The media are all agog at the fact that the Creation “Museum” has an exhibit on natural selection. Whoop-te-doo, I say — anybody who has been following creationism at all knows that they happily trot out this claim all the time. We’ve got all kinds of concrete examples of observed evolutionary change in lizards and insects and birds and fish, so their argument has always been that they accept a small amount of change, but there are magical limits.
A new exhibit at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum argues that natural selection — Darwin’s explanation for how species develop new traits over time — can coexist with the creationist assertion that all living things were created by God just a few thousand years ago.
“We wanted to show people that creationists believe in natural selection,” said Ken Ham, founder of the Christian ministry Answers in Genesis and frequent Darwin critic.
The exhibit might seem peculiar to many who have watched the decades-long battle between evolution scientists and creationists, who take the Bible’s Genesis account as literal truth.
No, it isn’t. This is old stuff and an elementary distortion of evolutionary theory that the creationists have been using for years. It’s the same as their old distinction between microevolution, which they say they accept while not understanding what it is, and macroevolution, which they say they reject while in a similar state of blind ignorance.
The newspapers are getting played for a chump. They even asked Eugenie Scott’s opinion of this “development”, and she flat out told them it was old news.
But the idea that creationists can accept natural selection “isn’t really new in creationism, though it’s interesting that Answers in Genesis would have an exhibit on it,” said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif.
It’s interesting that they have an exhibit in that we would like to see how they’ve mangled good science this time.
It has been a while (>25 yrs) since I studied the evolution module in my Intro to Zoology course. But I don’t recall any distinction being made between “micro-” and “macro-” evolution. I had always assumed that, like the term “Darwinist”, the use of these terms was a dead giveaway that one was dealing with creationist woo. What is the legitimate understanding of the distinction between “micro-” and “macro-” and what purpose does it serve in talking about evolution?
It’s kind of like Rush saying he is a feminist because he may (or may not have) voted for the McCain/Palin ticket.
Actually, I’ve always thought that science reporting in newspapers generally didn’t have a good track record — especially after looking at the details of the experiments and comparing them to the grand conclusions claimed in the headline.
At the risk of being banished to the dungeon while the master is dealing out punishment, I will (for the last time) abuse the comment facility for my own godless agenda: A poll from South Africa about blasphemy that badly needs a few thousand votes to show the godniks that they do not rule the world.
http://www.mnet.co.za/mnet/shows/carteblanche/
@SSiE #4 This obviously has nothing to do with the article, shame on you, but I voted nevertheless. If blasphemy were hate speech, I’d be out of a blog.
“We wanted to show people that creationists believe in natural selection.”
And that we are idiots.
Ken Ham + microeveolution = macrotard.
Its long been the strategy for creationists to invoke some sort of evolution as a means of explaining the repopulation of the Earth with species after the flood. I think the standard line is that the animals on the ark were two of each ‘kind’ (something akin to genus level) and that the various species we have today evolved from these original ‘kinds’ after 4 or 5 thousand years ago.
It makes absolutely no sense in terms of molecular genetics or biogeography and if it were true it would involve genetic change far faster than anything seen today (although if a magic God is involved then anything is possible).
The idiots are out there again, winning the framing war by showing how sciency they are. Someone needs to drag out Tiiktaalik (or some other new shiny example) and get science back in the public discourse.
Thanking you in advance for your help,
Bruce
Creationism always finds
That change occurs within their “kinds”
No dog had kitten for its whelp
So god, of course, has had to help.
The change we see is always small
And sometimes there’s no change at all,
Example one is Ken Ham’s mind
Which has not had to change its kind
He’s calcified his stupid views
And so, of course… this is not news.
@#1,
It is my understanding that the terms micro and macro evolution serve the function of differentiating molecular changes as opposed to phenotypic changes. It is purely a utility however, as the mechanisms are the same and there is no real difference (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong please, I like this blog cuz I lern thingz).
It seems as though creationists use these terms of convenience to draw a line between what they believe and what they don’t, but it’s a false dichotomy… Not surprising given the level to which they will go to delude themselves.
Although Creation Museum is not the best example of a thoroughly (anti-)epistemologic approach to the issue of Bible Creation account inerrancy, it is obvious that Ken Ham plays an (un-)intelligent move here:
– if you assume that the Universe was magically created 6000 years ago, you can assume also the Omphalos hypothesis. God-created Universe and evolving Universe would be undistingishable. That’s the meaning of the motto ‘same facts, different interpretations’.
– the Creationist interpretation, however, makes a hard-swallowing assumption: the validity of a particular ancient text between a lot of possible texts. On the contrary, the naturalistic approach makes easily swallowed approaches (the existence of an objective reality, the unity of nature, etc.).
So, you need to invoke Occam’s razor to prefer the naturalistic approach. But you cannot falsify the Creationist-Omphalos hypothesis. You won’t be able never to falsify: even with a time travel machine going far away at the past, a Creationist could suggest that you have travelled only to a Satan’s simultation. It’s epistemologically insane, but it sells.
Sorry to intrude, Pharyngulites… I can’t locate any information on the apparent server crash at richarddawkins.net. It’s been down (it seems) for several hours, and of course webadmin email address is linked to that server and so can’t be reached. Any news?
What precisely do the creationists think is the mechanism that stops evolution at the point at which it would become “macro”?
This limited nod to evolutionary pragmatism is similar to when Christians announce that they believe that non-Christians can be moral, and act morally, and some Christians do not.
OMG they are being so open and reasonable and ecumencial!!!11! After they’ve taken their bows they then clarify this by explaining that, while nonbelievers may follow morality, it’s only because they 1.) stole it from the Christian culture and/or 2.) can’t account for it and/or 3.) are damned anyway because salvation isn’t about works.
It’s also a bit like when proponents of alternative medicine try to claim herbal remedies, relaxation, and nutrition as “theirs.” Another attempt to look as if you’re the tolerant, middle position by advancing an obvious “best case” that isn’t yours at all. So Creationists are trying to own natural selection, and claim that the evolutionists just take it too far, because they don’t understand its limitations. Another veiled accusation of scientism.
(btw, Cuttlefish is a genius. As always)
Wouldn’t “natural selection” go against “God’s Plan”? If God really has a plan, then the selection wouldn’t be natural. If the selection is natural, then God isn’t really planning anything.
Or perhaps the plan is that he lets it go, but utterly destroys the natural selections he doesn’t like (cf. The Flood), playing the universe sort of like a divine roulette game where if you the players win they get nothing and if they lose they burn for ever in Hell.
Tricky god! He created a universe and did everything he could to make it look and act exactly like a universe with no god. He put the travelling light of stars in the heavens, to backdate creation. One of his summer interns kludged up human biology to make it look like a confusing bodge of processes. His pal santa put all the fossils in the ground to fool people.
…and somehow the jews figured it all out and even stole a copy of his business card and learned his name is yahweh and he’s single and doesn’t like kids, puppies, or fags, and “outed” all the details in a book. All that effort in hiding – wasted – so he could amuse a few cave-dwelling conmen in ancient palestine.
What a joke.
#14: Why, god, of course. He smites all those uppity lineages that dare to “try” to evolve beyond their proscribed kind.
After all, that’s what got him so upset about Eve eating that apple.
The Greeks had a term for it too, they called it “hubris” but from their literature it seemed to only apply to the hybrid offspring of gods and humans.
500 Internal Server Error for RDF. Me too. Must be a sign of Christ’s return.
To the reporter’s credit, at least they asked somebody like Eugenie Scott who knows what she’s talking about. A lot of these reports are exclusively wide-eyed and credulous like, um, the majority of the story. This is what happens, though, when reporters report on things they don’t understand.
I read this article yesterday and was chagrined and disgusted that this was considered “news”. From the very first sentence, elevating the stupid-ass Creation museum to the level of something “controversial”. The whole article was blather wrapped in ignorance served with a large dollop credulity and a side dish of stupidity.I am writing a letter to my local paper to remind them that something that is utterly fucking ridiculous (UFR) can never reach the rank of controversial.
you can assume also the Omphalos hypothesis. God-created Universe and evolving Universe would be undistingishable.
… Which utterly refutes all of religion’s claims about god. A perfectly hidden god is an unknowable god. As soon as he starts asking for gold bars (god likes gold!) and doling out preferential treatment to those who pray, he’d give himself away – even if only in meta-analysis of longevity among the faithful, prayerful, or chosen.
Since he hasn’t, all claims made by “holy men” are shown to be fiction. The name for such a hidden god is “nothere” or perhaps “fuhgeddaboutit.”
The difference between micro and macroevolution? That’s easy: change that can be observed in living organisms within Ken Ham’s lifetime is “micro”; anything else is macro. And what stops micro from going macro is, of course, the baramin boundary, which is undetectable but enforced by God.
They’re a newspaper. They already know that it is old news. They must be really desperate or something.
quisquose @ #14:
I’d love to know that one, too. All I’ve ever received whenever I’ve asked creationists what the dividing line is has been sophistry, hand-waving and excuses.
Considering that there will be a Nobel prize for the person who discovers the important distinction, why is nobody researching how to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, exactly what the phenomenon is which limits variation to within a kind?
I have a feeling that the smart creationists don’t believe a single word of the bullshit they spout. They’re fully aware that any experiment to prove the hard limit of microevolution would end up being their Arago spot.
“We’ve got all kinds of concrete examples of observed evolutionary change in lizards and insects and birds and fish, so their argument has always been that they accept a small amount of change, but there are magical limits.”
Do we have concrete examples of speciation? If we do, then surely they can’t deny that as well.
doesnt that same museum contain an exhibit showing how ideas like natural selection encouraged the nazis to kill 6 million jews?
It’s probably a typo–they meant natural “election”–God makes the arbitrary choices, we suffer the consequences (as Calvin).
“We’ve got all kinds of concrete examples of observed evolutionary change in lizards and insects and birds and fish, so their argument has always been that they accept a small amount of change, but there are magical limits.”
I don’t think this is true (the “always been that they accepted” part). And if not true it does us a great disservice to grant them this case. Having followed the C/E thing for decades, I recall a time when creotards (I love that word) did NOT accept natural selection. Only when the evidence got so overwhelming that there was no more possibility of denying it did they begin to admit that natural selection took place.
This is similar in other areas of science as well. Recall that a mere 10 years ago creotards claimed that extra solar planets would NEVER be found since planet formation violated several of their cherished interpretations. The same is true with plate techtonics and a variety of other topics. Heck, you can already see them starting their defense of the chemical origin of life. When the evidence gets overwhelming (an admittedly arbitrary measure as there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, but let’s not go there right now) the creotards quietly change their position and hope that nobody notices.
I say, let’s make sure that everyone notices their deceit. Let’s make sure that everyone knows how they have been gradually caving in to Science over the years and where this trend will eventually end. Use every available nail for their coffin.
http://www.10ch.org wrote:
“Do we have concrete examples of speciation?”
I recommend this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
As JAD would put it, natural selection “prevents evolution.” More regularly, of course, they say that natural selection doesn’t produce anything new.
Oh, and god does? Any evidence that he does?
The trouble for creationists is that an apparently unplanned bunch of organisms being produced by design and plan is, perhaps, one of the least likely scenarios that has ever been imagined.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
One who accepts microevolution, but denies common decent is probably a creationist. Now why do you think there was no mention of this important red flag in the how to spot hidden religious agendas article in New Scientist? How many other red flags did they leave out? I see a book possibility here. A whole volume of “You may be a Creationist if…….”.
It makes absolutely no sense in terms of molecular genetics or biogeography and if it were true it would involve genetic change far faster than anything seen today (although if a magic God is involved then anything is possible).
Yeah I don’t think they would have a problem with the fast genetic change so long as it’s change that doesn’t make a new “kind”. Evolution can be as fast as it wants, just so long as it doesn’t make any new “kinds” because that would break the “kind” barrier which is enforced by the magic “kind” faeries. But as you say, really fast evolution is perfectly okay if it is “miraculous Jesus” evolution. Otherwise it would be unbiblical.
What precisely do the creationists think is the mechanism that stops evolution at the point at which it would become “macro”?
They do not need an special mechanism. They think the world was created 6,000 years ago and it’s going to end very soon. So, according to this “view”, there has not been enough time for microevolution becoming macroevolution.
A perfectly hidden god is an unknowable god. As soon as he starts asking for gold bars (god likes gold!) and doling out preferential treatment to those who pray, he’d give himself away – even if only in meta-analysis of longevity among the faithful, prayerful, or chosen
A perfectly hidden god maybe. But Biblical inerrancy supports a different kind of god. God is hidden sometimes, and sometimes reveals himself (through and to Moses, through Jesus, prophets, Bible, and so on). Accepting a “special revelation” assumes that god is normally hidden. Of course, this notion is specially vicious, because entire populations (e.g. Native American before 16th Century, etc.) are in hell or in limbo simply for not accepting a trans-Atlantic (or trans-Pacific) unknown saviour.
Natural selection is against God’s plan
This is one of the most interesting question against an Almighty God. Because, almightiness is very difficult to combine with “choice” (animal choice, human choice, microevolution). If God’s Will is absolute, then there is no choice but God’s choice. Freewill is an illusion, and randomness in nature too.
I think that the creationist definition of micro- and macro-evolution varies with the individual creationist concerned: Micro-evolution is the evolution that a particular creationist is willing to accept, macro- is the bit where the creationist goes “la la la I can’t hear you”.
#29 And-U-Say,
I’m curious, how did they ever deny that natural selection takes place? I mean, natural selection (one of the obvious examples) is that a slower runner is more likely to get eaten before he reproduces than a faster runner, all other things being equal (sufficient energy source etc.)
Would they argue that the predator simply chooses what to eat at random, and that God would tweak each moment to make sure that fast runners would get eaten just as often as slow runners? Or that faster and slower runners simply didn’t exist???
How moronic can an otherwise fully developed and not-really-retarded adult be before he starts slapping himself in front of the mirror each morning?
“…creationists believe in natural selection,” – K. Ham
Once again that damn word “believe” gets bandied about. When Christians say that they believe in God they mean that they take it on faith and without evidence (is that redundant?). For them then to say that they believe in natural selection is just meaningless. It doesn’t mean that they understand it.
Although, come to think of it, maybe having Ken Ham say it in print is actually a foot-in-the-door. The sheeple out there who don’t really understand the doctrines of their own churches will hear it and say to themselves, “oh, ok, we believe in evolution.”. Then maybe they won’t fight it so hard at the school board meetings.
http://www.10ch.org @ #26:
They will simply flat-out deny that speciation has occurred.
If that fails, and they are forced to concede that a new species has evolved, they will say that the new and old species still belong to the same created kind (which are not the same as species).
Even a broken clock is a dishonest creationist.
On the topic of “macro” evolution, I think I managed to tease out the Creationists’ answer from a lot of sputtering trolls.
OT:
Oh for fuck’s sake. Morons run rampant in Texas
Bill Would Allow Texas School to Grant Master’s Degree in Science for Creationism
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509719,00.html
Next they’ll start giving out Masters degrees in Magick, Perpetual Motion Mechanics, Truthiness, Palm Reading, Astrology, Divining, Compassionate Conservatism,…
#1 Andrew: “But I don’t recall any distinction being made between “micro-” and “macro-” evolution. I had always assumed that, like the term “Darwinist”, the use of these terms was a dead giveaway that one was dealing with creationist woo”.
Part 5, the last (and large – about 160 pages) part, of Mark Ridley’s undergraduate textbook “Evolution” is called “Macroevolution”. It covers: History of Life, Evolutionary Genomics, Evolutionary Developmental Biology, Rates of Evolution, Coevolution, and Extinction and Radiation.
At a guess, space constraints. You can only fit so many “red flags” into a given number of column inches.
Heh.
Creation Museum: DON’T DOUBT MY SCIENCENESS!
You don’t know? How strange. You need to read your bible more.
There are fleets of angels assigned to halt evolution at precisely that point. As it says somewhere in the OT, “Thou shalt not exceed the bounds of microevolution.” Since there are between 10 and 80 million species on earth, that is a huge number of angels. Species that crowd the line between microevolution and macroevolution can be punished by extinction.
While this sounds like a boring job for immortal supernatural entities, it is highly sought after. The alternative is to hang around humans waiting for them to do something stupid. While that is job security, they always do the same stupid things.
Even a broken clock is a dishonest creationist.
1. Recording and reporting facts based on observation of evidence and experiment is not the same thing as thinking something’s true because it gives a person a warm fuzzy feeling. His use of the word “believe” is giving away his cherry picking of scientific fact. Believe in what fits a limited view, discard the rest.
2. He’s quite right in using the word “show”. This exhibit is only an exercise in presenting what may appear to be actual science to lend legitimacy to the creationist garbage. I doubt he cares about natural selection; he’s only trying to dress up his mannequin in real people’s clothes.
Since the creotards are always trying to show that the mathematical probability of speciation by evolution is impossible, I wonder if anyone has done the math for the possibility of a population 6 billion humans (trillions of beetles, etc)being gestated and birthed in a the mere 4000 years since the mythical flood from a the four couples of humans (and presumably one couple of beetles)? I tied but I’m only good at counting, period doubling makes my brain hurt.
I see… so natural selection works, but only in very small increments. According to Ham, there is no way that natural selection will result in speciation because adding a lot of so called “microevolution” steps together does not equal “macroevolution”.
So, if I apply this thinking in a different way – it is obviously true that I can take a few steps, maybe even walk across the street.
But walking cross-country, from one city to another – well that’s just crazy talk!
At #11 and #42:
In his original post, PZ says
“It’s the same as their old distinction between microevolution, which they say they accept while not understanding what it is…”
I know what cdesign…ists mean by macroevolution. It’s what doesn’t happen, or rather what they wish to have idiots believe scientists think happens, like fish “turning into” dogs, etc… What I don’t get is what biologists like PZ “understand” by the term “microevolution”, which must have a precise definition, if it is found in a textbook as pointed out @ #42. I am loath to look on Wiki or a random site because I am suspicious that their definition might be one that would not pass muster among real evolutionary biologists. Is bacterial speciation microevolution? Is a neutral AA substitution microevolution? Are the differences between my maltese and a timber wolf microevolution?
Oh fucking hell, one of the comments on that article claims humans didn’t evolve from monkeys because monkeys are still around.
And-U-Say @29: The thing you have to remember is that creationists don’t all take the same stance on this. It does seem to be more common lately for them to accept micro- but not macroevolution, but I’m sure you could still find some creationists who refuse to believe any of it.
Felix @36: In the case of creationists who deny that natural selection occurs, it’s not that they don’t understand how it works: it’s that they don’t know what it is. All they know is that their church says evolution is evil, and they shouldn’t learn about it, so they don’t. Case in point: my sister was a middle school math and science teacher at a rather conservative school. At one point, she was teaching her science students about natural selection and adaptation in Galapagos finches. She never actually used the word “evolution” during the lesson, and everything was fine. Later, when she tried to explain to her students that the adaptations of those finches were an example of evolution, the students wouldn’t believe her. They kept saying things like, “no, evolution is the idea that we came from monkeys…finches have nothing to do with it!” So, it’s not that creationists can’t grasp the idea of natural selection, it’s that they don’t even know what it is because they are afraid to learn about it. (And yes, I said my sister was a teacher there…her contract was not renewed after this incident.)
Unrelated question from a Pharyngula stalker: can anyone direct me to a clear, concise source of info on radiocarbon and radiometric dating, specifically arguments about Willard Libby and his equilibrium issue with C14/C12?
A local turdwanker is spreading Creationist lies in my newspaper, and while I can see the flaws in his letters… I’m an English major. The technical jargon is all spooky and stuff.
coyotenose @53: Talk origins has a good explanation of the problems with the C14 equilibrium arguments. The basic problem with that argument is that it assumes C14 is being formed in the atmosphere at a constant rate, when in fact this rate is variable.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
Thank you, cactusren!
Marcus @ 48
Yes, it is really pretty easy: assume 25 year per human generation. You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, etc, so just your ancestry doubles every 25 years. Going back only 2000 years results is an impossible number (2 multiplied by itself 80 times): a trillion trillion.
To recap, the mythical micro/macro-barrier is defined as the point evolution can not cross before something happens that hasn’t been observed.
If it has been observed, it wasn’t that thing, therefore macro is still impossible.
To rational thinkers, the barrier is clearly nothing else than another word for ignorance, a gap. But it’s not even a plausible gap, i.e. where ‘something belongs that we haven’t found yet to explain what we observe’. It’s a gap of wishful projection, i.e. where ‘something should be in order confirm that things can’t be the way I don’t want them to be’.
An emotional gap. This comes dangerously close to the emotional conglomerate of ‘salvation, divine Love, postmortal justice’. I think that’s why there’s so much resistance, because it might trigger an incremental realization that those other emotional life rafts related to it are of the same type – delusions.
@And-U-Say: “Only when the evidence got so overwhelming that there was no more possibility of denying it did they begin to admit that natural selection took place.”
Not quite. There was already overwhelming evidence. They changed their minds because so many people started to realise that evolution must be true. Bums on seats and all that. If anything, this is an even more cynical approach than the one you suggest.
Ugh. He says / She says reporting. In one corner, Eugenie Scott, who is intelligent and sane. In the other, a delusional lunatic. At least they give Scott more time.