Friday, August 19, 2011

How old is the earth, Governor Perry?

From Yahoo, we read:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry fielded a few questions from a child in New Hampshire about evolution Thursday--a topic the outspoken Christian governor was sure to encounter on the campaign trail sooner or later.
"How old do you think the Earth is?" the child asked, who was being coached by his mother behind him for each question.  (Z: no criticism from Yahoo's author on that, of course)
"How old do I think the earth is? You know what? I don't have any idea," Perry responded. "I know it's pretty old. So it goes back a long, long way. I'm not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how old the earth is."
Meanwhile, the mother whispered to her son to ask about evolution.
"I hear your mom was asking about evolution and, you know, it's a theory that's out there," Perry said. "It's got some gaps in it, but in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools. Because I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."
There is little, if any, disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is about 4.5-6 billion years old and that evolution is responsible for the range of species on the planet today.
Perry walked away before the kid could ask his mom's next question, "Why don't you believe in science?"

Did any of you know the age of the earth?  I didn't.  I figured it is "pretty old," too.   As for evolution, saying that it's "responsible for the range of species on the planet today" is kind of a broad way of the author not having to field that question himself, huh?  :-) 

Here's our media today:   SCIENTISTS say something, though not all scientists DO reflect that thinking.......and, if a Christian doesn't, he's........what..............STUPID?  SO, only scientists who believe solely in evolution  are smart, is that the inference of the leftwing media?  Of course it is.   America, wake up;  this country's founded on everyone's opinions being respected........when that's lost, look out.    What's going to change in the winning of the Evolution and Intelligent Design?  Why's the Left so afraid of allowing all opinions to be voiced?    And how's this reflect on Rick Perry?



beamish said...

He should have said that some humans were created while others were evolved and thousands of years of interbreeding between the two has produced half-evolved humans. :P

Ducky's here said...

You're going to have to look in pretty mysterious ways to find reputable "young earth" scientists.

Likewise biologists who do not accept the Origin of Species or accept intelligent design.

Z said...

Odd that anybody who believed in God would ever consider something out of his power, but now that God's been mocked and belittled by the 'elite' in Western Society....they win.
But, oh brother, do they lose.

Z said...

by the way, my point here is not to argue this subject again (and again and again) I said "Who cares? beliefs one way or the other aren't changing anything")
My point is the inference that one is STUPID for not agreeing with anything that secularists believe.
That we don't allow other ways of thinking.

Tell me everybody: What's to be gained by arguing the Evolution v Int. Design subject? Is this just a ploy to demean Christians again? Why's that so important?

Ticker said...

Appears the "mom" didn't hvae any intelligent questions to ask such as how would you handle the failed Obama economy. Ooops, I forgot, she probably voted for Obama.
That pretty much explains her using a child to ask ignorant questions that have nothing to do with getting this country out of the mess that Obama has made.

Pris said...

"Tell me everybody: What's to be gained by arguing the Evolution v Int. Design subject? Is this just a ploy to demean Christians again? Why's that so important?"

Z, you make a great point. nothing is to be gained. It is used to demean Christians, but it's also used to change the subject.

Whether one believes in evolution or not, does nothing to solve our fiscal problems, or our freedom as individuals.

To me, those are the issues of today, and the left doesn't want the country to focus on those, so they change the subject, and demonize instead.

It's become so predictable, I think it will lose the effect it might have had even three years ago.

People are hurting all over the country, and they want to believe in our leaders again. It's no more complicated than that.

Elmers Brother said...

And not one of them can tell us duhkkky which came first, the chicken or the egg. It takes faith to believe.

The question he should have asked the kid wa "do yoou believe in punctuated equilibrium or classic Darwinism? Bet his Mom would have squirmed a little then.

Elmers Brother said...

By reputable duhkky means the indoctrinators who are afraid of other who question their dogma. Isn't that usually duhkkkys argument to us.

Elmers Brother said...

Of course you could believe lile Richard Dawkins that we came from aliens.

Oh the irony.

Ducky's here said...

Well Elmo, you can have faith and believe all manner of things.

The Catholic church came to grips with it, Galileo and all that.

Now if your faith leads you to believe in young earth or intelligent design you are in error. Either that or you have to reject the scientific method.

Ducky's here said...

Managed to find an irreducibly complex system, Elmo.

That whole Darwin's Black Box medicine show got torn apart pretty good, eh.

Ducky's here said...

Pris, Perry got a lesson.

You don't bring that nonsense to New Hampshire. She did him a favor if he learns his lesson.

This is New England not Texas.

Elmers Brother said...

Actually duhkky I'm not a young earth guy but I am an open intellectual inquiry guy something that I'd rejected by your friends in academia. So duhkky which came first chicken or the egg? Dawkins thinks it was aliens and he's an evolutionist, what say you? Are you a punctuated equilibrium or classical Darwinist? Because PE takes more than a leap of faith, it requires a lot of magic and a special imagination.

Elmers Brother said...

Did you know it took 40 years before it was determined that Piltdown man was a hoax?

Elmers Brother said...

Even the hyperbole that duhkkky uses such as the term "flat earther" lacks the historical background check. Either it's a perjorative or it's not based in fact. Either way it's not the mark of an intellectual superior.

God told the ancient Hebrews that the earth was fixed and the sun went around the earth.

The critics of Copernicus et. al were not concerned about dethroning the Catholic Church or theology but the elevation of man. Pride was the sentiment not humility. As for Galileo, Pope Leo X favored for a time Galieo's heliocentric theory.

There were scientists who opposed Galileo too. Brahe the great astronomer argued that Copernicism was why was it unreasonable for the Vatican to have doubts?

The more literal translations of the Bible didn't come until the Protestant Reformation. This I think would be the biggest argument that fundamentalists were not responsible for what happened to Galileo. There was no war between science and fundamentalist religion.

With very few exceptions not one educated person of the Western Civilization from the 3rd century BC onward believed that the earth was flat.

The claim that medieval scientists and theologians believed the earth was flat was concocted in the nineteenth century by John William Draper in History of the Conflict between Religion and Science pulbished in 1874. Draper used his flat earth theory to illustrate his thesis that the Catholic Church was antagonistic to learning.

"Traditions and policy forbade the papal government to admit any other than the flat figure of the earth, as revealed in the Scriptures"

The problem is books like Drapers' is that it's all a myth. He then goes on to say that this idea that the earth was flat caused terror among the sailors and was one of the great obstacles in the great voyage of Columbus.

or that Columbus overcame irrational clergy, superstitious sailors and ignorant churchmen,

It is said that Columbus before making his voyage had to face bigoted clerics who warned that his boat would fall off the earth....

Objections were raised but none on the grounds that the earth was flat, but more that he had underestimated the amount of provisions needed for such a long voyage.

Elmers Brother said...

Does telling someone they are not allowed to question evolution succeed in the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Evolutionists have to resort credentialism and expertism. Real science never has to resort to credentialism. If someone with no credentials at all raises a question it is not an answer to point out how uneducated or unqualified the the questioner is.

Sorry I don't buy into the "trust us, you poor fools" defense. This also flies in the face of the many times duhkkky has admonished the audience to think for themselves.

Government employed Darwinists don't stop at denouncing their critics. They have them fired, excoriated and their future careers threatened. e.g. Dr. Nancy Bryson, Miss. Univ., Dr. Caroline Crocker biologist and numerous others. Criticisms have also been outlawed by judicial fiat. In December of 2005 Judge John Jones III permanently prohibited the Dover, Pennsylvania school district teachers from making remarks that "denigrate or desparage the theory of evolution"

Evolution has owned the classrooms for generations yet the majority of Americans still don't believe it. I don't believe Creationism should be taught in the schools duhkkkster but if you want the dolts to believe it you better let them ask questions.

Elmers Brother said...

duhkkky, what's your first reaction when someone tells you to turn your baloney detector off?

If you wish for science to be the end of all our questions then maybve you can tell me why it can't explain love to me?

or beauty?

Kierkegaard railed against this. Objective facts mean nothing if they don't move you to 'do'. It's not who am's what am I to do?

Evolution cannot provide a moral compass with which to live one’s life by. It might tell you where someone believes you came from but it won’t tell you where you’re going. In my opinion believes it more because its religious or philosophical value.

Consider that secular humanists place their faith in humanity and that evolution is a core belief.

If God is dead as declared in the mid 20th century then:

Why hasn’t the utopian progress promised by science happened by now?

Why aren't we all communists and atheists?

Liberalism won all its battles-- so why is it retreating?

Where did all these conservatives come from?

Where are the flying cars and moon bases?

These are just examples given by Julian Huxley noted scientist and evolutionary pioneer:

Some day no one will have to work more than two days a week... The human being can consume so much and no more. When we reach the point when the world produces all the goods that it needs in two days, as it inevitably will, we must curtail our production of goods and turn our attention to the great problem of what to do with our new leisure.

"Prof. Huxley Predicts 2-Day Working Week" The New York Times (17 November 1930) p.42

Has this two day work week happened?

The supernatural is being swept out of the universe in the flood of new knowledge of what is natural. It will soon be as impossible for an intelligent, educated man or woman to believe in a god as it is now to believe the earth is flat, that flies can be spontaneously generated... or that death is always due to witchcraft... The god hypothesis is no longer of any pragmatic value for the interpretation or comprehension of nature, and indeed often stands in the way of better and truer interpretation. Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat.

Religion without Revelation (1957) p. 58

Why do 90% of Americans reject evolution? Do you think Christians have that much influence on that large of a population? Why haven’t evoluionists been successful in their indoctrination if what they say is so true?

In the evolutionary pattern of thought, there is neither need nor room for the supernatural. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.

The Humanist Frame (1961) p. 18

Do you believe this to be a faith statement? I wish I could ask Huxley what his definition of a soul is and just when during the evolutionary process mindless natural selection and chance gave us one?

Elmers Brother said...

Carl Sagan himself said that we should not be impressed by invocations of authority and to insist on asking whether claims put forward in the name of science are really testable and then he turned around and wants to browbeat people with a snow job.

“I meet people who are offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God……Evidence has little to do with it. Only nine percent of Americans accept the central finding of modern biology that human beings have slowly evolved by natural processes from succession of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed along the way.”

Somewhere along the line science has either failed to make the case, been poor communicators or they have used indoctrination versus education. People will tend to believe something if they know all the objections to it. Why is it that they want students to turn their baloney detectors off? Unfortunately for evolutionists one of the few places where the baloney detectors are still on is in Christian colleges and universities, places where they teach both side by side and questions are allowed.

A democratic education system would aim to produce citizens that can think for themselves. Yet objections and scientific evidence that calls evolution into question is not permitted. In some cases even the ACLU and the Supreme Court have gotten involved. Even Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion in the 1987 Louisiana case said,

“The people of the state including fundamental Christians are quite entitled as a secular matter to be presented with evidence that may be against evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific evidence there was for it”

Apparently only Darwin may be taught in schools. In my opinion this is bad for science and is bad science. (something must be refuteable to be good science)

In my opinion I don’t believe creation science should be taught in public education, but would you agree that if there are scientific objections to evolution it shouldn’t it be taught in school? Do you think it’s an absurd situation where scientists, educators and students are not allowed to ask questions about which they are most concerned?

Stating “Evolution is a fact” is a bullying tactic. How can one validate the truth if one is unable to explore the objections to that truth? People object to the materialist philosophy that presented in the name of science.

e.g Scientists assume that naturalism is true and therefore try to give purely natural explanations for everything including our existence. It could be it’s the best explanation they have at the time, whether it is true is another question. Biologist have authority over biology but they have no authority to impose a philosophy on society. That is why it is so important to insist that “evolution is a fact”

Change that to “evolution is a philosophy” and the game is over.

BTW, suggesting that because one has questions about evolution that science is rejected is ridiculous.

Elmers Brother said...

Even scientists such as James Shapiro of the U. of Chicago has said in response to Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”

“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject – evolution- with so little rigorous examination of how well it’s basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity”

Shapiro is not a creationist and he blasted Behe for arguing that those unexplained biochemical systems might be designed. It does however illustrate how strong the hold of materialist philosophy is on contemporary biologists.

If one were to place their trust in evolution than I believe you will have to admit that there is an inherent philosophy or religion that belongs with it. So we reject your claim to some moral high ground . The fact that Huxley declared that the supernatural was being swept away means that science has not divided the two (religion and science). I also think that choosing to place your faith in evolution and declaring “evolution is true” is a means for one to live their life with no accountability and that perhaps this would give one motivation for believing in evolution. One can eat drink and be merry if there is no one to be accountable to.

Z said...

many critics just say young earth or creationism are 'unscientific'...I say 'so what?'
Only saying they're 'unscientific' is, in and of itself, a cop out.......

Elbro, good stuff here.
Thanks very much.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Is it racist to say Basque people are Cro-Magnon?

Bd said...

Yeah! "Why's the Left so afraid of allowing all opinions to be voiced?" Especially the dangerous kooky ones aimed at the low information voters!

Elmers Brother said...

So BD you think Dawkins is right about the aliens. Very interesting.

Behe has a blog.

Elmers Brother said...

Should I asssume Duhkkky that you've read Behe's book, because I could send you my copy..

Bob said...

I think Gov Perry got it right by leaving the kid with the idea of finding his own answer.

It takes faith to believe in Science.

Those who believe in Science have made it a religion. What will they do when they find out that carbon dioxide does not drive climate? What happens to their chosen faith, then?

OOPS! Science will get another black eye.

I don't believe in Evolution, and those who do have established another religion. I've got enough religion.

Evolution is not a science in that there is no rejectable hypothesis as the scientific method requires.

Evolution is more than just a theory. There are many components, and it is not as monolithic as the believers would have it. Possibly, the most scientific part of evolution is genetics where it may be possible to apply some mathematics to an hypothesis, but I am not a geneticist.

There may be compelling reasons to accept certain principles accredited to an evolutionary process. I believe that organisms might evolve, but I try to keep an open mind about the biological mechanisms that could explain it.

The Theory of Evolution may be an elegant, and even logical way of looking at things but we have a long way to go before we nail down the mechanisms of why it happens.

Evolution does not trump God, and does not diminish God's glorious creation. Evolution may be consistent with believing in God. Nobody knows for sure.

Z said...

"Bd said...
Yeah! "Why's the Left so afraid of allowing all opinions to be voiced?" Especially the dangerous kooky ones aimed at the low information voters!"

'Low information voters'...that's EVER Leftwinger with no curiosity; someone like you who won't even listen to Heritage Foundation......Or watches MSNBC and calls that 'news' :-) Or Jon Stewart, maybe that's your source? That 'high information' stuff, right?

I know, Bd, all those people bused in by the dems to vote are all rocket scientists :-) Hey, but they're on WELFARE so THEY WILL VOTE THE WAY THE LEFTIES WANT! Or, they might be told to go home by big thugs like Gloria Allred, Hillary supporter, exposed during the Houston primaries! Funny that Gloria suddenly stopped complaining, isn't it? Obama promise her something? Or ...??

Z said...

Thanks, Bob...
I like the one about God and some guy arguing ...the guy says HE can create a universe, too! God says "I don't think so"...and they go back and forth.
Finally, God says "OK...Be my guest, make people, make a world!"

The guy bends down to fill his hands on the groung to start building and God says "Oh, no....drop that....GET YOUR OWN DIRT"


beamish said...

I just default to "if there were no public schools, there would be no debate about what's taught in them."

Between believing in intelligent design or evolution, I see no usefulness to either position. Nothing in my life hinges on either position being correct or incorrect.

Pris said...

"Now if your faith leads you to believe in young earth or intelligent design you are in error. Either that or you have to reject the scientific method."

I hate to burst your bubble Ducky, but it was a study done by scientists, which came to the conclusion of Intelligent Design. I read the treatise about it, written by one of those scientists.

There is no reason both can't be taught and debated in school, except for that old habit by the science establishment to cling to theories which have stood unchallenged for a long time.

Pris said...

"Between believing in intelligent design or evolution, I see no usefulness to either position. Nothing in my life hinges on either position being correct or incorrect."

beamish, there are alot of things our lives don't hinge on, but learning and questioning keeps our brain working, and teaches us to think.

As my Dad used to say, "the older you get, the more you know you don't know".

We're never too old or too smart to learn, or to be fascinated by new frontiers, and it's for sure, our education doesn't stop when we're done with school.

Living everyday is a school, perhaps the best school there is.

Now that I think about it, our lives hinge on all kinds of things, big and small.

Z said...

Ducky, believe it or not, there are REAL bright people in what you esteem apparently as "LOWLY STUPID TEXAS", too..
You are the biggest snob; SUCH a typical elitist liberal. MY GOD. The one who comes here and 'outs' every Republican he can imagine might be gay...
what an amazingly unconscientious person you are.

Pris, I'm with beamish, I said earlier, this evolution argument doesn't make or break us or our faith....
who's to say God didn't INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN this earth and evolution is a GOD GIVEN biproduct? We're all taller than we were generations ago because of better nutrition, so........right??
Of course, there's always the argument "If we came from apes, why are there still apes?" :-)

Mostly, as you said previously here in a comment in agreement with me, this is about SLAMMING CHRISTIANS.
"They don't believe like our ENLIGHTENED SCIENTISTS, therefore they are wrong AND stupid"...

And, Pris, you're SO RIGHT, more and more (as my post link has, I think?) scientists who study the beginning of the earth/man, etc., say "We hit a wall and can only figure that's GOD" (I paraphrase, of course)

I once heard a professor on Dennis PRager's show tell him that, in private, many professors agree with Intelligent Design but don't teach it for fear of ridicule. Of course, if you say "GOD DID IT", there's not much more to TEACH, too, right? :-)

Z said...

there's that link again.

Anonymous said...

"If we came from apes, why are there still apes?" :-)"

Good God can be such a Simian at times.

Z said...

Imp, actually, it was I who said that and many DO use that as an argument against evolution :-)

your favorite Simian !

Pris said...

"who's to say God didn't INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN this earth and evolution is a GOD GIVEN biproduct?"

Actually Z, I agree with you. I don't believe Intelligent Design excludes the probability of evolution at all. One does not negate the other, IMO.

My point to beamish was just that it's a learning opportunity, even though it doesn't change what we are, and I feel strongly, both should be taught in school.

Pris said...

"Imp, actually, it was I who said that and many DO use that as an argument against evolution :-)

your favorite Simian !"

Ah yes, the old missing link question. Of course today, the missing link has a whole new meaning!

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Big Fat Tio Mike said...

The word "science" comes from the Latin meaning knowledge. When we say "scientists" we really mean "natural scientists," that is, someone with knowledge about nature. So the claim that scientists all believe in evolution (even though they don't agree on the means) is only to say "people who explain things in terms of natural processes believe that life came about by natural processes." This reminds me of a phrase I heard recently: To a hammer, everything looks like the head of a nail. The whole point of creationism is that life came about by processes beyond nature.

The issue is important in that it pits two world views against each other. If creationism is true, humans are responsible to their creator. For atheistic secular humanism to be true, life must be the product of evolution.

Atheism hinges on this issue, much more than Christianity does. That's why you hear of people who believe in theistic evolution, but never atheistic creation (but the thing about the aliens might be an exception).


beamish said...


I think intelligent design theory fails to account for other possibilities, like stupid design theory, which postulates that human genetics were altered by lead-based cave paintings. ;)

Bob said...

I don't know why I bother to post an opinion here because beamish articulates things so well when he says, "I see no usefulness to either position. ".

At the end of the day, or at the end of time, all this discussion will not be remembered. It is what it is, and our opinions are just that, opinions.

Pris said...

"That's why you hear of people who believe in theistic evolution, but never atheistic creation (but the thing about the aliens might be an exception)."

Tio Mike, interesting you should bring that up about aliens. This was briefly mentioned in that Intelligent Design article.

The question asked by the scientist was: "Who created the Aliens?" So in that regard, we're back at square one, don't you think?