Real Science Friday: What technologies needed Darwin or an old earth?

[Jefferson]

What technologies needed Darwin or an old earth?

This is the show from Friday June 3rd, 2011.

SUMMARY:




* Two Wild Claims by Whorton and Roberts: Real Science Friday co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart debunk two wild claims made in an old-earth book, "Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding Creation" by Mark Whorton and Hill Roberts.

* Wild Claim #1: Flood Geology began with Ellen White and the Seventh Day Adventists. Somehow the authors missed the previous centuries of writings by leading geologists, quotes from early church fathers, and the history of the world's oldest national scientific organization, the Geological Society of London. Terry Mortenson, with a PhD in the history of geology from Coventry University in England, has an excellent article Where Did the Idea of "Millions of Years" Come From? that reports on the young-earth flood geology view that prevailed before Charles Lyell. An article on the Geological Society's website, God and the Geologists, doesn't mention Ellen White but does state that a book, Geology and Religion, published to coincide with their 200th anniversary, summarizes the modern history of geology saying that: "A prominent topic is that of ‘Flood Geology’. Originating alongside geology itself in the 18th Century, the theory held that the current geological features of the Earth have resulted from a global flood, as described in the Genesis account of Noah’s Ark. The theory was a popular one for centuries... Now, however, flood geology is undergoing resurgence as part of the increasingly prevalent creationist movement."

* Wild Claim #2: Young earth creation, "requires one to regard virtually all of modern science as fundamentally mistaken... about most of the... principles that have made modern technologies possible." Whorton and Roberts have this in common with evolutionists Dobzhansky, and Alate_One from TheologyOnLine.com? Theodosius Dobzhansky claimed that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." And TOL's Alate_One claimed on the Bob Enyart Live Forum that, "Mainstream science is the only science that actually works." So Real Science Friday has a question for A_O, Whorton and Roberts. In this following list of major inventions and technologies since 1860, please identify which ones were enabled by Darwinian insight or belief in an old earth? Countless technologies and inventions were enabled by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Pascal, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, the Wright Brothers, and Carver. But they're all on OUR list. But, which of these did they need Darwinism to develop?

Light bulb, vacuums, pasteurization, railway, typewriter, electric motor, carburetor, loudspeaker, telephone, phonograph, microphone, photographic film, seismograph, solar panels, punch cards, cars, combustion engine, AC transformer, contact lens, tractor, ballpoint pen, cinematography, wind energy, zipper, escalator, X-ray, remote control, tape recorder, air conditioning, fire fighting foam, neon lamp, EKG, airplane, seismometer, sonar, radio, TV, rockets, radar, sliced bread, transfusion (think Harvey here), EEG, steel, radio telescope, jet engine, computer, Velcro, transistor, atomic clock, nuclear reactor, fiber optics, hard drives, satellites, spandex and spam, lasers, digital photography, optical disc, 3D holography, LED, mouse, lunar lander, Venus lander, video games, video cassette, space station, e-mail, karaoke (so sad), LCD, microprocessor, MRI, Ethernet, PC, DNA sequencing, Internet, Plasma TV, GPS, MP3 player, flash drive?​

* Fred Williams Challenge to Whorton, Roberts and Alate_One: Identify any technology or invention for which Darwinism or a belief in an old earth is an enabling prerequisite.

* Alate_One Update: A_O responded to both of the above questions here (just below, link opens in a new window), and Bob replied to her here (link opens in a new window) and to A_O and to Gordon J. Glover here.





Today’s Resource: You'll just love the science DVDs, books, and written, audio or video debates we offer through our Real Science Friday broadcasts! So have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out Bob most highly-recommended astronomy DVD, What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy! And see Walt Brown’s great hardcover book, In the Beginning! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media’s Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with the infamous anti-creationist Dr. Eugenie Scott. And if you have young kids or grand kids, you owe it to them and to yourself to give them as a gift the SUPERB kids' radio programming on audio CD, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s great Creation magazine and if you're up to reading more technical scientific articles, you'll also want to subscribe to CRSQ! And to order any of our BEL science products by phone, just call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278).

* Special Editions of Real Science Friday:
- RSF's famous List of Not-So-Old Things
- Bob's debate with Christian Darwinist British author James Hannam
- PZ Myers blogs against Real Science Friday so we hit back with the PZ Trochlea Challenge
- Waiting for Darwin's Other Shoe: Science mag cover: Darwin Was Wrong on the Tree of Life
- Microbiologist in Studio: Creation Research Society Quarterly editor on new genetic findings
- Caterpillar Kills Atheism: describe how a bug could evolve to liquefy itself and then build itself into a flying creature
- And see the RSF Offer of $2,000 to get 16 letters of the alphabet in their correct places; $500 paid in 1998; $1,500 in 2010...

 

[Tyrathca]

I find it curious that the focus is on a discreet technology rather than a use. Perhaps even Enyart is smart enough to have already realised predicting and mapping disease development and spread, including antibiotic resistances, is an obvious application of evolutionary theory by public health officials (also useful for pest organisms as well). Furthermore there is the field of evolutionary computation which is derived from our understanding of evolution in natural environments and our attempts to replicate its principles in new applications.


I also love the mention of MRI as an example creationist based technology. Conflating technology that was developed by a creationist with technology that was developed based on creationist theories. Given that MRI technology has nothing to do with evolution or creationism and everything to do with physics, computing and the atomic and molecular composition of various tissues in the body it seems rather desperate that they mention it at all.

 

[Alate_One]

"Mainstream science is the only science that actually works." So Real Science Friday has a question for A_O, Whorton and Roberts. In this following list of major inventions and technologies since 1860, please identify which ones were enabled by Darwinian insight or belief in an old earth?

Your challenge is based on a reinterpretation of my statement. I said that "mainstream science is the only science that works". Now, of course, you don't object to all mainstream science. I was not asserting, as you are implying that ALL science is then directly based on evolution and an old earth. But that's standard Enyart for you, reinterpret whatever your opponent says into what you WANT it to say. You do the same with scripture so it's hard to be surprised by this.

The REAL challenge would be for Bob to tell me one invention that is itself *actually* founded on YEC principles, not simply proposed or enabled by someone that held YEC views. Holding a particular viewpoint and doing something great doesn't mean that viewpoint is true. That's classic argument to authority, which is a logical fallacy. But Bob just LOVES his fallacies.

The important question is, what reason do you have for rejecting the particular areas of science you do? (Other than the obvious that it conflicts with your interpretation of scripture)

Countless technologies and inventions were enabled by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Pascal, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, the Wright Brothers, and Carver. But they're all on OUR list. But, which of these did they need Darwinism to develop?

I'm not going to go with much of your preselected list which seems to be focused on consumer products. Basic science not "useful" enough for you?

Most are based on relatively simple chemistry which does not necessarily require knowledge of the age of the earth or biology at all. Though in general the materials involved come from an old universe, especially metals which are produced by ancient exploding stars. So there's that.

atomic clock, nuclear reactor,

YECs don't accept standard explanations (i.e. theories) for nuclear decay which is fundamental to both of these so . . . I think you have serious problems here. Plus you included astronomy? Um, modern Astronomy does not work without an old earth, period. :rotfl:

satellites, DNA sequencing,seismograph, seismometer, sonar,

Funny you list these even though you don't accept the data that these technologies produce!

If you want actual technologies/products that require or directly imply evolution, one of the major ones today would be recombinant DNA technology.

From a YEC perspective, why on earth should you be able to take a gene from a human, put it into a bacterium and have it function and make protein?

An understanding of evolution is driving improved utilization of transgenic crops through mandates of refugia, as well as trait stacking to try and combat the evolution of pests. The same principle is used by pest management officials, insecticides and fungicides must be rotated or combined based on their mode of action, which target particular proteins which of course, can change!

The same principle of evolution underlies one of the great modern inventions saving lives, Anti-retroviral "cocktails". The cocktail works because the HIV finds it more difficult to evolve resistance to multiple drugs at once. . . . These cocktails have turned what was otherwise a death sentence into something survivable, assuming you live somewhere where you have money to access the medications . . .

I could go on with biology examples since quite a bit of modern biotechnology is based on and around evolution. And of course basic areas like cell biology, developmental biology etc are all riddled with evolutionary information and underpinnings.

Of course you've placed yourself as the arbiter of this "challenge" so I'm sure you'll say whatever my response is, is inadequate. It's amazing what you can do when you make the rules.

 

[Jukia]

Alate: Nice well thought out response. It struck me that Pastor Bob's continued use of YEC'ers as examples of people whose "worldview" still allowed them to make technological contributions is akin to a "Mussolini had the trains running on time" argument.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

YECs don't accept standard explanations (i.e. theories) for nuclear decay which is fundamental to both of these so . . . I think you have serious problems here.

We don't? That's news to me.

 

[fool]

..... In this following list of major inventions and technologies....... sliced bread,............

:rotfl:

 

[Tyrathca]

We don't? That's news to me.

Standard explanations of radioactive decay indicate that the earth is old, ergo YEC incompatible.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Standard explanations of radioactive decay indicate that the earth is old, ergo YEC incompatible.

Assuming there was no radioactive daughter material present when the Earth was created. I see no reason to hold to that assumption. I'm not denying the decay rates, nor do I have a problem with quantum physics.

For example -- let's say you've got a chunk of material you believe to be 5 billion years old. Was it 5 billion years ago that it formed and got blown out of a star, or 5 billions years ago that it congealed and sat around waiting for us to find it? Radioactive decay doesn't cease just because the particles are floating around in a gas cloud or drifting through space. Even if I go by your theories of nucleosynthesis and stellar formation, I see no reason I should think there were no radioactive daughter products present when the Earth was formed.

 

[Alate_One]

Assuming there was no radioactive daughter material present when the Earth was created.

You misunderstand radioactive dating. One of the types of dating, Potassium - Argon is based on when a rock melts. Since Argon is a gas and when a rock melts, gas is going to be expelled from a rock, melting "resets" the clock on the Potassium isotopes. So any lava flow that dates older than 6-10,000 years is a problem for you.

Unless you want to state that God created said lava flows from scratch (they didn't actually flow from an eruption) with Argon pre-placed inside of the rocks to make it look AS IF they were much older than they are. But that demands a very deceptive deity.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

You misunderstand radioactive dating. One of the types of dating, Potassium - Argon is based on when a rock melts. Since Argon is a gas and when a rock melts, gas is going to be expelled from a rock, melting "resets" the clock on the Potassium isotopes.

Except it doesn't. They found plenty of argon in that Mt. St. Helens ash.

So any lava flow that dates older than 6-10,000 years is a problem for you.

And you don't see a problem with some ash less than 30 years old being dated at 3 million years? If you can't get the right date on things we know the age of, why should I trust the dates you get on the things we have no other way of confirming?

Unless you want to state that God created said lava flows from scratch (they didn't actually flow from an eruption) with Argon pre-placed inside of the rocks to make it look AS IF they were much older than they are. But that demands a very deceptive deity.

You love trying to construct arguments for me, don't you? How about just letting me make my own?

 

[Alate_One]

Except it doesn't. They found plenty of argon in that Mt. St. Helens ash.

Ash can pick up argon from the air. Of course an actual scientist controls for that.

And you don't see a problem with some ash less than 30 years old being dated at 3 million years? If you can't get the right date on things we know the age of, why should I trust the dates you get on the things we have no other way of confirming?

It helps if you actually use a lab that can date samples that are less than 2 million years old. As the specific disclaimer on the lab the ICR group used said, "We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y." but they sent the samples anyway. Why should we expect a correct age when creation "scientists" are apparently purposefully using incorrect methods. This is only one problem among many with said "study".

And yes we have other ways of confirming dates. . . . Other types of radiocarbon dating or, magnetic properties and stratigraphy.

 

[Cricket]

Ash can pick up argon from the air. Of course an actual scientist controls for that

How?

..from tapatalk and nexus s..

 

[Alate_One]

How?

..from tapatalk and nexus s..

I'm no radiometric dating expert (but then neither is anyone else that has posted here thus far) but doing a little reading tends to help on these sorts of things . . .

Great care is needed in collecting a sample for dating to avoid samples which have been contaminated by absorption of argon from the atmosphere. The above equation may be corrected for the presence of such contaminating non-radiogenic 40Ar by subtracting from the measured 40Ar value the amount originally present in the air as determined by the 40Ar/36Ar ratio. Ordinarily, in air samples 40Ar is 295.5 times more plentiful than 36Ar. The amount of the measured 40Ar that resulted from 40K decay is then: 40Ardecayed = 40Armeasured − 295.5 × 36Armeasured. Contamination is suspected when the final results are untenable.

Wiki article on K-Ar Dating

See also Talk origin's article on isochron dating

 

[Cricket]

I'm no radiometric dating expert

OK. Potassium-Argon dating needs to be closely examined and cross-checked. Even the controls you mention are not enough. Other methods are often seen to dramatically alter the age for K-Ar.

And the inclusion of atmospheric argon raises the question of where atmospheric argon came from. Today's production is from K40, potassium-40, but the only reasonable source for that potassium is the mantle rocks we assume are able to retain their argon to make the dating method viable!



..from tapatalk and nexus s..

 

[Jukia]

OK. Potassium-Argon dating needs to be closely examined and cross-checked. Even the controls you mention are not enough. Other methods are often seen to dramatically alter the age for K-Ar.

And the inclusion of atmospheric argon raises the question of where atmospheric argon came from. Today's production is from K40, potassium-40, but the only reasonable source for that potassium is the mantle rocks we assume are able to retain their argon to make the dating method viable!



..from tapatalk and nexus s..

Citations for these assertions please, thanks.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Ash can pick up argon from the air. Of course an actual scientist controls for that.

So the Laetoli footprints might not be as old as y'all think. IIRC, they were dated to about the same age as that Mt. St. Helens ash, using the same method.

 

[Cricket]

Citations for these assertions please, thanks.

These things are easily verified.

Geochemical Discrimination of Five Pleistocene Lava-Dam Outburst-Flood Deposits, Western Grand Canyon, Arizona
New ³He₃ and ³⁹Ar/⁴⁰Ar ages show that volcanism and lava damming in this region occurred between 1 and 630ka, rather than between 10 ka and 1.8 Ma as previously reported.

Atmospheric residence time of helium
Helium (He, atomic weight 4 g mol-1) and argon (Ar, atomic weight 40 g mol-1) are both produced in the Earth's interior and exhaled to the atmosphere.

Evolution of Martian atmospheric argon: Implications for sources of volatiles
Our simple model for argon evolution incorporates production of radiogenic argon in the mantle

 

[Alate_One]

So the Laetoli footprints might not be as old as y'all think. IIRC, they were dated to about the same age as that Mt. St. Helens ash, using the same method.

You missed the point again, the method isn't necessarily at fault. The particular LAB couldn't date below 2 million years. Plus the samples that were sent to it were probably not properly fractionated. That doesn't mean potassium argon cannot be used to date below 2 million years or that potassium argon has been invalidated.

 

[The Barbarian]

In this following list of major inventions and technologies since 1860, please identify which ones were enabled by Darwinian insight or belief in an old earth? Countless technologies and inventions were enabled by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Pascal, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, the Wright Brothers, and Carver. But they're all on OUR list. But, which of these did they need Darwinism to develop?

It should be noted that Mendel was an evolutionist, interested in the different theories of evolution at the time. He even sent a copy of his paper to Darwin, who apparently never got around to reading it; if he had, one of the major objections to Darwin's theory would have been cleared up.

Carver, (who was on the faculty at my alma mater) was keenly aware of natural selection and bred new varieties of plants to resist fungus disease, thereby.

Of course, much of evolutionary theory depends on the findings of physics, and creationists often assail physics for many of these findings, some of which were the product of Faraday and Newton.

They only like science when they think something can work for them. So Faraday's work which lead to Maxwell's equations, which allowed physicists to accurately date rocks billions of years old, must be hateful to them as well.

Science is one fabric of understanding; pull on one thread, and you disturb all the others. As noted earlier, nothing in biology makes any sense at all, without evolution.

BTW, that observation was first made by a believer, not an atheist, Theodosius Dobzhansky.

And since Argon/Argon dating precisely dated the flow that buried the city of Pompeii, the validity of that testing is well established.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I haven't got a problem with the math. It's the values arbitrarily plugged into the equations that I question.