Dinosaurs and common sense
My wife subscribes to Smithsonian Magazine, and there is an article in this month's edition about a T-Rex found in the U.S. with soft tissue and blood cells still intact.
Dinosaur Article
Now, who really thinks that soft tissue can survive (and remain soft) after 60 to 70 million years? Honestly, that defies basic reason. What amazes me is not that a dinosaur was found with soft tissue intact. I'm floored by this statement from the article: "Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”" Really! Decay is an assumption?!?
Regardless of whether a person believes that evolution is true or false, or that the earth is x million or thousand years old, or anything else about such things, this shows some of the most astounding blinded bias I've encountered in a while. Holtz, and I'm sure plenty of other people, are so solidly convinced of such subjective things as the history of millions to billions of years, they are would rather doubt that tissue decays than that a T-Rex could potentially be found out of a possible, theoretical, historical context that can never be demonstrated or reproduced in reality. It just goes to show how powerful a world view really is. Basic common-sense issues are nothing in the wake of a charging world view.
Now those of you who share this world view, I know this will make you angry. That's fine, my goal isn't to make you angry, but to scoff about how powerful a world-view is. So, even though you can't help yourselves, you can spare the hate-comments about how holy and sacred the "scientific" history of the last x billion years is. I just want to make a philosophical point.
posted by Seamus at 6:20 PM
16 Comments:
Well, me thinks you are just asking for another one of Nathan's logical ass-poundings... but more importantly, damnit Seamus why'd you have to post for the first time in ages the same damn day I post for the first time in ages? Isn't live-action Mario much more fun and Horadrim-y than hating science and facts?
7:51 PM
I don't think I'd consider any of Nathan's comments ass-pounding. Unless you're talking about the post where he almost passed out on my mom's toilet.
8:24 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
9:14 PM
No, despite any provocations I try to keep it light and airy in here (unlike when I go to the bathroom). But yeah, I really have to ask why this can't just be the fun blog. I mean, I just think we're all supposed to be able to relax and post stupid links here. I don't want to get into, but I find the very idea that science is a "world-view" anything comparable to a system of beliefs like religion ridiculous. Let's just not get into that stuff here.
11:00 PM
I don't have any other blog on which to post, so sorry for the serious nature of the topic. I like philosophy.
My comments need not invoke furious anger, I'm only making one simple point.
An objective person, when faced with this data, has at least two options to consider
1.) The T-Rex may not actually be as old as we thought
2.) Decay may not actually be as thorough as we thought
An objective person must consider both options. Holtz, the voice of science in the article, only considered one of them. This is not an example of objective reasoning using the scientific method, it is biased reasoning from a certain world view.
Why is it biased? Because Holtz, like many others, has complete faith that the "textbook" history of the last 40 Billions years is completely accurate and the evolution that supposedly occurred throughout those years is an absolute fact. Now this history of course can't be challenged, there's no way for us to go back and really see what happened. There's no way to really tell how old something is on a scale of anything more than a few thousand years, we simply can't prove it. Humans haven't been around that long to say concretely, "yes this was observed to be 3 millions years old, hence our radiometric dating really is accurate." This elaborate history of the world and of life is entirely speculative. And, what's more, people like Holtz assume it is true with such fervor that to challenge it would be heresy. This is called bias.
When you think about it, claiming to know accurately the history of 40 Billion years is almost as presumptive as claiming to know everything about God. No one really knows how old the earth is, and anyone who does is a fool. But when a person, who is supposed to be objective, is faced with either challenging a speculative earth-history versus the decay rate of bird bones what should he do? He could actually test bird bones, but why do something as objective as that when he “knows” that his knowledge of 68 billion years ago is flawless. This reeks with beliefs and with bias.
Young-Earth Creationists are the same way. They’re absolutely biased that what they know of history from the writings of the ancients is correct. When they see data like this, they say, "Wow, a T-Rex that doesn't fit the scientific mold". They're pleased with it, because they ultimately believe that their world-view will prevail anyway.
Here is the distinction. I don't claim to be objective in my reasoning, I have a strong faith and a strong bias. Scientists, however, do claim to be objective; and yet, they aren't. Like it or not, they have a world-view based on science which they can’t easily challenge, even if being objective warrants it.
I'm not insulting anyone, I'm demonstrating a trend. Beliefs and bias are part of being human, whether a creationist or a secular humanist, or an atheist or whatever. No one, not even scientists, are really objective.
6:00 AM
Actually what I see when I look at his quote is a scientist simply acknowledging that our scientific knowledge of the age of dinosaurs is so thorough that in this specific instance it would be ridiculous to question it. The fact of the matter is when you look at how much we know about dinosaur bones as compared to how long organic matter can last, I think I can confidently say that more study has been done of dinosaurs. Naturally, when one conflicts with the other, you're going to start with the assumption that the one you have more knowledge of is correct. Usually this tactic is borne out by the end results. We're not going to throw out whole sciences simply because we get one result that we didn't expect. Your fallacy is in assuming that it would be correct to weight the two problems equally, as if we couldn't actually be so sure of dinosaur ages that we could discount any evidence which at first seemed to contradict it. That's not scientific.
Science is based on knowledge. You can, if you so choose, deny that it's possible to absolutely know something (and you can't apply the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to this situation), and I guess that's what you're doing. However, I would say that the world we live in disproves that. Science is a process that begins with asking questions and ends with manipulating nature to suit our own ends. On some fields we're not as far along as others, but let me give you an example that demonstrates that you can know things in the absolute sense. Take televisions. Do companies do magical rituals to develop new models of tvs? No, they have electrical engineers developing them. Even if you knew what the parts were, could you throw them together without knowing why they work and expect to get a functional tv? No, absolutely not. Companies manufacture thousands or millions of tv sets a year. It's not a flaw in our knowledge of science that makes a few come off assembly lines not working; it's a flaw in the manufacturing process. If you took one of these malfunctioning sets, you would be able to figure out why it's not working based on the scientific principles we already know. I would make a bet that you could never find a tv set that should work according to our knowledge of science, but doesn't, and therefore demands the expansion of our knowledge of electronics and electricity.
In short, we can know things, and to deny it is to deny the reality of the world you live in. You can say scientists "believe" in the knowable world, but when you believe in something you know to be true, that's just knowledge. Again, you can't equate a scientific "world-view" with religious beliefs. Nature's truths are not subject to belief, and those who are uncovering those truths cannot be faulted for then believing in them. Scientists who are doing their jobs are never on the level of the enthusiastically religious who want the world to conform to their beliefs about it.
9:42 AM
Nat,
All you've done is reinforce my point, and thanks for that.
"our scientific knowledge of the age of dinosaurs is so thorough that in this specific instance it would be ridiculous to question it."
I'm glad we shouldn't question things like the age of dinosaurs when evidence throws our assumptions to the wind. That would be ridiculously objective of us.
"We're not going to throw out whole sciences simply because we get one result that we didn't expect."
Of course not! Why would we let something like conflicting evidence stand in the way of our "facts" and "knowledge". If it doesn't fit our mold, then IT must be wrong.
"when you believe in something you know to be true, that's just knowledge."
Yes, knowlege based on assumptions, beliefs that certain things are absoultely true, and within a certain world view. Exactly my point!
I'm glad we're on the same page. Bias runs both ways.
10:00 AM
Nathan, although you will probably insist otherwise, here are just a few points to rest my case.
1.) Raw data does not give us facts. Data must be interpreted. The interpretation of that data leads to conclusions which are believed to be true. One scientist may interpret facts one way, another scientist may interpret them another way, etc... Fifty years ago they were interpreted differently, and even though those people KNEW that they were right; it turns out that they were wrong. At least people today think that they were wrong, but of course that's just one more interpretation. It's all an interpretation of data, and that interpretation changes on a regular basis.
2.) To be truly objective, and scientific for that matter, you MUST consider the possibility that your interpretation of the data is wrong. It may not be wrong, but the possibility must exist. Otherwise it's no longer obejctive science, it's belief that something is true. Once you believe in something you don't need to question or test it any longer; it has become part of your very world view.
Your insistence that current science has completely accurate knowledge of the last 40 Billion years, and that both the process and timeline of evolution is an irrefutable fact make it clear that you can not question the validity of those "facts" objectively. You are convinced that they are true, even more, you believe that they are true. You refuse to consider that they might be completely false. Therefore, Nathan, what you have is called belief; even faith.
You aren't any more objective about evolution than I am about the Lord Jesus Christ. You have beliefs, you have a world view, and you have bias. You're no different than the religious people that you can't stand with their beliefs and faith; you simply stand on a different side of the fence. Your beliefs are "scientific facts", theirs are "divine truth". Either way you look at it, you both believe in something and refuse to consider that it might be total rubbish.
11:47 AM
Seamus has been doing very in addressing the issues here on his own, but I have a few cents toss in.
When considering what we know of Dinosaurs, whic is almost entirely theoretical, and what we know of decay, which has been throoughly tested according to the highest scientific principles and methods, whic is more in question? Is it more in question that decay may not occur as it it has been shown to by numerous experiments and first-hand observation, or it is the time of dinosaurs, which is only measurable to the point that we can make reasonable assumptions about how much radioactive material was around in the first place to decay more in question? Considering that one has far more concrete evidence supporting it than the other I might be inclined to take a second look at the more theoretical circumstance.
It is,of course, only natural that a man of science would question the more substantiated item, decay, if only because so many scientists are so convinced that evolution MUST be true that anything that brings their belief in this theory to question is inherrently repugnant. To be fair, creationists will gravitate to questioning evolution due to our (yes I am a Christian Creationist) own pejudices. The real resuls will come when a truly objective person, preferably someone who doubts both evolution and creation takes a good look into the issue and puts out an objective finding.
Oe thing I want to know is, has anyone even thought to attempt to carbon date the soft tissues? Radioactive decay is the most probable reason that Holtz is jumping to the conclusion that te problem is flesh decay rather than the actual age of the fosil. It is a well established fact that the half life of carbon-14 is too short for carbon dating to be useful pat something like 60,000 years if that. So if the dino flesh is able to be carbon dated that should settle much of the debate straight away, and our entire geologic hiostory would need to looked at again. at the same time, if the flesh cannot be carbon dated then geolocic time remains intact and we just need to figure out what circumstances could possibly result in the preservation of flesh in stone for millions of years.
Until something this conclusive is done with the preserved t-rex tissues I shall simply say that it's possible that dinosaurs didn't go entirely extinct when we thought they did. Does this definitely mean that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs and man cohabtated at one point? No, but it is an intriguing possiblity. An equally intriguing posibilty is that some dinosaurs survivied the great extinction and some may persist in remote locations to this day. Either way, it's pretty cool.
9:23 PM
Sorry John and Daniel, but "Christian creationists" aren't comparable to scientists. Science is not a "belief system" - science is reality, it can be proven. There are a few theories that can be questioned - such as evolution - but even those have evidence that supports them - unlike any religion where our origins come from a story in a book (of which their are often many versions). That's not to denigrate religion actually, but clearly, religion and science are not comparable things and you are only trying to blur the lines in order to elevate yourself. Are you honestly saying that those who say the world is round and those who say the world is flat have co-equal "beliefs?"
We can demonstrate and prove much of what is in science, but nothing in Christianity or other religions can be demonstrated or proven (the existence of God for instance), in fact this is counter to the point of religion to me - the fact that it takes faith to believe in these things. Science is the study of tangible reality, it doesn't take faith to believe.
I'm not an atheist - I'm agnostic -but I have the good sense to recognize any belief in a higher being has no other real basis than I and others simply want to believe in one. And denying respect to science only undermines the credibility of those with faith, in my opinion. Catholics, for instance, are well versed in science - and are even allowed to believe in evolution - and I think this makes them much more effective in trying to spread their religious messages than other Christians who try to denigrate science. Denying known truths only hurts your cause.
8:18 AM
Adam,
You're just showing more scientific bias. You guys are really solidifying my post.
You have to admit one of two things.
1.) Evolution could potentially be complete nonsense. (Hence you really are objective to some degree).
Or
2.) You BELIEVE in evolution, and could never doubt in its truth.
Which is it? My guess is that you believe in evolution just like religious people believe in God. You can't doubt it, it would destroy your entire world view. If you can stand up and admit "Evolution has a chance of being completely false, it is just one interpretation of data." Then I'll say "you're right, thanks for being objective." If you can't say that, then you believe in it with a degree of faith.
8:51 AM
Adam,
"We can demonstrate and prove much of what is in science, but nothing in Christianity or other religions can be demonstrated or proven"
Untrue. Archaelogy is constantly unearthing evidenc that supports what is recorded in the Bible. almost every major historical figure, event, and geographic location in the Bible is now scientifically documented as true.
This is why, despite the efforts of the seperation of Church and State people, the Bible can be taught as history in U.S. public schools.
Seamus,
in regard to Adam . . .
"My guess is that you believe in evolution just like religious people believe in God."
Actually, many people do. They belive it so firmly that the are willin gto twist the evidence to make it fit evolutionary theory when it doesn't. They believe it so firmly that they can look at valid contradictory evidence and dismiss it without a second thought. The believe it so firmly that when the evidence for evolution is exposed as flawed they simply reinterperet the same flawed evidence to support their belief in evolution. It is a religious blief, it even has a name, Darwinism.
11:24 AM
But John, you miss the point. I believe in evolution precisely because there's so much evidence to support it. I wouldn't believe it if there wasn't. That's totally different from religion, where evidence and facts do not come into play. People believe in one religion or another on faith and faith alone. This isn't "bias" at all. You can't compare two entirely different things. Science is not a religion.
While some of what is the Bible is supported by historical fact, much isn't, and even what is aren't the most important things (i.e. miracles, etc.).
1:31 AM
Adam,
You're obviously sidestepping my point. It doesn't matter what has convinced you that evolution is true. You either are objective about it or you are not. It really is that simple.
If you're objective, then admit that evolution could very well be false but that your interpretation of the data leads you to believe that it is true. If you can't admit that, you are not objective. Hence, you believe in it and can not question it.
If you can't doubt it, you believe in it. That is faith.
Forcing religion and science into one of many various differences isn't going to help you. I'm not comparing religions, I'm comparing beliefs. People believe in something (whether evolution, Jesus Christ, magnetism, love, whatever...) because of how they interpret the world around them. It really doesn't matter why they believe it; it is either a belief or it isn't.
So which is it? (The second time I've asked)
1.) Are you willing to admit that evolution is an interpretation of data that could be completely false. If so, you can call yourself objective for the sake of this argument.
Or
2.) You are so convinced that evolution is true (it does not matter what has convinced you) that you are unwilling to doubt in its truth. If so, you believe in it with faith. You can not doubt it because you believe in it.
10:08 AM
Evolution is a still a theory (like the theory of gravity), so yes, it could be wrong. However, scientific theories have to be based on verifiable facts (the thing in question - the theory aspect - is the relationship and correlation of those facts), as opposed to something like "intelligent design" in which there is no facts on which to base the idea that there is an intelligent designer.
Again, trying to say one is just as biased at the other is silly, when one's "bias" is towards a theory that's scientific (based on evidence) and one that is based on nothing but a belief system (read: religion). You're right that I can't say with 100% certainty evolution is what happens, but this does not make evolution and creationism equal.
4:15 PM
Adam,
I'm glad you admit that evolution could be false. We finally agree on something.
But your continued attack on religion is unwarranted. People believe things based on evidence, whether science or religion or anything else. You may not interpret the evidence the same way as someone else, but it is all based on evidence.
People believe in religion because of evidence, faith isn't based on nothing. Evidence could be the existence of good and evil, the existence of justice, the writings of ancient wise men, a life experience, the words of God handed down through time, or any number of other things; even direct contact with the divine. Even if you discredit those things, they are still a form of evidence.
5:07 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home