You are right!

You took the words out of my mind.
A few weeks ago I asked four of my friends if they believed in evolution. These are very smart people (studying economics, law, engineering and even medicine). I was the only one of them that believed that humans have evolved from monkeys.
Even if you are religious you can still accept evolution as a valid theory.

Very well said sir *applauds*
People like this honestly scare me. Why is it we are still filled with irrational illogical wackos?

Some people on twitter were wondering who I was talking about. The point is not to point fingers, because people like this can be found everywhere. And even though there are probably more in religious circles or the republican side of the political arena, you can’t point to one group as a whole. More importantly, I think it has less to do with religion and political views than with education.
That being said, the elephant in the room is Sarah Palin. She is *not* the main issue though, and I this is not about bashing.
What I would love to see is people react more when confronted with that nonsense, to prevent something like that to even be an issue in the first place.

cultural relativism is all well and good, but inherently it too is nothing more than a bunch of BS, much like erroneous beliefs about the earth being a mere 5000 years old. cultures need to have the ability to assimilate new information and adapt to change. as everyone should be aware, the three worst possible reasons for belief are custom, tradition, and authority. the cultures that you mention, indirectly that is, continue to perpetuate their asinine beliefs for those three reasons. In some ways, it almost buries you in the so called Nuremberg Defense. ” I subjugate woman and other people because my dad did, and his dad did, and the head of my group says it is ok.” never mind the potential moral implications within these beliefs. personally, i do not feel that i should be respectful of any culture who perpetuates beliefs for those three reasons. if you can provide me with a factual, evidence based reason that we should believe that the earth is a mere 5000 years old, or that there is a so called soul that exits your body upon death to go through a whole lot of other malarky, then i will change my beliefs. actually, belief. what a tricky word. lets change that to knowledge.

I agree… it’s a sa matter of ignorance. I hate it when people take relativism to an absurd. It just makes me feel sorry for them.

@adrian actually, man did not evolve from monkeys. man and monkeys share a common ancestor, but both took different evolutionary paths to get to the point where they are today. this is why monkeys are not continuing to evolve into modern man, which, of course, is one of the creationists most favorite points to bring up.

Thank you!

People are not entitled to an opinion that is disproven by evidence.

I love this post. I just wish that Americans were more forthright about debunking illogical reasoning when it presents itself in the political arena.

I love you Patrick, but I have to disagree. I do not believe in evolution and I do believe in creation by God. Given that I believe that the earth can be 5000 years old. People much smarter than me can debate this point much better than I can, so I won’t spend to much time on it.

But what really struck me about your rant was how you point out freedom of thought yet you are also telling me that it’s not ok for me to freely think that creation is the truth. So are you saying that freedom of thought is ok unless x number of people have done x number of things to provide evidence against my thought?

While I do not intend to sway your opinion about the age of the earth I do hope that you reconsider such the strong stance that you have taken and allow for freedom of thought on this subject.

Having spent many, many years at the highest level of Canadian federal politics, I’ve run across folks with ideas like this many times. You are correct in that these kind of positions are absolutely not OK, but getting folks to change their position is usually fruitless. Exposing them to argument or ridicule will only harden their positions, generally. The best course, I’ve found, is whenever possible to marginalize the individual through dismissal. When that person is the VP nominee, that gets a little tough.

Rachel says: “So are you saying that freedom of thought is ok unless x number of people have done x number of things to provide evidence against my thought?”

My answer: this is exactly what I am saying.
If your “opinion” has been “proven wrong” on such an immense scale (and we can debate on those terms), then still maintaining it doesn’t make it right just because you really really want it to. In that case, no rational adult should still believe what you believe, and I am sorry to be abrupt about it, because I know it might hurt your feelings.
To give a more simple example, you can believe the sky is red all you want, but the fact will remain that it is blue. People maintaining that it’s not is troubling enough, but the trend of accepting this as a valid opinion worries me even more.

Devin: I agree, but since it’s gotten to that level I think we need to be a bit more active, and maybe educational, in our marginalizing. When it’s gotten that bad, I’m afraid that just making a joke out of it and pretending we didn’t hear just won’t cut it. As it hasn’t in the past few years…

A very thoughtful post. I don’t know if you’d define this as cultural relativism, but in conversations that I have had with deeply religious people with a scientific background, here’s how the circle is squared (think Scopes monkey trial):

How do we define a year? Is it one revolution of the earth around the sun? 365 days? Both?

What if, for the first billion years of the Earth’s existence, it did not rotate on its axis, or it did not revolve around the sun? Could the biblical definition of “5,000 years” equate to a scientific calculation of a much longer time period?

I don’t support the notion of a 5,000 year old Earth, but I think this type of thinking allows religious scientists to comport their faith with the science.

Where to begin first of all your theory that the earth is more then 5000 years old can not be proven. There is no method of carbon dating or other that can be relied on to give us a proper time line. There are also other ways of explaining the layers in the earth other then the millions of years theory. I am not passionate that the earth is only 5000 years old but your comments of ignorance and belittlement incited me to respond to you.

But what if I do not believe that my “opinion” as been “proven wrong”? That is obviously the pivotal point of the conversation.

Let me build upon your simple example. If you were to poll a thousand random scientist and ask them if the sky was red or blue I think you would agree with me that they would say blue. You probably wouldn’t be able to find any scientist that had counter arguments to that idea. Now let’s apply that to the subject of the age of the earth. If you were to randomly poll a thousand scientists do you think they would be able to confirm, as certain as the sky is blue, that the earth is billions of years old?

Here is a quote by William D Stansfield, PhD (William D. Stansfield, Ph.D. (San Luis Obispo, CA), is emeritus professor of Genetics at California Polytechnic State University and the author of five previous books on genetics, evolution, immunology, and molecular biology.) on one form of testing how old the earth is.

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geologic stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological `clock’.”

What I think it boils down to is that my opinion has not been proven wrong. I wonder if your rant is not really about people being allowed to have freedom of thought so much as creationism vs evolution. I will admit I picked up that it was freedom of thought, and I might have been mistaken.

Eldacar: Interesting indeed. I think this is still a way to admit without admitting… Of course this has roots in religion, and I would have a lot to say about that too. But it might derail the discussion at hand, so I’ll keep it for another day.

Subywwjd: I think you are confused. Carbon dating cannot give us the age of the earth because life wasn’t there until recently in the planet’s history. It is however one of the many ways to prove that the earth is a lot older than 5000 years old.
Unless what you are saying is that you don’t believe in carbon dating… in which case, unfortunately, I don’t think we can have a *rational* discussion.

Rachel’s re-response: what you are doing is typical of countering scientific arguments and, I’m sorry to say, conspiracy theorist techniques. You are taking one quote that says “radio reading results vary” and fitting it to your belief that “hence, we don’t know anything, and the earth might very well be 5000 years old”. On top of that, I do think that the scientific community as a whole agrees that the earth is a lot older than that. But you will always find someone with a PHD to support what you are saying I’m sure. And at this point, I’m afraid discussion becomes futile because you will answer “well then you chose to believe your scientists and not mine”, and there’s nothing I can reply to that… You are just not thinking rationally.
I would even submit that your intelligence compels you to validate your belief by seeking out scientific arguments (or pseudo-scientific arguments) which, to me, is honestly the height of irony in this whole mess.
Relating to that though, a “fact” generally put forth by “your side” (hugs, I still love everyone! ) is that “science is divided” about the age of the earth. The truth is, if you take every “scientific” publication, you get a roughly 50-50 divide. If you take the “serious scientific” publications, you get a near 100%. I don’t have to tell you which side they’re on… Maybe you’ll say I’m choosing my scientists again, and, again, I can’t answer anything to that.
Regarding creationism vs evolution, it has ties of course, but it is not the topic of this rant.
As for freedom of speech, as I stated, it is absolutely indispensable to our societies. I do however resent the fact that beliefs and opinions are routinely accepted as fact and science in the general public, which, again, is the central topic of this post.

i believe there is such a thing as carbon dating iam just saying that is not reliable. I was also trying to say that there is no method to prove your theory and it made me angry that you think your self better then those that disagree with you.

Patrick says: “And at this point, I’m afraid discussion becomes futile because you will answer “well then you chose to believe your scientists and not mine”, and there’s nothing I can reply to that… You are just not thinking rationally.”

How is it that I am not thinking rationally? There are scientists that find flaws in the methods other scientists use in dating the earth. I agree the discussion becomes futile because ultimately it is holding up one scientist against the other.

I see your point and agree with it mostly. I also agree that eduction is key.

Given how long humans have been around (documented by our own history) I have a hard time believing what we call “a fact” as being truth. It’s more theory since we can’t (not to be funny) go back in time and actually see the creation of the planet (whether its God, the big bang or God triggering the big bang, etc). We have pieces of evidence that through testing support theories. Think of all the evidence that hasn’t been found yet that could sway the argument.

I’m not debating how long the planet has been around because does it really matter? Maybe it does and that was an ignorant statement. I’m just stating that we are young as a whole and need to realize what we believe is true is based on our knowledge at the time and truly how accurate is our knowledge (maybe I’m just stating the obvious). In ten years scientists could say, “Damn I carried a 1 instead of 10.” Again not trying to be funny.

Holy can of worms, Patrick!

Stubywwjd: If you consider that dating remains back 60.000 years is inaccurate by 55.000 years (which it is if the earth is 5.000 years old), then you *are* throwing carbon dating out the window. I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways. You can’t squeeze in a “I just think it’s not accurate” side note. That kind of “not accurate” means “complete bullcrap”.
And again, this is one of many ways to disprove your theory. I won’t list more: that’s not the point and I won’t convince you. Silly analogy: “Mom, I got an A on my test!” “Oh great! But… wait, this is an E!” “Hey, my representation was merely inaccurate.”
And regarding me being better than people who disagree with me, I think you misunderstand my argument: I don’t believe I am better than anyone, I believe that evidence and rationality make me more right, in that specific instance.

Rachel says: “I agree the discussion becomes futile because ultimately it is holding up one scientist against the other.”
Very well put! I agree a hundred percent. And my whole point is that my scientists are not only more accurate, but that yours are not only inaccurate, but even not really scientific at all… but that will never get settled here.
Thank you for framing it so well though!

Brian: I also agree 100%. We can never really know what happened, and there is always the remote chance that we are completely wrong. Any self respecting scientific mind should have the intellectual honesty to leave that door open. The problem is that some people exploit that very honesty to try and invalidate the whole process.
“5 billion years old? It’s just a theory!” Well, if you understand it like this, I don’t think you know what “theory” means. This is a deceptive trick, and we should know better.
By the way, we might also be wrong about gravity, viruses, atomic power and French fries. But for now you can’t deny that planes fly, we cure flues, A-bombs go boom and French fries are delicious!
Well, I guess you could, but it should be regarded as silly. Especially for fries.

Syhalla: It is indeed a can of worms, but look! How respectful a discussion we are having! Even if we don’t want to “agree to disagree”, we are civil and polite, and we talk peacefully… This is how the world goes forward, I tell you.
And I am really grateful for every person who chooses to express themselves so well on that hot button issue. I really am.
Ok I’ll stop, I’m going to start crying…

I’d just like to point out that the Sarah Palin/4000 years ago thing has been debunked:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/newsquotes.asp

I do agree with you, Patrick. There are a lot of things that people either “take for granted”, or just believe because everyone else does too, without their own critical thought.

Everybody used to know for a fact that the earth was flat, and that the earth went around the sun. People used to take Radium because they thought it had health benefits.

Ah, to be alive a couple of hundred years from now and to look back at what we “know for a fact” today. I bet those folks will shake their heads wondering what in the heck we could have been thinking.

Indeed, a very respectful discussion, and all are to be applauded. This is how the world is supposed to be ran, but seldom is.
I fall somewhere on both sides of the issue. I am a Christian (no pun intended) who believes in a form of Intelligent Design. I also believe in the Big Bang theory and Evolution. Their are just to many facts that support the science behind both of those theories. My belief in one does not preclude my belief in the other, and I think that is what causes the controversy. It’s the notion that one cannot hold 2 different ideas in your head without your brain to explode. Physics exist, and their notions can be proven. Faith does not depend on what is proven. My faith is not shaken by science, but my patience is tested by those that use Faith as an excuse to pretend that Physics are just suggestions, not rules.

I don’t know if I’m helping, but how’s this as a simple proof (I think) that the Earth is older than 5000 years?
The point some people are trying to make is that not only is the Earth 5000 years old, but also the Universe, the whole of existence.
Let’s take into account that the speed of light is limited to about 300000km/s. How do you explain light coming from stars that are million of light years away? I’m not an astronomer, but I think the distance can easily be proven because of things such as parallax( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax )

Also, people have chosen to interpret quotes from the Old Testament in different ways. Why can’t people still believe in God and also except that the Earth is much much older and God’s creation is even greater than what is written in the Bible?

Disclaimer: I was raised in a religious environment and after a lot of internal debate (touching on atheism a few times) I settled of agnosticism.

Patrick thanks for standing up and saying a statement like this. It is rare that in modern society that people stand up for whats right and point out to people that they should look at all the facts before making a decision about their beliefs. Its not an easy thing to comment on religious beliefs like Evolution or how old the world is but the fact is that the world is much older than 5 thousand years (close to couple billion years old) Evolution is also a fact. Don’t tell me that modern apes and humans share 99.99% the same DNA and then say that evolution does not exist. There are fossils, DNA tests, and just plain common sense to prove that evolution does exists. We all agree that gravity exists but yet its still a theory. Just because its a theory does not mean its wrong, it actually means its the closest thing to fact you can get with your observations. I live in Illinois in the Midwest of the USA so you don’t have to show me people who actually believe the world is 5000 years old and who don’t believe evolution … they are my neighbors. After a long hard thought upon religion, I am now a certified Agnostic. Again Patrick I thank you for brining up this topic and I’m Behind you 100%

Anyone who is competent in science knows that Patrick is correct. The reason that so little is done about such outrageous public claims is that too many people prefer to believe what they want to than what is right in front of them. It’s sad to see. I hope it changes.

I love when people quote a single scientist to debunk science. It’s either a nutcase or (usually) a totally out of context or misinterpreted quote. I have a friend who was recently quoted by a bunch of metaphysics nutjobs because his notable paper had a single line that could be roughly taken to support creationism. Fact is, it was poor wording by a non-english speaker, but they jumped on it as fact since it came from *spooky voice here* A SCIENTIST!

Dean: if the Sarah Palin thing is just a rumor I will be relieved. But I will be even more relieved if she, and others, come out and clearly state “I do not think the earth is 5000 years old”.
As I said, this is not just about her…

Christian: Very reasonable way of seeing it.
Again, many more interesting things could be said about religion specifically in that instance, but I don’t want to derail the post.

Bryan: I love your last line.

Hi Patrick,

Yeah, I understand it’s not about her. I just brought it up because she was mentioned earlier in the comments. There are a lot of things that people are talking about as “facts”, and this is just one of them; it’s actually been around quite a long time. I remember hearing about it about 15 years ago, and was having a hard time understanding how people could think the earth was 5000 years old, despite the carbon-dating and all the other evidence.

Snopes is a pretty well respected rumor debunking site, so I tend to believe them. (It’s a pretty fun site, lots of interesting stuff there). There’s a link to the blog that started the rumor too on Snopes too.

I seriously doubt she (or any candidate) will come out and clearly state that unless some reporter asks them she directly. Candidates from either party would have their hands full just responding to crazy rumors that opponents bring up, and it would only add fuel to the fire. Look at Obama, for example. He’s not a Muslim, but one slip of the tongue where he accidently said something like “My Muslim faith”, and people went after that for days.

I am a religious person (Episcopalian) but I do not believe the earth is 5,000 years old. I don’t see any conflicts in believing the bible and believing in evolution. There have been many famous scientists that are religious.

To me, to say that the earth is 5,000 years old is to know the mind of god. What is a day to god? I don’t suppose to be that arrogant. I believe god made the earth but it didn’t happen in a literal week.

Have you read about Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal? — Not only is he the current youngest governor, but he is also the first Indian American person to become governor.

He converted from Hindi to Catholicism in high school and then attended Harvard med school, and one of the biggest, juiciest questions he gets asked is the whole evolution debate, and being a smart, eloquent dude, he has some interesting perspectives that appeases and rationalizes with both sides.

Then again, he *is* a politician.

Ok,

I’m way late on this one, but maybe that means I’ll get the last word.

1) I am a Christian minister and I believe in the general scientific consensus around evolution and the age of the earth (billions of years).

2) Patrick, you are wrong. Having the viewpoint that the earth is 5000 years old isn’t always a case of ignorance – although that is often a component. I know folks who have a young earth viewpoint that operate under a different set of starting assumptions. Mainly that an all-powerful God has been and is incredibly active in the world and universe. Throw in an omnipotent agent and all sorts of ground rules are out the window. This is doubly true when you throw in a literal devil who has all sorts of power to deceive people and manipulate physical reality.

I’m not saying that these are my beliefs specifically, but if someone has these beliefs than all sorts of scientific evidence can be discounted. This is especially true because we are no longer dealing with science but faith. And I do have a big problem with people trying to put their faith views (i.e. 5000 year old earth) into science education.

Patrick, it may be possible that it is actually a certain set of religious assumptions that you find ignorant rather than the view of cosmology that comes out of them.

Ok, one more thought.

Patrick, do you think that it is ignorant to claim a belief in God since there is little to no scientific evidence to support it?

@Dean: Politicians not coming out and saying that this is silly is exactly the problem. Maybe if they did, then it wouldn’t be an issue at all.

@Brian: I agree. And just to clarify, I also believe that faith in God and rational thinking are completely compatible. As long as that faith doesn’t tell you that Noah literally got two of every animal on a boat 4000 years ago, I don’t see where the problem is.
Again, God isn’t the real issue here. The issue is ignorance, and the fact that we are legitimizing it.

@Karen: I’ve never heard of him, but I’ll go look him up right now.

@Shawn
In your first massage, I think you’re just moving the problem. I would say that the thought process (or set of assumptions) that allows people to go to that sort of idiocy has everything to do with ignorance.
Knowledge, experience and rational thinking are exactly what would push away intellectual fallacies like these ones.
Sure, I can get a starting point that will let me accept this theory. But then why not believe that the earth is actually flat and that the devil is crafty enough to deceive us into proving it’s not?
Or that we’re really all otters in the dream of a sleepy giant living on Mount Doom with his pal Ironman? The devil’s crafty you see, he doesn’t want us to find out.
Forget the fact that it’s plain silly, wouldn’t the devil have better things to do than to stroll around dropping fossils everywhere? Why waste your time having us believe something so random? Can’t he be as evil in a really really old earth?
Well, I’m sure they would have an answer for that too. And to come full circle, I would say that this answer would most probably come people who aren’t very well educated at all…

As for the existence of God, I think that you’re talking about something completely different here (on top of fishing for an easy outrageous comment on my part. )
Not being able to prove a fact (or to disprove a negative) is a long ways off from denying overwhelming evidence. Also, having faith is one thing. But trying to pass faith as scientific evidence is quite another.
As I was saying, some things are (and should stay) debatable and acceptable. But that “young earth” thing is one of the rare cases that we shouldn’t entertain, because making it acceptable is doing a disservice to us as a society.
The existence of God, while debatable, certainly isn’t part of that category. I would even argue that it’s one of the fundamentals of philosophy, and that it helps us push things forward in many ways (defining ourselves, our humanity, our humility…)

Very interesting discussion folks. Thanks =)

I think the world is going towards not being able to believe in science and in religion as actual things in the past that happened. Religion is only good for providing a philosophy on how to enjoy and live your life.

To dismiss these accepted scientific ideas: evolution, age of Earth, gravity, genetics, is just lunacy. There is a real point in what Patrick is saying. I can’t just converse with someone who will not accept what science is agreeing on, on a major scale. There is no disagreement of the whole in the science community about these topics. There is disagreement on what specific proteins do, on what dark energy is, and several other things, but that’s because we don’t know enough yet. People make mistakes when they try to claim that accepted theories suffer the same disagreements.

I always say that people that don’t accept science unless it agrees with religion should not take flu vaccines, medicine, or any other research based on organic research. If you don’t accept the age of the Earth because of conflicts with religion, then there are problems with your faith.

Shawn:”Patrick, do you think that it is ignorant to claim a belief in God since there is little to no scientific evidence to support it?”

I’m not Patrick, but I can answer this one. I wouldn’t call it ignorant. I would call it convenient.

I’m all for freedom of religion, so I don’t want to presume to tell people what to believe, but if you argue reality based on hope and conjecture rather than logic, you just don’t have a very relevant voice in that arena, however interesting you may find it.

I agree with you completely Patrick.

I was just wondering where those new creationism ideas are really coming from. It seems to me that America is the only place in the western world where those ideas still exist.
I might be wrong here but I used to live the states in the early 90′s and I don’t recall hearing or reading about creationism as much. So what happened since then ?
Just to be clear, my intention is not to criticize the United States in any way. I’m just curious as to how these new ideas appeared (or rather these old ideas coming back to life).
I would appreciate any information anyone might have.

You raise an interesting point Froggie.
Not only do other countries not really share those views (or at least I don’t get that impression), but I also don’t think they were that prominent in the US a few decades ago…

Freedoms are based on legal rights, not scientific knowledge. If you really believe that people should be censored based on what science tells us at the moment, maybe you should look at science as related to history? Scientific advancement, just like any other field like Art, Engineering, Law, Politics, Medicine, etc required people being able to communicate ideas and build on them.
Just over 100 years ago they couldn’t believe how much they knew. They were building ships like the Titanic, the Wright brothers had flown an airplane, etc. Look at how much further we’ve advanced even since then, and with the Internet even more so!
I can understand that you don’t want to believe the world was created by God and would prefer to believe that the universe was created by an explosion that created everything using quantum magics and then by luck some lightning struck some mud and then DNA and cells and life were fortunate enough to be created. Perhaps you believe that is a good enough theory?
Or maaaybe you can stop being one of those people who makes everyone scared to question these theories for fear of being labeled a religious zealot? Perhaps instead you can be a little less afraid of what we might find out and let scientific progress march forward?
The American legal system is based on the idea that it is better to let 100 guilty men free than to imprison 1 innocent man. Maybe this isn’t always the best system, but in your words “show me something better and we can talk”. Freedoms such as the Freedom of Speech are given to people because for every 100 rude Frenchmen there might actually be one person out there with a good idea worth listening to.
So Patrick, please take your hand off the big red censor button. You’re not that person. I’ve heard everything you said a million times before. You’re just towing the Atheist party line, and your dogma is weak – if not well rehearsed. Don’t let Atheism become the religion that stops progress and takes away our rights.

Jesus Eric, you’re blurring so many things together and making so many shady approximations that I don’t even know where to begin…

First of all, again, I have NOTHING against the idea that God was at the origin of creation. He could have done that a few billion years ago and planned everything in a complex domino effect that would result in a “lighting sticking mud” (sic). Why are you so hell-bent on believing that he did it 5000 years ago when everything in the world says he did it long before that?…
To be clear, what I don’t want is to present the belief that he made the earth 5000 years ago as a valid scientific theory when it’s nothing more than an idea, taken from a very literal interpretation of the holy Bible (that, may I remind you, even the pope rejects.)

Second, that “big bang” thing is the exact opposite of magic, and I’m sorry to say that the way you try to ridicule it just shows that you probably don’t understand it, or even what scientific investigation and research means.
“Oooh look, images coming from a screen! Haha yeah, they’re being magically beamed from half way across the world through a bix box and a bunch of wire, right!”
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it can’t be studied and proven. Your idea can be neither, it can just be enunciated and that’s not enough to make it scientific. Granted, it doesn’t make it wrong either. I’ll admit to that much. It’s just as likely as anything else that can be “said”.
And how ironic that you use the word “magic” when talking about science… Maybe you should google “magical thinking”, I’m sure you’d be infuriated by the result.

Third, about freedom of speech… you can say anything you want my friend, and I have the right to ridicule you for it if your idea is silly.
You have the freedom of speech, you just shouldn’t have the authority to present your speech as science just because you feel like it. You want to piggyback on the authority of the science that brought you electricity, the microwave and your XBOX? Then you have to submit your idea to the same rigorous verification process. You can’t just pull the “science seal” out of your behind and stamp your idea with it. Your idea just doesn’t pass the test, plain and simple.
You’re saying I should let scientific progress march forward? My dear, open a book! Scientific progress has marched forward, and it left your ideas behind quite a few years ago! There is nothing to support your theory and everything to invalidate it. You probably won’t believe that, but you’re the one trying to hold it back.
I started my article saying that freedom of speech is essential. Next, I say it doesn’t mean we should validate every idea. Please understand the difference.

My bottom line: if you truly believe that the earth is 5000 years old, then you are either misinformed or you are a zealot, indeed.
Debate on abortion, the right to end life and all those controversial issues all you want, I’ll always be there to discuss them, or maybe we can agree to disagree. But on that one, you’re just being unreasonable and you’re endangering the rational thinking that our societies are based on. I don’t want you to be scared of anything (least of me, I’m harmless!) but I do want to voice my opinion strongly.
Stop listening to my shows if you will, it would be very irresponsible of me to stop saying what I’m saying, and I won’t do it. Sorry…

By the way, since you want to make this religious, here’s a serious theory: what’s to say the devil isn’t twisting your interpretation of the bible to go against scientific evidence and keep us from moving forward? After all, if I have to trust someone on religious matters, I would tend to take the words of the pope over yours, so you have to be misguided in some way…
I would very honestly hear what “young earth” theorists have to say about that one. But of course they won’t because 1) they’ll think it’s just silly, and 2) there is no way to disprove any of it.

PS: The condescending “rude frenchmen” comment made me laugh, I’m not even going to respond to that. Same goes for the part about an atheist party line (wth?), you having heard all of this before (…) and your whole attempt at drawing a parallel with the American legal system… I’m not going to bite. Oh ok I will: Hey Eric, fictional character Denny Crane is on the phone, his wants his bogus reasoning back!

PS2: However sarcastic and annoyed I sound, I still do want to thank you for taking the time and having the courage to voice your opinion on what is a somewhat hostile forum. I absolutely disagree with you and everything you said, but I still think it takes a certain measure of courage to come and say it here.

See there you go! You called me a religious zealot! But may I point out that YOU are the first one to invoke the name of Jesus? May I say HA? I think I shall.

Right off, YOU are twisting what _I_ said. First of all, we have no (written) history beyond four or five thousand years – and most of that is more recent copies or older texts or oral stories. We can theorize that things are older than that, but really we only have theories. Maybe we’ll find out more eventually though. But we have no 100% positive proof that anything is older than that because we just weren’t writing stuff down back further – assuming we were around back then? Even the stuff that was written down back then has little scientific value, though it does have a great deal of historical value.

No “rational thinker” should say ‘well we’ve got the Big Bang and evolution that is all there is to “creation” and anyone who disagrees is either wrong, stupid or a zealot’. Seriously? This is rational? No, it’s DOGMA. Should we just stop thinking now? Can we not have an open dialog or are we done with the big bang and evolution now forever? Even if we’re right or wrong? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying. There are HUGE holes in our knowledge and theories. That is why I called the Big Bang “magic”. Not because I think it *is* magic but because from all we understand right now:
1) There was nothing before the big bang.
2) There was lots lots of stuff immediately after-wards.
3) Some of that stuff grouped itself so that there was stuff in one place, and nothing in other places (ie, planets and suns and space).
3) Some time after that – whether it was six days or some number of years larger than the dollar amount of the US Banks bailout – some of that stuff came alive.
4) Some of that alive stuff turned into humans.

That is really condensed, but The Big Bang Theory and Evolution Theory barely scratches the surface. We really have nothing, to very little to explain why number 1 or 3 happened, and barely understand the “evolutionary” process between 3 and 4 (i.e. how does something go from one cell to millions of cells?).

Even if you DO put God into the equation, there is no reason for science to look for the ways God created the universe. In the end Science is about understanding the world, the universe, and everything in it. It is not a religion or theology, even though many atheists are treating it like it should be. We should not have ‘faith’ that Science will discover the truth because in the end it is ScientISTS that make the discoveries and interpret them into theories. Their work should be encouraged and not stopped or curbed based on Theist or Atheist dogmas, or even what society as a whole says or wants to believe.

Things change! 40 years ago all the best scientists (doctors too) preferred the smooth flavor of Lucky Strike cigarettes, but who would say that now? Society has a lot to say in what gets studied and what doesn’t.

Let me make another similar point. We know how the XBox and TV work, mostly because they were invented and created by other people. Of course nobody has ever told me “the XBOX works because Bill Gates made it so”, and even if they did you couldn’t stop me from getting my screwdriver in to tear it apart. However, I would be disappointed if I voided my warranty like this in order to find proof of Bill Gates existence. Scientists can’t expect to find out about the existence of God by figuring out how the universe works (that is, assuming God created it).

Here is where I address your comment that ‘”young earth” theorists [think ...] there is no way to disprove any of it’: If that is so, maybe these people should be working on something more their speed like flying cars or the cure for cancer. As you said, Scientific Progress marches on, and future discoveries might make you either a genius before your time, or an idiot with his head in the sand. Maybe you can rest peacefully by tossing a coin? But theories with no evidence or proof are rubbish in Science.

I believe that any Christian (or your-religion-name-here) should find their faith in the Bible (or your-religious-text-name-here) and through prayer and a relationship with your God (if you can have on with him/her/it) – not from science. I don’t subscribe to the Pope’s beliefs, but if he has a problem with what the Bible says maybe he should find a new religion to be the Pope of. Maybe one with taller hats and bigger bubbles on their cars. If you can’t hold on to your faith when people tell you it’s wrong and you can’t tell people why then maybe you don’t believe it as strongly as you think you do? Or maybe you need to be studying your beliefs a little bit more.

I am not afraid that scientific progress will tear down my beliefs. My faith runs deeper than that, and I know what I believe to boot. I’m not in it for the money, fame, or prestige (because there isn’t any). I’m a Christian because it is the truth. I’ve wrestled with evolution intellectually. I’ve read books and the web. People used to tell me it was the truth, and after reading the Bible I know it is the truth, and not propaganda or brain-washing. If it were, I would have walked away a long time ago!

Science has nothing that tells me God could never have created the universe. And if he could create the universe, why not in six days? And even then, why not fully formed with stars and mountains and valleys?

I say let Science march on! I want that cure for cancer, and seriously 2008 is almost over: where is my flying car already? But come on, lets not turn science into religion. I’m happy to leave Jesus out of the science books, as long as you promise not to continue misusing the word “rational”. There are crazy zealots on BOTH sides of the issue, but (here is the parallel with the American legal system) don’t shut up EVERYONE, because someone might have something good to say.

PS: I say you are towing/toeing the Atheist party line because your entire blog post is taken entirely word-for-word from things Richard Dawkins and other Atheists have written and said. Seriously, search Google and YouTube for Richard Dawkins and you’ll find your blog post.

PPS: I don’t mean to be condescending about Frenchmen but you yourself said “We hate to be rude… but we’re french” at the top your blog.

Eric, I’m convinced. You win!

Now that’s what I call an interesting discussion !

I don’t want to speak for Patrick here but I don’t think he’s following any party line.
The fact that he expresses his opinions on evolution doesn’t make him a follower of any potitical or religious view.
I’m always amazed of how much some people say they defend freedom of speech and then see any difference of opinion as a personnal attack.
Eric, I respect your views as much as Patrick’s but I don’t understand why you would think he’s “shutting you up” when all he does is disagree and say why.
If we all said “I understand your opinions but disagree” then leave it at that, there wouldn’t be any debate, now would there ?
Freedom of speech is so much more than that and it certainly is not confined to the where the american legal system applies.
Sorry Eric if my comment seemed rude but since I’m french, I guess I can’t help it. Maybe that’s the way God made me so there’s really no point trying to fight it

Froggie, I agree so much that I think from now on you can speak for me if you want.

This argument isn’t really about atheism (and most religious people agree that the earth is “old”, by the way), but I would still like to submit the fact that atheists do not really have an agenda. Quite the contrary: if they are right, they die into nothingness. And if they are wrong, they’re probably going to hell. Fun, huh? Try pushing that for the sake of pushing an agenda…

Well, I was about to say more about atheists, but I re-read Eric’s message and decided it wasn’t really worth it. Silly approximations, shoddy logic… I mean, did you just use flying cars to dismiss scientific reasoning? What the hell are you talking about?!
I’m sure you’re trying to make a point, but I’m sorry to say that you’re not making a lot of sense, on any level.

You seem to have a nice sense of humor though, and I know I do too; maybe one day we’ll laugh about all this around a cup of coffee somewhere…

Wow, Eric, you really have no idea what science is, do you. You’re all about straw men and argument mis-reflection. Religous groups try to inject Creationism into schools, and then you say scientists are trying to form a religion because they say you can’t do that? Crap, dude, that’s wacky land.

The Big Bang is a theory, not magic. There are logical discussions about all of your five selected points, none of which require the existence of a God to explain. You tell Patrick to go google Dawkins, but maybe you need to do a bit of research yourself.

This sums you up really:
“I am not afraid that scientific progress will tear down my beliefs….I’m a Christian because it is the truth.”

Just because you REALLY REALLY want something to be true does not make you correct. You speak with misplaced confidence, which wouldn’t be all that bad if you weren’t coming across as angry that people don’t fall in line with whatever you come up with at the moment. (Your pope reply had me in stitches!!)

Relax, man! Life is too short, especially when it’s about to end (twice)!!

Hello everyone,

I would just like to react in a few words to some arguments and reasonning I’ve read here. Excuse my poor English, I also am a rude frenchman

On the subject of the note, nothing much to say. Everyone should be allowed to say almost anything, except for racism, hate, negationism. In the same spirit, if you want to defame someone, it seems fair enough to me that the person has the right to engage lawsuits.

This viewpoint is basically widely shared in Europe.

But on the converse, anyone should feel free to criticise your speech. In this case, anyone should be allowed to say that pretending the Earth is literally 5’000 years old is dumb, has nothing to do with rationnal thinking. I have made the choice to follow the way of the reason rather than the way of faith. Everyone has the right to make the other choice. But if you pretend that both choices conduct to equivalent claims and conclusions, you’re wrong.

Science proceeds basically as follows :

1. Observation
2. Setting up a theory which is compatible with the observation
3. Making predictions using the theory developped
4. Veryfying the predictions

When you make a new observation that does not fit your theory, you modify your model to take it into account. The key words are : observations, evolution.

How does faith proceed to explain the world ? Simple : an explanation is given, cannot be rejected nor approved by any experience. This is, as said, magic. A dogma, stuck, with no possible evolution or questioning.

Everyone should see the difference.

A few remarks :

- There is no such thing as “before the big bang”. The notion of time was created together with the big bang in our models. Speaking of “before the Big Bang” is like speaking of “outside the universe”. Since the Universe is everything that exists, it has no meaning. One says that people have problems with the notion of “infinite”. But usually, it’s the contrary : if you say them that the universe is finite, they say “uh ? so what’s beyond ?”.

- Rachel, even though you’re not a scientist, you should understand the difference between “It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be” and “radiometric techniques are completely wrong”. Those techniques may not be perfect, but they state with no possible doubt that the wearth is older than 5’000 years old, much more.
If you want another argument, look at the stars. Look at them with some nice magnifying lens, such as Hubble. We can measure how far they are. We can see some of them that are millions of light years away. This means that when we look at them, we look at their past. Probably some of them are dead now, turned into a supernova or, why not, a black hole. This because the light takes time to travel. Basically, for a star which is millions of light years away, the light takes millions of light years to comme all the way long. And this means that they are million of years old. A little more than 5’000 years, right ?

First of all, I have to admit that I haven’t completely read and digested every single post here, so if I comment on something that has been stated prior please forgive me.

I always believed in an old Earth, even though I was a Christian. My belief in that old Earth came from my belief in whatever scientists told me. I never verified those claims myself because I did not ever see a reason to do so. It was in my science book, and science is exact, right?

About 6 months ago, however, I listened to a lecture given by a scientist who believed in a young Earth (about 6000 years old). The reason that he believed in a young Earth had nothing to do with his faith (he was an atheist at the time he made that decision, though I don’t believe he is anymore), but was based on the inconsistencies that he saw in the accepted scientific dating methods, the questions he had about many of the evidences for an ancient Earth (including the light from distant stars), and in the scientific EVIDENCE that pointed to a young Earth.

That was only one lecture, so I don’t claim that I can say definitively that the Earth is young. However, he presented enough scientific evidence to that effect that I am now undecided. I discovered that there is a lot more to this subject than would seem on the surface and that I need to do a lot more research before I can make up my mind.

I mention this because what a lot of you seem to be saying is that this is a debate that should not even take place because to disagree with an ancient Earth is just stupid. There is scientific evidence that points to a young Earth, much of it very compelling. I would like to see some of those arguments being debated and refuted, instead of people just making blanket “what scientists say is true” statements. That type of comment (without the specific scientific arguments to back it up) is the same “blind zealot” behavior that religious people are so often accused of exhibiting. I think that that was the point Eric was trying to make in his earlier post, though maybe not as articulately as he had hoped.

Please don’t get angry. I’m not saying that no one here has researched this topic for themselves. I know that there are some posts that have the mentioned specifics that I am talking about, and I appreciate them. I’m just not seeing many of those points in here. Mostly I just see statements of faith in what is the accepted norm in scientific circles.

Again, I am firmly undecided on the matter because I have not researched it enough yet. That is the reason that I haven’t posted the scientific evidence for a young Earth. I wish that I could, but I know that my knowledge is limited enough that I would be unable to debate the topic intelligently. But please, let the debate begin. I would love to hear each side of the story.

Derick, sorry but not reading the comments before you post yourself is not a very good way to start. Not only does it show a lack of respect for us, but I think it also tells us something about the way you approach discussion and maybe even knowledge and research, which is sort of ironic. And please trust I would say that even if you were on “my” side; a lot of people do it and it irritates me to no end. Normally I wouldn’t even respond…

I’ll still say a few words though:
You are talking about people “saying” stuff, again. The problem is that 1) we’ll never explain all the evidence here and 2) we know we are not the scientists; the argument that “we’ll never know for sure ourselves” has been made here before. It’s just an easy defense young earth believers fall back to: we don’t know, you don’t know, no one knows, so all “theories” are equal.
First, it’s not true. And second, no one knows that there aren’t elves with gills living 20.000 feet under the sea… It doesn’t make it believable, scientific or even intelligent.

That being said, I would love to hear what “evidence” this scientist person is talking about. And if the “inconsistencies” he saw in the current science are “carbon dating isn’t reliable” again, I think I’m going to hang myself.

[Edited typos and stuff]

You know what, Patrick? You’re absolutely right. I appreciate your honesty, and I apologize to you and to the others that posted on here. I will take a closer look at all of the statements that have been posted here and reformulate my comments.

*waves at Derick*

If you could tell us a little bit about this one scientists theories that got your attention, we might be able to discuss what is wrong and what is right about what he/she was saying. It would help if we knew their name/school(or company) as well, so that we could check on their published works, which is always a good starting point for uncovering the concensus scientific view on a topic, as opposed to interpretation of a talk by a third party (which is apt to be reinterpreted and lead to confusion).

I agree with you completely, which is why I didn’t post any of the theories. I knew that I would probably just misrepresent them in some way.

It’s been a little while back, so it might take me a little while to find out all that information, but I will get it for you.

Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity tells us (among other things) that time is not absolute. Time is not the same for all relative points in the universe. Conceivably, The earth can be billions of years old AND 5000 years old, depending on which clock you’re looking at.

It’s the idea of the “Twin Paradox” (Special Relativity retold by Paul Langevin). Imagine you were to take identical twins and keep one on earth while sending the other into space in a rocket approaching the speed of light (and bring him back to earth). When the traveling twin returned, he would appear younger than his sibling. For the traveling twin 22 yrs have passed and for the earth-bound twin 26 yrs have passed despite the fact they were born within minutes of each other (I used arbitrary age differences to illustrate the principle).

I’m tired of people telling me that because X is true, Y has to be false. No, X being true only means that X is true. It does nothing to disprove any other position.

I don’t care how old the earth is. I don’t care how old other people think the earth is. I don’t want to close my mind to potential paradigm shifts because I think I have it all figured out.

Hmmm let me guess; physics major, 1st year?

Seriously though Keith, I don’t think the point is to count in dog years or in light speed years; when young earth theorists say the earth is 5000 years old, I’m pretty sure they don’t think of Einstein or relativity. They say: “men and dinosaurs lived happily together a while back, and now we can’t be sure what happened”.

I think you’re talking about something quite different. Your point is strange to begin with (essentially: “relativity says the earth can be however old we want it to be”… really?) but I also think it doesn’t really have a lot to do with what we are talking about in the end.

Again, these people don’t say “we could think it’s true from a certain point of view”, they say “the earth is 5000 “man years” old, period”.

Again, these people don’t say “we could think it’s true from a certain point of view”, they say “the earth is 5000 “man years” old, period”.

I don’t know I’ve increasingly run into younger religious people who thought that god creating the universe in seven days was more a matter of relativity. They usually point to a passage from the bible saying that a day in the eye of god stretches to infinity, or something like that. I guess if you look at it from a modern point of view it hints that time is relative. Anyways the 5,000 years thing does bother me but it’s usually only the hardliners and older Christians who interpret it that way anymore.

Keith,

The Earth is quite large and does not travel near the speed of light no matter how you look at it. Thus it (as we do) experiences a more Newtonian relationship with time, which can be approximated as linear even at the time scale of the Universe.

And if someone did manage to avoid the fact that only certain particles can travel at/near the speed of light, and found a way to zip around in this probably physically impossible spaceship, the effect would only be that this observer would see the Earth become older relative to his own age, not younger. There are no conditions where it would go the other way.

Bryan

” I am the most accepting person in the world, but this is not acceptable, and it is absolutely not ok.”
do you not recognize that whilst your statement is absolutely correct in the relative context of your emotional outcry, that it is an absolute contradiction? That is the human nature as he sins.. he is always wrong, never right. he can be relatively wrong and right, but in the absolute, in God’s eyes, we are all wrong. and He lets you be wrong. He lets u say, “i am the most accepting person in the world” as if you actually are, then He lets you refute yourself by saying that you absolutely won’t accept something. He lets you do whatever you want. keep walkin, wherever you see fit

@Jack
I think it’s called a figure of speech, and I think you’re being very passive aggressive…

It’s well known that Ancient Rome’s origins are around 750 years B.C.

If the earth was really only 5 thousand years old, Do creationists really believe dinosaurs had already dominated the earth and become extinct in a mere 2 thousand years or so before the Roman Kingdom developed?