Answering Genesis: "Hiding in the Light"

This is another very "observational science" based episode of Cosmos, so Answers in Genesis really didn't have a huge amount of material to whine about. So, instead they went for their usual fall-back strategy of whining about abiogenesis, whining about the big bang theory, playing the victim and, of course, "it's just historical science! That means I can reject it out of hand and ignore any evidence supporting it!"

I was honestly expecting to not have a lot of a fun with this, but hey, let's have some fun!

A multicultural array of people made discoveries relevant to components of light and the way light can be used to transmit an image. The first portion of the Cosmos episode “Hiding in the Light” points to a few of them. While today we realize that scientific discoveries come through controlled repeatable tests that objectively consider the various components of a problem, not every culture has embraced the scientific method

It's worth noting that creationism also does not embrace the scientific method. Objectively considering the various components of a problem does not mean "objectively but viewed through a biased viewpoint that will filter out any opposing evidence".

All the biographies are told in a way to emphasize the importance of an open exchange of ideas in order for scientific progress to continue building on itself. This is particularly ironic given the current climate in which many mainstream evolutionary scientists, educational associations, and popular personalities wish to restrict academic freedom and prevent students from learning to critically examine the unverifiable claims of the evolutionary version of our origins.

Flat-earthism: As valid as creationism.

This is another common claim by creationists, the old "we're being censored!" Sorry, but no. You're not being censored any more than geocentricism, flat-earthism, astrology, phrenology, homeopathy and so on are being censored. You don't want to teach students to critically examine evolution, you want to make up claims about evolution that aren't true, pretend like there's a real controversy, act as if any areas where there are controversies, are actually doubts about the theory as a whole and not just specific areas of the subject, and plant false seeds of doubt in students' mind. It isn't critical examination, if the critical examinations are based on lies.

Also, it's a rather ironic statement, considering creationists often refuse to even entertain the notion that their ideas might be wrong. During the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate, Ken Ham wouldn't even consider the hypothetical situation that his ideas might be wrong, claiming "well you can't prove they're wrong so I refuse to admit they might even possibly slightly be wrong!"

But anyways, let's go look at those two links. The first examines one of the many "teach the controversy!" laws, this particular one in Tennessee. The basic jist of these laws is that teachers have the right to "critically examine scientific controversies", or things to that effect. It sounds great in theory, but there's two key problems.

Firstly, the areas mentioned, usually specifically as biological evolution and climate change, are really not controversial amongst scientists in that field. The only areas of science where there is significant controversy is far, far above the heads of the students in these classrooms.

The second is that it's a pointless law if it's actually to do what it claims to do. If an area of science really is controversial, than why do we need to legislate to promote discussion on it? The only reason is to promote false controversies to make our students think things are false when they are not.

The linked article continues to make the straw-man that biological evolution and social Darwinism have anything in common. I don't want to go into huge details about it, but it's a load of rubbish and is the worst kind of ad hominem attack: the kind where the claims made about the other party aren't even true. Darwin lived in a time that was, well, pretty racist, but he had pretty progressive attitudes for his time. Regardless, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with any of Darwin's other beliefs and stands on its own merits, and it certainly doesn't approve of killing off the weak. Evolution is about survival of the fittest, not survival of the strongest or the smartest and for humans, one of our most useful, fittest traits is our instinctive sense of morality. Our ability to form close-knit communities and help out those of us in need is an evolved trait that has been nothing but a massive benefit to society and our species. If anything, evolution teaches morality and looking after those who need it.

The article then tries to claim there really is a controversy on climate change! Not evolution for some reason. Just climate change. I suppose they couldn't find any evidence for any controversy on evolution? Huh. Funny that. But it includes this wee paragraph:

For example, Andrew Snelling, who holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney in Australia, points out that the debate over climate change is far from a settled issue even among secular scientists. He says, “There is a lot of controversy, not over climate change itself, as everyone agrees climate changes, but over the cause of such changes, specifically whether man has contributed significantly to such changes. I am personally aware of several secular professional scientific societies whose memberships are very divided on this issue, and the continuing debate is heated. Therefore to assert there is no controversy over climate change is utterly deceitful. Students should be told the truth about this debate among professional scientists.”

Firstly, I love the appeal to authority there. Geology and climatology are very different fields of science there, so Snelling's opinion on geology hold about as much weight as his opinion on brain surgery.

Secondly, it's a load of rubbish. According to this article, 97% of articles published between 1991 and 2011 about climate change have concluded that it's human-caused. That's really not a controversy.

But this isn't a blog post about climate change! Why is AiG talking about it? Well, I kinda understand why. As far as creationists are concerned, as long as their particular interpretation of God is in charge, nothing bad can happen to the earth. I think. Because God said he wouldn't flood the earth again. I dunno, why are they talking about it?

The second linked article is pretty much whining about Bill Nye's Big Think video, which states that creationism is not suitable for children, and was effectively the reason behind the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate. It's pretty standard AiG whining so I won't go into a thorough debunking of it, but it does however clarify that the "fundamental law of biology" that they keep talking about is indeed biogenesis. Hooray! You finally told me what I've been asking since the first blog in this series! Abiogenesis still doesn't violate the law of biogenesis though, as I pointed out in the past, because biogenesis doesn't apply to that. Biogenesis is more about complex animals not coming from non-living things and there's nothing in abiogenesis that violates any law of physics or chemistry.

As a tour of the Creation Museum or a serious reading of articles and books featured on the Answers in Genesis website and bookstore will reveal, however, creation scientists do “believe in” geology and radioactivity and space exploration. What we as biblical creationists do not accept are interpretations of geological, biological, anthropological, genetic, astronomical, and radiometric data that are based on unverifiable assumptions about the past and deny God’s eyewitness account of events

There's really only one way to interpret this.

Good thing that the interpretations we make about the past based on geological, biological, anthropological, genetic, astronomical and radiometric data aren't based on unverifiable assumptions about the past then, huh? We can test the past. It's pretty easy. If the flood story, as believed by AiG, is true, we'd expect to find a massive layer of flood deposit under the earth. We don't. Therefore, the flood story is likely to not be true. If evolution, plate tectonics and an old earth are true, we'd expect to find distinct layers of rocks, composed of completely different materials, laid down in no specific order, all containing mostly different fossils that show a clear evolutionary progression with no fossil found out of order. We do. Therefore, evolution and so on are likely to be true. Tada! Verifiable assumptions.

Enough side-tracking now though. Let's get back to Cosmos, because I only quoted half a paragraph and should quote the rest.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to discern the difference between observational science, such as that which has led to the discoveries of the properties of light and so many other phenomena, and historical (origins) science, which interprets observations through the lens of a scientist’s worldview.

Again with this rubbish? No, historical science does not interpret observations through the lens of a scientist's world-view any more than observational science does. Interpretations must be challenged too, and if your world-view cannot accurately explain the observation and cannot make predictions about what other data in the same area might be like, your world-view is almost certainly wrong and must be abandoned. This is true of both historical science and observational science. Observations interpreted with an evolutionary world-view have all passed this test so far. Observations interpreted with a creationist world-view have all failed this test so far.

For the sake of historical accuracy, we must mention that Tyson’s scriptwriters failed him a bit this week. Tyson correctly reported that China’s Mozi likely developed a camera obscura centuries before anyone else and that he also promoted the idea of “universal love” and opposed oppression. (Mozi and Confucius were actually just two of the many Chinese philosophers of the time who wrote about history, morality, human nature, and the political philosophy most likely to promote stability in that war-torn time. Mozi differed from Confucius primarily in advocating the idea that moral responsibility extended to all.) Tyson reported however that “the world’s first book burning” took place under the rule of China’s first Qin emperor—famed for the 7000 terra cotta warriors in his tomb—under the influence of the political philosophy of Legalism. While most of Mozi’s writings may have well perished in those third century BC flames, this was not the first book burning.
According to Legalist Chinese philosopher Han Fei (Han Feizi), the first book burnings began more than a century before the Qin emperor's campaign. Qin state minister Shang Yang began the process of Chinese unification by administering a ruthless Legalistic regime in which only what promoted the power of the state and its ability to control individuals and the economy was permitted. As a result, he began burning Confucian texts. Han Fei’s contemporaries in the unified Qin empire later reinstituted and expanded the practice, their ongoing aim being to destroy all versions of history that disputed their position and supremacy, much like and modern totalitarian regimes.

I'm not sure why they included this. It's just being a bit nit-picky. The quoted article is pretty boring too. I can summarise it like this: "Education is teaching kids that the bible isn't literally true! This Orwellian propaganda must stop! How dare post-modernists try to define 'truth'!" I mean, ignoring the fact that schools do not teach kids that the bible isn't literally true and generally don't talk much about the bible at all, can I point out the irony in the fact that AiG wants to define 'truth' by saying that if it's in the bible, it must be absolutely true regardless of physical evidence to the contrary? And not to mention the fact that absolute truth is an impossibility?

At any rate, the opening half of this episode “Hiding in the Light” used the stories of these pioneers in the physics of light to emphasize the value of the scientific method—the fact that scientific ideas need to be critically and objectively examined and tested. It is sad that despite this supposed willingness and even necessity to “question authority” (as Tyson repeatedly mentions in the series)

Are you guys now saying that questioning authority is not a good thing? I mean, yeah, I figure that's your stance because you guys don't want to question your interpretation of the bible, but weren't you saying it's a good thing a few reviews ago?

evolutionary scientists continue to cling to the notion that those aspects of their philosophy—which cannot be tested

"If evolution is true, we should never find a pre-Cambrian bunny". Tada! Evolution can be tested. "If the big bang theory is true, we should find microwave radiation at the farthest reaches of space." Tada! Big bang theory can be tested. "If radioactive decay rates have always been the same, we should be able to find evidence of this in distant supernova" Tada! That can be tested. All of historical science can be tested. Why do we need to keep pointing this out to creationists?

and would even violate the observable laws of nature—are immune to questions and presumed true by scientific fiat. 

I'm assuming they're referring again to the law of biogenesis. I won't cover it again, I think I've covered it enough. The second part of the statement isn't true, as I've pointed out before. The idea of punctuated equilibria comes from Gould questioning aspects of evolution. Big bang cosmology was subject to plenty of questions in the past by plenty of scientists. Stop making things up, Answers in Genesis. We don't hold scientific viewpoints to the unquestionable standards that you hold your interpretation of the bible to. As Bill Nye quite rightly pointed out, he would abandon evolution if just one piece of evidence was found to the contrary.

By analyzing the spectra of light emitted from stars, scientists can see the signatures of individual elements and thus know what elements are out there in space. Because spectroscopy demonstrates that the same elements that we have here on earth are present in space, Tyson links this observation—“spectral lines reveal that the visible cosmos is all made of the same elements”—to unverifiable evolutionary beliefs of big bang origins and the evolution of life from nonliving chemicals. Accompanied by the rising strains of the soundtrack Tyson says, “The planets, the stars, the galaxies, we ourselves and all of life—the same star stuff.” Yet nothing in biology has ever demonstrated that life can evolve from non-life.

I had to re-watch this bit again because that doesn't sound like what Dr Tyson said. And I was right, they're claiming he's implying things he didn't. He says absolutely nothing about the evolution of life from nonliving life and his comment on big bang origins is simply that spectroscopy also revealed that the galaxies are moving away from us; one of the key foundations of big bang theory. This isn't an unverifiable interpretation of data, it's a clear and obvious inference from the data and the Doppler effect. He never actually mentioned the big bang until slightly later when he commented on cosmic microwave radiation.

He also never says anything about abiogenesis. Again, AiG realised they haven't mentioned it so they shoe-horn it in here. Seriously guys, just kinda stop it. When you've only got one kinda-argument against your opponent, so you have to shoe-horn it in everywhere, it kinda makes it obvious just how desperate your position is. I'm going to laugh when abiogenesis theory is fully fleshed out and scientists clearly demonstrate how life probably arose on earth, because it's going to be hilarious to watch your justifications for it.

(Neither linked article is anything important. The first is just them whining about a release a few years back about how we found complex organic molecules in space, the second is them whining about how abiogenesis hasn't been proven yet, therefore it isn't true)

After touching on Christian astronomer Sir William Herschel’s

Translation: "HEY HE'S A CHRISTIAN THEREFORE A CREATIONIST THEREFORE CREATIONISM IS TRUE"

After so many great examples of the way observational science reveals how natural phenomena work and gives us the ability to develop powerful technologies, Tyson closes the program with a final shift into the realm of historical, worldview-based origins science. At the same time he (or his scriptwriters) makes another bit of slip when—waxing poetic—he says, “And in microwave light we can see all the way back to the birth of our universe.” Tyson refers to the cosmic microwave background (CMB)—radiation with a temperature of only a few degrees Kelvin that fills the universe. Answers in Genesis astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner notes that even evolutionary astrophysicists like Tyson don’t really claim that the CMB dates back to the universe’s beginnings, observing,

At the end of the program, Tyson said, “In microwave light we can see all the way back to the birth of our universe.” I don’t think that Tyson actually believes this. The big bang model predicted the cosmic microwave background (CMB), but the CMB supposedly dates from the age of recombination, about 380,000 years after the big bang. In a 13.8 billion year old universe, the 380,000 is much closer to the beginning that we are today, but it still doesn’t take us to the birth of the big bang universe.

HAHA THOSE SILLY EVOLUTIONISTS MAKING STATEMENTS MEANT TO BE TAKEN MORE POETICALLY THAN LITERALLY AND THUS DOESN'T MATCH UP 100% WITH REALITY BUT IS A PRETTY GOOD APPROXIMATION AND HAS MORE OF A POETIC RING TO IT THEY'RE SO SILLY MAKE THAT SLIP UP.

Even evolutionary astrophysicists don't really claim the sun rises.

Hrm. That's two paragraphs in all caps. I think AiG is starting to really annoy me now. But seriously guys. It's not meant to be a statement of 100% scientific accuracy. I'm pretty sure Dr Tyson is well aware that the CMB does not actually date back to the very origin of the universe. I'm pretty sure he's making more of a poetic statement, as you guys even point out. Again, you're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. Hey guys! Did you know that sometimes, people mention sunrises! BUT LOL ACTUALLY THE SUN DOESN'T RISE THE EARTH ROTATES. HAHA SILLY EVOLUTIONISTS! Yes, we know the sun doesn't actually literally rise but it sounds cooler like that.

The rest of the review is basically the same rehashed arguments. "Big bang theory has a horizon problem! Inflation doesn't exist because the evidence for inflation might be wrong!" Hey guys, big bang theory has far, far more evidence supporting it than what you guys believe.

When it comes to scientific ideas about our origins, frankly the greatest mistake a scientist can make is to ignore the eyewitness testimony of the Creator of the universe.

I agree. If our universe was truly created, the worst we can do is ignore the evidence left behind by him. Unfortunately for you guys, that evidence is not written in any book written by humans. It's written in nature all around us, in the cosmos, and in science. The greatest mistake any scientist can do is ignore that evidence in nature around us, because a book written by humans says something else.