolution. The truth of the matter is that nobody alive on this planet today was around when the first human stepped foot on the earth. I think that arguing over where that person came from is stupid. But many folks make it a full time job.

Which is why I don't get the mutually exclusive stance that so many people take. If people were created, then fine, they were created. If people weren't created, but evolved from the primordial soup, then fine. Can someone tell me why it matters either way? And does the knowledge of one way or the other make our kids any smarter? Forget this stuff. Teach them math.

 

[Souldriver]

I don't know why it has to be an either/or with creation and evolution. The truth of the matter is that nobody alive on this planet today was around when the first human stepped foot on the earth. I think that arguing over where that person came from is stupid. But many folks make it a full time job.

Which is why I don't get the mutually exclusive stance that so many people take. If people were created, then fine, they were created. If people weren't created, but evolved from the primordial soup, then fine. Can someone tell me why it matters either way? And does the knowledge of one way or the other make our kids any smarter? Forget this stuff. Teach them math.

Uh....you're underestimating how important scientific knowledge about evolution is. It explains a lot about history, biology, mankind, diseases, geography, ... Evolution theory is not meant as a simple negation of the idea that we were created.

 

[theBishop]

I don't know why it has to be an either/or with creation and evolution. The truth of the matter is that nobody alive on this planet today was around when the first human stepped foot on the earth. I think that arguing over where that person came from is stupid. But many folks make it a full time job.

Which is why I don't get the mutually exclusive stance that so many people take. If people were created, then fine, they were created. If people weren't created, but evolved from the primordial soup, then fine. Can someone tell me why it matters either way? And does the knowledge of one way or the other make our kids any smarter? Forget this stuff. Teach them math.

Nobody alive on this planet today was around when Abraham Lincoln was a US president. If a (relatively large) group of people were going around saying instead of Abraham Lincoln being a US president, he was actually a tomato, would you say "why does it have to be either/or"?

 

[Sennorin]

No they cannot. Im an atheist/agnostic/whatever-is-cooler-at-the-moment but at the same time I hate people that claim that nothing can ever be faster than light. It´s like self-proclaimed pro-science people suddenly turn into religious nuts themselves, since it is just as much based on believes when you claim that nothing can ever be faster than light.

So, I think of myself as a pro-science guy, but I never make hard-claims that can never change. Because as human beings, we learn new stuff all the time and it´d be dumb and ignorant to give up your imagination only because you *believe* old science.

 

[The Technomancer]

Wait...literally fitting two of every animal onto Noah's Ark?

Christ on a cracker...

I mean, if you believe that you're not just throwing out evolution, you're denying every single thing we know about genetics, since we can tell very clearly which extremely few species there are that went through bottlenecks like that, like the Cheetah.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

No they cannot. Im an atheist/agnostic/whatever-is-cooler-at-the-moment but at the same time I hate people that claim that nothing can ever be faster than light. It´s like self-proclaimed pro-science people suddenly turn into religious nuts themselves, since it is just as much based on believes when you claim that nothing can ever be faster than light.

So, I think of myself as a pro-science guy, but I never make hard-claims that can never change. Because as human beings, we learn new stuff all the time and it´d be dumb and ignorant to give up your imagination only because you *believe* old science.

When people say that that is because to the best of our understanding that is the case. If evidence arises it isn't then everyone I know who makes that statement would certainly be willing to change their mind.

 

[Dead Man]

No they cannot. Im an atheist/agnostic/whatever-is-cooler-at-the-moment but at the same time I hate people that claim that nothing can ever be faster than light. It´s like self-proclaimed pro-science people suddenly turn into religious nuts themselves, since it is just as much based on believes when you claim that nothing can ever be faster than light.

So, I think of myself as a pro-science guy, but I never make hard-claims that can never change. Because as human beings, we learn new stuff all the time and it´d be dumb and ignorant to give up your imagination only because you *believe* old science.

See, the great thing about science, is that when it is wrong it corrects itself. So at the moment it is absolutely correct to state that nothing can travel faster than light. It is not an article of faith, but follows from experiments and mathematics. Our understanding my improve or change later, but you cannot assume that will be the case.

 

[mckmas8808]

The headline frames the work in a very odd way. The "creationist techniques" aren't proving evolution correct. Senter is demonstrating that the technique doesn't live up to its own standards.

If "Creation Theory" was correct, the so-called "Transitional Forms" wouldn't be genetically related to these (arbitrary) baramin groups. Except they are.

I like this approach because it turns the "Gaps in the Fossil Record" arguments on their head. Creationists love to point out the supposed gaps between colloquially recognized species. But every fossil ever found creates 2 gaps: One "before" the species, and one in transition to something else. But the study doesn't appear to move (sane) human understanding forward.

I agree here. To beat Creationism, you have to defeat it from within and with using their own logic.

 

[Lucky Forward]

"That is helpful to creationists. Many creationist scholars answered the problem of how so many pairs of gigantic dinosaurs fitted onto Noah’s Ark by saying there were only 50 “kinds”, and therefore only 100 animals were carried on the Ark. If only eight “kinds” existed, then there’s even more room on the Ark for all the other life forms that needed sanctuary."

It boggles my mind that people actually believe this. I mean, I can somewhat understand theistic claims in a broader sense, but a literal interpretation of the bible given what we understand is just...

Jesus believed in the story of Noah's Ark...

Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

...so if Noah's Ark isn't true, then Jesus was either wrong or lying.

 

[The Technomancer]

Jesus believed in the story of Noah's Ark...


...so if Noah's Ark isn't true, then Jesus was either wrong or lying.

Yeah but Jesus was always talking in parables and metaphors man. Dude loved his parables.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yeah but Jesus was always talking in parables and metaphors man. Dude loved his parables.

Not about Noah's Ark he wasn't. And neither was talking in parables about Adam being the first human.

 

[Neuromancer]

The problem with Creationist scientists is they only do the baraminimum.

 

[Always-honest]

Don't worry religious people, there was only a small bit of (very fast) evolution within different species.
There was no evolution from species to another species. Every species was created by your god.

Imagine you being an artist (like god), making different versions of an artwork. That's evolution.

Spoiler

now go mind your own business

 

[NaM]

I'll just leave this here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IguW9xHd2qo&feature=related

 

[AbsoluteZero]

I believe that god designed evolution, personally.

 

[elsk]

I believe that god designed evolution, personally.

Yep me too. Also, I went to a catolic school all my life, and in biology they teach us about that, god designed evolution. Sounds like the best theory, imo.

 

[Sennorin]

See, the great thing about science, is that when it is wrong it corrects itself. So at the moment it is absolutely correct to state that nothing can travel faster than light. It is not an article of faith, but follows from experiments and mathematics. Our understanding my improve or change later, but you cannot assume that will be the case.

When people say that that is because to the best of our understanding that is the case. If evidence arises it isn't then everyone I know who makes that statement would certainly be willing to change their mind.

Quite possibly, but I think to find out *if* there is the possibility of FTL-travel, you have to accept that possibility first of all. Even if you´re 99,9% sure about your current view, you should never think of something that other human beings wrote down as a 100% fact. That will only lead to stagnation. Note that I am not saying that we should throw away all scientific "facts", but at times I feel like many pro-science guys sound too much like religious believers themselves, when they cling onto their "facts". Hope I explained my opinion in an understandable way.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yep me too. Also, I went to a catolic school all my life, and in biology they teach us about that, god designed evolution. Sounds like the best theory, imo.

The Catholic church is such a weird entity for me. They're so progressive in some areas (evolution) and so conservative in others (birth control)

 

[params7]

Yep me too. Also, I went to a catolic school all my life, and in biology they teach us about that, god designed evolution. Sounds like the best theory, imo.

The best a religious school can teach, sure.

 

[Snytbaggen]

I believe that god designed evolution, personally.

Yeah, same here

 

[zomaha]

Yep me too. Also, I went to a catolic school all my life, and in biology they teach us about that, god designed evolution. Sounds like the best theory, imo.

Then you dismiss the creation of Adam and Eve, and thus dismiss practically everything in Genesis. You can't have both. Evolution was natural or God created animals and humans in a single day, one or the other.

 

[bonesmccoy]

We need a show of hands from Christians - just how many of you believe in 'creationist theory'? I'm going to wager that the split is most Catholics/Orthodox don't, and lots of Evangelicals do.

Then you dismiss the creation of Adam and Eve, and thus dismiss practically everything in Genesis. You can't have both. Evolution was natural or God created animals and humans in a single day, one or the other.

Lol, no. The Bible is a literary document, composed by many writers across many years, writing in different genres and sub-genres. I take it you have never heard of metaphor as a literary device?

The Catholic Church has always emphasized the need to read Scripture in the proper context. In fact, it's been opposed to the type of literalism that you posit above since the time of Origen.

 

[MrHicks]

I believe that god designed evolution, personally.

explain adam & eve
first humans or not?

 

[Aristion]

explain adam & eve
first humans or not?

Not everyone is a Christian. How many times does this need to be said?

Also, I'll just leave this wiki link to Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.

 

[MrHicks]

Not everyone is a Christian. How many times does this need to be said?

Also, I'll just leave this wiki link to Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.

99% of religious gaf is probably abrahamic
(the occasional hindu or sikh showing up is like a rare pokemon encounter)
so its a safe bet to guess

 

[elsk]

Then you dismiss the creation of Adam and Eve, and thus dismiss practically everything in Genesis. You can't have both. Evolution was natural or God created animals and humans in a single day, one or the other.

Yep. I pretty much dismiss the Adan and Eve thing. I believe that God started everything, and designed everything (evolution), Intelligent design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I found the evolution alone, just as fantasy as Adan and Eve story. Like everything happened randomly? Yeah sure...

 

[Joel Was Right]

Wait...literally fitting two of every animal onto Noah's Ark?

Christ on a cracker...

 

[Souldriver]

Yep. I pretty much dismiss the Adan and Eve thing. I believe that God started everything, and designed everything (evolution), Intelligent design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I found the evolution alone, just as fantasy as Adan and Eve story. Like everything happened randomly? Yeah sure...

Evolution doesn't happen "at random" though.