Tracking Teh Crazie - WND

More data to consider when we're considering the source - World Net Daily's Joseph Farah.

At birther-central, head birther Farah published this on biblical creation day:

Was the world created 6,028 years ago today?

That’s a question that will drive fans of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking up the wall.

I don’t know that it was. I don’t think anyone but God knows the actual day of creation.

Yea, but still it probably wasn't.

Here's Farah's evidence for a Young Earth:

But one of the greatest biblical and historical scholars of the 17th century, Archbishop James Ussher, meticulously calculated all the data he could find about the day of creation, and that’s what he came up with in his famous “Annals of the World,” a great companion to your reading of the Bible.

That's it.  That's Farah's evidence.  And the evidence for a very Old Earth?

All of physics - in this instance, radiometric dating:

Spontaneous breakdown or decay of atomic nuclei, termed radioactive decay, is the basis for all radiometric dating methods. Radioactivity was discovered in 1896 by French physicist Henri Becquerel. By 1907 study of the decay products of uranium (lead and intermediate radioactive elements that decay to lead) demonstrated to B. B. Boltwood that the lead/uranium ratio in uranium minerals increased with geologic age and might provide a geological dating tool.

As radioactive Parent atoms decay to stable daughter atoms (as uranium decays to lead) each disintegration results in one more atom of the daughter than was initially present and one less atom of the parent. The probability of a parent atom decaying in a fixed period of time is always the same for all atoms of that type regardless of temperature, pressure, or chemical conditions. This probability of decay is the decay constant. The time required for one-half of any original number of parent atoms to decay is the half-life, which is related to the decay constant by a simple mathematical formula.

If it's wrong, where is it wrong?  The rate of radioactive decay?  Where's Farah's evidence that it's wrong?  To that question, Farah has the Bible and that's all he needs:

I take the Bible literally – and seriously. And the Bible strongly affirms a date in the neighborhood of 6,000 years, at least for the age of man, who was created on the sixth day, according to Genesis. If that’s not true, it calls into question the rest of the Bible’s accuracy.

Well, yea.

It also calls into question the rationality of someone who takes it so seriously and literally that he's willing to abandon all of science.  Look, if you want to believe the literal Bible, that's fine.  We live in a free society and you're free to believe what you want to believe,  But simply believing it doesn't make it science.  Nor does it make anything you believe to be true, to be, in fact, true.

Birther Central is now just a little more infected with teh crazie.

Equal Time For What?

Have you been watching Cosmos?

It's a reboot of sorts of the Carl Sagan series originally broadcast in 1980.

So far the host, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, has talked about how old the age of the universe is (13 billion years or so) and the truth about the theory evolution (uh-oh).  Both of which have gotten him into trouble with the defiant, faith-based anti-science folks among us.  Tyson actually said, "The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact."

From Mother Jones:

In the first episode of Cosmos, titled "Standing Up in the Milky Way," Tyson dons shades just before witnessing the Big Bang. You know, the start of everything. Some creationists, though, don't like the Big Bang; at Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis, a critique of Cosmos asserts that "the big bang model is unable to explain many scientific observations, but this is of course not mentioned."

At that link, we find a criticism of the now-famous saying of Sagan's, that "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."  Uh-oh.  That's a problem.  Why?  Here's why:

It is denial of the supernatural, saying the only thing that exists is the physical world, the natural world. But to say that with any certainty Sagan had to get outside the physical universe and see that the physical universe is all that there is. And he would have had to do that in eternity past and in eternity future in order to say that. If he could really see that, then he would be god. It’s a very bold, metaphysical statement. It’s an assertion. But it’s not science. It’s not a scientific statement.

The only thing scientists have physical evidence for is the physical world.  So unless it's "balanced" with stories of some other world (which by definition would leave no physical evidence for scientists to study) any purely physical assertion of a purely physical universe is biased.

And for that, they're demanding equal time (or at the very least some mention that their non-science is in some what science):

[S]ome creationists believe the show lacks balance because it doesn't offer equal airtime to religious fundamentalists.

"Do they ever give a creationist any time?"

"Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all." (Via The Janet Mefferd Show)

There's a reason creationists aren't considered plausible on a science program: it isn't science.

Just saying it is, doesn't make it so (this should be a note to all my friends at the Trib who continue to assert - without any plausible evidence - that Climate Science isn't settled.  Just saying it isn't doesn't mean it isn't).

I'll let Tyson explain why creationists won't get be treated with any sort of scientific plausibility in Science and why "equal time" is a bad idea for science: 

"I think the media has to sort of come out of this ethos that I think was in principle a good one, but doesn't really apply in science. The ethos was, whatever story you give, you have to give the opposing view, and then you can be viewed as balanced," Tyson said, adding, "you don't talk about the spherical earth with NASA and then say let's give equal time to the flat-earthers."

Did I ever tell you that he and I share a birthday?

Springboro Ohio, Creationism and the Tea Party Dogwhistles

We'll start here, at Fox News:

A proposal by an Ohio school district to add creationism to a list of controversial topics deemed appropriate for classroom discussion has ignited a debate over the separation of church and state among parents and a civil rights group.

The Springboro Board of Education took comments on the proposal at a meeting Thursday night attended by parents, students and teachers. Some parents urged the board to abandon the plan, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio sent a letter to the board, saying the policy would violate the separation of church and state.

"Basically they would be teaching creationism to counteract the teaching of evolution," ACLU spokesman Nick Worner said Friday. "Anytime that you promote or teach the beliefs of one religion over all other religions or beliefs in a public school classroom, that's a problem."

And Fox later gives us some details:

According to the school district website, "evolution/creation," ''pro-life/abortion," contraception/abstinence, legalization of drugs, gun rights, and global warming would be among the topics added to a list of "controversial issues."

Many "areas of study involve issues on which differing positions are held by individuals or groups," and all sides of an issue should be explored "fully and fairly," the proposal says.

Remember the list of topics in that first paragraph. It'll become more important later.  The ACLU of Ohio sent a letter to the Springboro Board of Education outlining the constitutional issues surrounding the proposals - actually there are two policy changes.  One for policy 8800 and the other for policy 2240.  It is the second, Policy 2240, that dabbles in creationism.

My first question was the context of where these "controversial issues" would be discussed.  If it was in a "social studies" or "contemporary issues" class, then what's the problem?  As long as the facts are presented as facts (evolution=science, creationism=religion) then what's the problem?

It's how the board fails to limit the discussion in that way, is the problem.  From the ACLU letter:

This policy appears to explicitly permit the teaching of creationism because "evolution" is on the "controversial issues" list and equal facts for the opposing viewpoint means classroom time spent on the religious theory of intelligent design (or creation science). It has been firmly established that this practice is unconstitutional, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The Supreme Court of the United States has unequivocally held that so-called "balanced treatment" laws and policies which gave equal class time to evolution and creationism were unconstitutional because they served no secular purpose and instead had a primary purpose of advancing a particular religious viewpoint.

Now here's the text from Policy 2240:

The role of the teacher in the presentation o f assigned issues is vitally important. All sides of the issue should be given to the students in a dispassionate manner. The goal is for the students to be taught to think clearly on all matters of importance, and to make decisions in the light of all the material that has been presented or can be researched on the issues.

Giving sympathetic "science" teachers the room to do the "both sides" of the "teaching the controversy" thing.

But there's another point that Fox left out.  Here's the complete text of the "controversial issues" from the policy:

For purposes of this policy, controversial issues include: religion when not used in a historical or factual context , sex education, legalization of drugs, evolution/creation, pro-life/abortion, contraception/abstinence, conservatism/liberalism, politics, gun rights, global warming and climate change, UN Agenda 21 and sustainable development, and any other topic on which opposing points of view have been promulgated by responsible opinion and/or likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.[Emphasis in original.]

There's a dogwhistle in there, signaling to Springboro's Tea Party element. Did you see it?

It's the UN Agenda 21.  And to the folks at crazie central (aka World Net Daily) it's:

...a 40-chapter U.N. program to introduce fascism worldwide in the guise of environmental regulation.

Confusing, until you take a look at the last time this happened in Springboro:

Kelly Kohls, who was elected in Springboro on a platform of fiscal responsibility two years ago, requested last week the district’s curriculum director look into ways of providing “supplemental” instruction dealing with creationism. Fellow member, Scott Anderson, who was elected with Kohls when the district was struggling financially, supports his colleague’s idea.

And:

Kohls is the head of the Warren County Tea Party. Although she said her desire to teach creationism is not directly related to the emerging political movement, it’s not inconsistent with Tea Party ideals.

“My input on creationism has everything with me being a parent and not a member of the Tea Party,” she said. “We are motivated people who want to change the course of this country. Eliminating God from our public lives I think is a mistake and is why we have gone in the direction of spending beyond our means.”

Of course Kelly Kohls is still on the Board.

Oh, Good Lord!

From today's P-G we find this distressing assessment of our nation's educational system.

After framing the issue with a story of a young Duquesne student who received what she believed was an inadequate secondary school science education, David Templeton writes:

Her experience represents the ill-kept secret about public school biology classrooms nationwide -- that evolution often isn't taught robustly, if at all. Faith-based belief in creationism and intelligent design continues to be discussed and even openly taught in public school classrooms, despite state curriculum standards.

What follows is foul, odious and repulsive:

"Sometimes students honestly look me in the eye and ask what do I think? I tell them that I personally hold the Bible as the source of truth," said Joe Sohmer, who teaches chemistry at the Altoona Area High School. The topic arises, he said, when he teaches radiocarbon dating, with that method often concluding archeological finds to be older than 10,000 years, which he says is the Bible-based age of Earth. "I tell them that I don't think [radiocarbon dating] is as valid as the textbook says it is, noting other scientific problems with the dating method.

We've dealt with radiocarbon dating before.  Here's what I wrote back then:

[Radiocarbon dating is] a method of dating the age of once living tissue based on the rate of decay for an isotope of carbon (namely carbon-14). Isotopes, by the way, are atoms of the same element (hydrogen, uranium, and so on) that differ in their atomic weights because they have a different number of neutrons in their respective nuclei. Carbon-13 has, for instance, 7 neutrons and 6 protons in its nucleus while carbon-14 has 8 neutrons and 6 protons in its nucleus (7+6=13 and 8+6=14, get it?).

Science tells us that carbon-14 is very unstable and decays into an isotope of nitrogen at a known rate. It's formed constantly in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays interact with some of the nitrogen up there and filters down into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide where it enters the food chain (from CO2 to photosynthesis to animals). When something is alive the amount of carbon-14 in its system more or less matches the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. But once that thing dies, no more carbon-14 is added and the carbon-14 that remains begins its decay into nitrogen.

In a nutshell, by knowing the rate at which carbon-14 decays and knowing how much is left in the once living tissue, scientists can pretty accurately estimate when that thing died.

By the way for his work in first developing the science of radiocarbon dating, Willard Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960.

Wow, a Nobel Prize.  That must mean that a lot of very smart people looked over the process for a long time and found it very solid and very important.  So given that, I think it's completely possible that some high school chemistry teacher from Altoona, Pennsylvania has enough sound science to overturn their 53 year old error.

But there's more from Mr Sohmer:

"Kids ask all kinds of personal questions and that's one I don't shy away from," he said. "It doesn't in any way disrupt the educational process. I'm entitled to my beliefs as much as the evolutionist is."

Which does nothing but remind me of something Isaac Asimov wrote in 1980:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

We should remember that just because ignorance is Bible-based, doesn't mean it isn't ignorance.  In order to reject (as Joe Sohmer does) the science of radiocarbon dating one has to also reject such large tracts of physics (for example the science of radioactive decay) that there's little left of the science.  No matter how much he wants to believe it, the evidence overwhelmingly supports radiocarbon dating.  It's right, he's wrong and he's mistreating his students by leading them to doubt it.  That the Altoona school district is, in Mr. Sohmer's words, "comfortable with his [teaching] methods" is an indictment of their own tolerance of Bible-based anti-intellectualism.

Templeton points out the danger of that:

The U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts have ruled time and again that teaching creationism in public schools violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, which often is referred to as separation of church and state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Those cases include Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in York County, which involved the district's decision to include intelligent design in the curriculum as an alternative theory to evolution. The 2005 federal court ruling said intelligent design -- the argument that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause -- and creationism were one and the same religious principle that couldn't be taught in public schools.

The school district's legal fees topped $1 million.

Regardless of the court decisions, creationism continues to find an audience in public schools, limiting students' education in one of biology's fundamental principles.

If you're curious to read it, please check out Kitmiller v Dover here.  Judge Jones conclusion starts this way:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

Templeton's piece is a good read. The only problem I have is found in this sentence:

Similar debate is occurring over the Big Bang theory, climate change and other controversial ideas of science.

And with it, unfortunately, he's giving rhetorical cover to the anti-intellectual anti-science folks everywhere.  The Big Bang and climate change are "controversial" only because those whose think their ignorance is just as good as someone else's knowledge have been shouting it from their pulpits sacred and secular for years.

With any honest assessment of the evidence, such "controversies" evaporate all too quickly.

Teaching anything but science in a public school science class is not only unconstitutional but it's damaging to our childten and the society in general.  I'll give Bill Nye the last word:

Follow Up On Marco Rubio And The Age Of The Earth

A few weeks ago I blogged on Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and his scientific illiteracy.

He was asked how old the earth was and he was quoted said:

I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

Looks like he's walked this back but the double special secret message to the creationists he wants to impress is still present. Here's the video and Thinkprogress has a transcript:

There is no scientific debate on the age of the earth. I mean, it’s established pretty definitively, it’s at least 4.5 billion years old. I was referring to a theological debate, which is a pretty health debate. And the theological debate is … how do you reconcile with what science has definitively established with what you may think your faith teaches. Now for me, actually, when it comes to the age of the earth, there is no conflict. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And I think that scientific advances have given us insight into when he did it and how he did it, but I still believe God did it…. I just think in America we should have the freedom to teach our children whatever it is we believe. And that means teaching them science, they have to know the science, but also parents have the right to teach them the theology and to reconcile the two things. [Emphasis from ThinkProgress]

It's good to know that Senator Rubio agrees with science and goes on record stating an age for the universe that corresponds to the evidence.

Now if can only convince the majority of Republicans to agree with him.

GOP: The Stupid Party

Governor Jindal in Politico:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Monday called on Republicans to “stop being the stupid party” and make a concerted effort to reach a broader swath of voters with an inclusive economic message that pre-empts efforts to caricature the GOP as the party of the rich.

In his first interview since his party’s electoral thumping last week, Jindal urged Republicans to both reject anti-intellectualism and embrace a populist-tinged reform approach that he said would mitigate what exit polls show was one of President Barack Obama’s most effective lines of attack against Mitt Romney. [Emphasis added.]

While the interview is about much more (he talks about banking reform, immigration, and how "merely being the anti-Obama party didn't work" for example) he did say:

“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”

Ok, then.  Perhaps if Governor Jindal wants the GOP to cease being "the stupid party" he can start with the majority of Republicans (58%, according to Gallup) who believe that "God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years" even though the science dates the first "modern" humans evolved about 200,000 years ago.

Or perhaps Governor Jindal could address the 57% of Republicans who don't believe there's solid evidence for Global Warming (when asked by Pew only 43% said there was solid evidence for it) if he wants the GOP to stop being "the stupid party."

Perhaps had Governor Jindal vetoed the "Louisiana Science Education Act" instead of signing it, I'd have a little more faith in his words. And what did the LSEA do? From Slate:

The act allows “supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials” to be brought into classrooms to support the “open and objective discussion” of certain “scientific theories,” including, of course, evolution. As educators who have heard such coded language before quickly realized, the act was intended to promote creationism as science.

Good going, Bobby.

America, The Scientifically Illiterate.

H/T to Dimitri for posting this on his facebook page:

Nearly half of Americans — 46% — believe God created the human race in a single day 10,000 years ago, a newly-released Gallup poll found.

The poll revealed that Americans’ ideas about the origin of mankind have remained virtually unchanged in the 30 years Gallup has surveyed on the topic.

Doesn't mean that any of what's believed is true, of course. Just consistently wrong over the last 30 or so years.  It's interesting to see how Gallup addresses that point.  We'll see it in a minute.

But let's look deeper into that Gallup Poll.  Some background:

Gallup has asked Americans to choose among these three explanations for the origin and development of human beings 11 times since 1982. Although the percentages choosing each view have varied from survey to survey, the 46% who today choose the creationist explanation is virtually the same as the 45% average over that period -- and very similar to the 44% who chose that explanation in 1982. The 32% who choose the "theistic evolution" view that humans evolved under God's guidance is slightly below the 30-year average of 37%, while the 15% choosing the secular evolution view is slightly higher (12%).

Who is this God person, anyway?  Anyone?  Oolon?  Oolon?  Oolon Colluphid?

Back to reality.  Digging deeper into the numbers we can, perhaps, discern some greater insight into our American character:

Two-thirds of Americans who attend religious services weekly choose the creationist alternative, compared with 25% of those who say they seldom or never attend church

So, at the very least there's a correlation between regular weekly church attendance and deep scientific ignorance.

By political party, then:

Highly religious Americans are more likely to be Republican than those who are less religious, which helps explain the relationship between partisanship and beliefs about human origins. The major distinction is between Republicans and everyone else. While 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, 39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree.

And a correlation between political party and that same deep scientific ignorance.

And here's how Gallup oh-so diplomatically addresses all that ignorance:

Most Americans are not scientists, of course, and cannot be expected to understand all of the latest evidence and competing viewpoints on the development of the human species. Still, it would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution. Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature.

Which is a very nice way of saying that all those nice people (consistently church-going Republicans, for sure) are just simply wrong about the science.

Sadly, we've done this all before.

So I'll say it again.  If we are a superpower in decline, this has to be one of its causes: our stubborn faith- based adherence to scientific ignorance.

More On Texas - Evolution vs Intelligent Design Update

Yesterday, I wrote that the science vs creationism debate was flaring up yet again in the great state of Texas..

There's an update from the AP:

An expected fight over teaching evolution in Texas classrooms fizzled Thursday when the state's Board of Education gave preliminary approval to supplemental science materials for the coming school year and beyond with only minor changes.

A large part of the debate revolved around some new online instructional materials. This was the place where "intelligent design" was to be found. Only now:

One that didn't make the recommended list was an electronic textbook that includes lessons on intelligent design, which is the theory that life on Earth is so complex it was guided with the help of an intelligent higher power.

"There's no bad science going into classrooms" in the approved materials, said Dan Quinn, spokesman for the Texas Freedom Network, a group that sides with mainstream scientists on teaching evolution.

And while science is not subject to a vote, it's still good to see this:

One conservative group, Texans for a Better Science Education, had put out a call to pack Thursday's public hearing with testimony urging board members to adopt materials that question evolution. But they were outnumbered by witnesses urging the board to adopt the materials with few changes.

"I don't want my children's public school teachers to teach faith and God in a science classroom," said the Rev. Kelly Allen of University Presbyterian Church in San Antonio. "True religion can handle truth in all its forms. Evolution is solid science."

Amen, Reverend Allen. Amen.

A Creationism Update

I've said it before. If we are a society in decline, this is one of the reasons - a willful, stubborn, arrogant, religiously-supported scientific ignorance.

From the NYTimes:

Teaching creationism in public schools has consistently been ruled unconstitutional in federal courts, but according to a national survey of more than 900 public high school biology teachers, it continues to flourish in the nation’s classrooms.

Researchers found that only 28 percent of biology teachers consistently follow the recommendations of the National Research Council to describe straightforwardly the evidence for evolution and explain the ways in which it is a unifying theme in all of biology. At the other extreme, 13 percent explicitly advocate creationism, and spend at least an hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.

That leaves what the authors call “the cautious 60 percent,” who avoid controversy by endorsing neither evolution nor its unscientific alternatives. In various ways, they compromise.

So less than three in ten do it right. One in eight get it completely wrong and the remaining "cautious middle" do their students a grave disservice by compromising.And:

The survey, published in the Jan. 28 issue of Science, found that some avoid intellectual commitment by explaining that they teach evolution only because state examinations require it, and that students do not need to “believe” in it. Others treat evolution as if it applied only on a molecular level, avoiding any discussion of the evolution of species. And a large number claim that students are free to choose evolution or creationism based on their own beliefs.

As Neil Degrasse Tyson said on Real Time recently, the beauty of science is that it's still true, even if you don't believe it.

There should be no compromise with science.

More On GOP Anti-Intellectualism

From Bill Maher this weekend:


That's a member of the US House of Representatives (and thus a lawmaker) denying one of the foundations of mondern science. Really.

From Talkingpointsmemo:

"I believe I came from God, not from a monkey so the answer is no," he said, laughing, when asked if he subscribes to the theory. Later in the segment he added, "I don't believe that a creature crawled out of the sea and became a human being one day."

As I wrote a month or so ago if we are a superpower in decline this is the reason. Simple and arrogant American scientific ignorance.

American Ignorance

Hard to believe, but it's true. From a recent Gallup poll:

Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.

Only about one out of six got it completely right? Now that's just sad.

This was the question that generated the above percentages:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?

There's a lot about of interesting stuff in the Gallup numbers (the more Republican you are the more likely you'll get the science wrong, the more educated you are the more likely you'll get the science right and so on) but I don't want to spend my time there.

I wanna talk science and logic and belief.

If, as 40% of Americans believe, human beings were created in their present form no more than 10,000 years ago, then what are we to make, say, of the Chauvet Cave in southern France?

Science tells us that human beings lived there some 20,000 to 30,000 years ago but the creationists tell us humans are no older than 10,000 years old. Both can't be right. Both can be wrong, of course, but both can't be right. One way to resolve the impasse is to look at the foundations for each belief. For the science, one main piece of the foundation is radiocarbon dating.

What is that, exactly? It's a method of dating the age of once living tissue based on the rate of decay for an isotope of carbon (namely carbon-14). Isotopes, by the way, are atoms of the same element (hydrogen, uranium, and so on) that differ in their atomic weights because they have a different number of neutrons in their respective nuclei. Carbon-13 has, for instance, 7 neutrons and 6 protons in its nucleus while carbon-14 has 8 neutrons and 6 protons in its nucleus (7+6=13 and 8+6=14, get it?).

Science tells us that carbon-14 is very unstable and decays into an isotope of nitrogen at a known rate. It's formed constantly in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays interact with some of the nitrogen up there and filters down into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide where it enters the food chain (from CO2 to photosynthesis to animals). When something is alive the amount of carbon-14 in its system more or less matches the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. But once that thing dies, no more carbon-14 is added and the carbon-14 that remains begins its decay into nitrogen.

In a nutshell, by knowing the rate at which carbon-14 decays and knowing how much is left in the once living tissue, scientists can pretty accurately estimate when that thing died.

And science has dated the presence of human beings in the cave at least twice the age that creationists allow.

So if the creationists are correct, then all of the physics used in radiocarbon dating must be wrong, for instance, carbon-14 mustn't be decaying the way physicists say it does. But if that's wrong, then so much else of physics is also wrong because it's all an interconnected web.

On the other hand, we have the strength of belief among creationists.

If they're right about the age of the human beings then a whole lot of science is wrong. How's your TV working these days? The nuclear plants powering the USS Ronald Reagan? Both built on nuclear physics. The science of each connected to carbon dating in one way or another. If carbon dating is wrong, they shouldn't work.

But yet they do.

American ignorance - if we are a superpower in decline, this is the reason.

(H/T to Huffingtonpost)

Tax Funded Scientific Ignorance (In Creationist Kentucky)

From the Louisville Courier-Journal:

Gov. Steve Beshear said Wednesday that a creationism theme park, expected to open in Northern Kentucky in 2014, would have a $250 million annual impact on the state’s economy.

Ark Encounter, which will feature a 500-foot-long wooden replica of Noah’s Ark containing live animals such as juvenile giraffes, is projected to cost $150 million and create 900 jobs, Beshear announced at a Capitol press conference.

“Make no mistake about it, this is a huge deal,” he said.

And:

The project is a collaboration between Ark Encounters LLC, a for-profit company in Springfield, Mo., and Answers in Genesis, a non-profit organization that runs the Creation Museum in Boone County.

Ark Encounters plans to build the park and Answers and Genesis plans to operate it.

Beyond whatever Chuch-State issues are present when an obviously religious project like this could be reimbursed $37 million in tax incentives, I want to take a look at what they're teaching in this "museum."

Ben Armbruster at Thinkprogress is reporting that the ark in question will, of course, have dinosaurs in it.

What's Answers In Genesis?

From their website:

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

And:

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.

The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.

The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Young Earth Creationism.

It's that last part that's the most anti-scientific. Whereas real science collects data and then attempts to explain that data with various (and at times competing) hypotheses. The hypothesis that best explains all of the data is the one regarded as being closest to the truth.

Fake science like Young Earth Creationism has stated up front that anything that contradicts The Bible is simply factually incorrect.

It's not science, it's intellectual rubbish.

It's also intellectually damaging. From the Courier-Journal:

The National Center for Science Education asserts that “students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level.”

Ignorance begets ignorance.

Welcome to America, a Christian Nation.

More On Christine O'Donnell's Intellect

Christine O'Donnell, the Sarah Palin-endorsed darling of the Tea Party and GOP nominee for the United States Senate for the great state of Delaware, thinks evolution is a myth.


Her skepticism is based on this ultra-scientific question:

Then why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?

Maher points out:

This is somebody who could be in the Senate, who thinks that mice have human brains and doesn't understand that, oh my god, monkeys don't evolve in the time it would take to watch them.

Darling of the Tea Party, Sarah Palin-endorsed, GOP Candidate for the United States Senate. Shouldn't scientific ignorance of this magnitude disqualify someone from being taken seriously as a candidate for public office?

That's right, this is the GOP we're talking about here.