The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Zazzy]

I do not believe that is correct, the one published in the geophysical union journal was published recently. I realize you narrowed it down to Biology but that was not part of your original claim.

I am a molecular geneticist. I’ve never taken a single geology class. I could probably put a lot of work into understanding it, but I don’t have the time, and I dislike the idea that because one has expertise in one area as a scientist, that means one can comment intelligently on any field of science. I’m sorry if I didn’t make it clear that I’m a biologist. I'll leave the geophysics to geophysics experts.

Well as I pointed out above I am not sure what you were really expecting. If they laid out the creationistic implications of such research there is no way they’d be published in these particular journals because they are being reviewed by evolutionists. You have to tread more lightly when someone hostile to your position has the power to reject your work. Often what you will see is a re-publishing of the same work in a creation journal where they are allowed to explain how their work relates to the current creation model.

It would indeed be interesting to look at those side-by-side. If you can find such republishings of any of these, I’d be interested. The problem is that I don’t even know what a creationist analysis of data would look like, so I can’t say if it would be a scientific conclusion or not. I see you have provided me some papers below- perhaps that will help.

Are you saying they contradict the creation model?

I still don’t know what that model looks like. I’m familiar with ID ideas, not YEC ones, so I can’t say. When you characterize the biochemistry of a particular fatty acid, it’s a descriptive work that is, as far as I can tell, not related to questions of creation. If you believe otherwise, please show me where that directly supports a creationist model and we'll discuss it.

Have you read them? I don’t want to sift through 30-year-old papers if you can point me to the specific arguments in them that are creationist. I have a feeling that most people claiming anything about these papers have never actually read them.

I have read a couple of them, but not all of them- they can be hard to find for free.

It infuriates me that so much research is kept from the general public- it’s ivory tower bullshit. Luckily, now any paper that used tax dollars for the research is required to be free access.

I am not sure why you keep bringing up the age of the papers though. I’ve read Einstein’s work on special relativity (translated to English of course) even though it is over 90 years old now.

Well, some papers in Biology can still be informative after many years, but the vast majority of them aren’t, since in nearly all areas the unanswered questions and technical difficulties get resolved after a short time- older papers are simply building blocks for newer ones. I’d have to bring a pretty seminal paper to journal club if it was going to pass muster after 30 years. Again, if you think there’s something particularly seminal about them, point me to those areas and we’ll discuss them.

You see though, that is why I think this argument is ultimately irrelevant. Evolutionists do not get published in creation journals and creationists do not often get published in evolution journals (unless it is dealing with something both sides agree upon).

No, I don’t see it. The international scientific peer review system certainly has some problems, but it’s the hurdle we all have to jump to be taken seriously. People have published pretty outré stuff and gotten pretty nasty criticism (there’s always an ugly argument in the letters of any journal you pick up). If you can pass muster, you’ll get published. If creationists were passing muster and producing useful lab tools and protocols, or were advancing understanding in meaningful ways, it would eventually get in, just as other heretical ideas eventually have. I’m not sure you understand exactly how outrageous the ideas of someone like McClintock were. She was, to most scientists at the time, proposing what they saw as the equivalent of fairy magic in genomes. She won. So have many others- and they were not as legion as creationists in support of a single idea.

None of this is to say there CAN'T be useful research in creationist labs. It's just hard to keep playing the bias card when it's so evident that when heretical ideas are well-supported, they eventually win.

That is all Mohler is saying though (who is not a scientist but a Theologian); he is saying that the Universe appears to be old but upon further investigation we can learn why that is incorrect. I do not entirely agree with his position, but I do not think it is intellectually dishonest in anyway.

I didn’t accuse anyone of intellectual dishonesty- I'm not familiar with Mohler, so I have no idea as to his honesty. I’m stating a research fact: appearances can fool you. The further investigation is what we are discussing here.

Quoting from the cover of course. I have read the God Delusion and the Greatest Show on Earth though.

Well, quoting from the cover without having read the book is a disappointing way to argue.

As for me, I am a young Earth guy because I adhere to the authority of scripture. As a limiting mechanism you do not believe natural selection has limitations?

I don’t know what you mean by “limitations” to natural selection. DNA changes in many ways in response to many mutagenic events, and is selected for different reasons in different environments.

I believe there were crated kinds of animals that underwent rapid speciation after the flood to give us the great diversity we see today. This seems to be consistent with the evidence.

What evidence for rapid speciation immediately after the flood? Again, a paper would be helpful.

Yes it has its place. I actually prefer people publishing their work and then having rebuttals published to that work, it’s a far more open and fair system.

This is part of the process in peer-reviewed journals. I just watched an ugly exchange in the pages of Science between old small tree scientists and old large tree scientists (those old tree scientists are angry people), and currently there’s some harsh criticism of current flu vaccine work. Response, rebuttal, response, rebuttal. It’s all there when people make extraordinary claims.

From now on though since you are a stand up guy I am granting you immunity from my [sic]-ing.

Great, except I’m a woman.

I guess that depends on what you mean by natural. We creationists are going to define that differently than you do.

OK, so what does “natural” mean to you? I think most scientists view it as phenomena (objects or processes) that can be observed in the universe.

How would you ever conclude that the supernatural exists since you have already conceded that you only allow for natural explanations, and where they do not suffice you will merely assume there is a natural explanation that we do not know about?

Well, I don’t know that there is no supernatural phenomenon. If it truly was supernatural, though, it would be outside of the purview of science. For human history, all the things previously thought to be supernatural (disease, for example, being a product of a curse by a deity, or a witch) have, upon investigation, been found to have natural explanations. I certainly don’t know that we won’t find something that is not bound by natural laws, but if we did, it would be unstudyable and completely inexplicable (being SUPERnatural), and therefore not particularly interesting to me. I like to find out how things work. Something I can’t study and test is frankly kind of a boring idea, not a repulsive one. And it would be very easy for me to conclude that an experiment on an organism that is bamboozling me isn’t working because the organism has supernatural qualities, but that wouldn’t get me very far. It is a common joke in labs that there is an evil lab elf that messes with experiments when you’re not looking. If we really believed that, what would ever be the point of coming to work again?

This is exactly my point; if I saw Jesus risen from the dead three days later after I saw him clearly die I would conclude that this is a supernatural event. It seems that you would conclude that there is a natural explanation for this event that we simply do not know about yet. You see? Same evidence, yet two completely different conclusions.

I would certainly look for a natural explanation first, because the world is full of hucksters trying to fool people, and it’s reasonable to be suspicious of extraordinary claims. If it was evident beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a resurrection had occurred, of course I would have to accept it. A story in an ancient book written by people who didn't understand how disease happens is not convincing evidence of anything about the behavior of bodies, but I can certainly think of evidence that would convince me of a resurrection. Being a scientist, I'd of course then start examining the resurrected body and genome to find what was different about it. What a cool scenario.

Why would it be the end of this conversation? I am enjoying it; aren’t you?

Yes, but we ARE starting to go round and round in circles. Eventually, it becomes a waste of everyone's time. Since I still don’t understand your position clearly, we’re not there yet.

I already have refuted that, the work published on C14 retention directly supports a young age for the Earth and was published in the last few years. You simply ignored it because it was not biological.

Again, I’m a biologist. I am not an expert in every field. I prefer to let other experts deal with areas outside my purview. That is certainly a reasonable position, yes? I get tired of people who don’t know squat yapping nonsense about my field, so I’m not going to be a part of that amateur behavior.

I am trying to find an article published by Carter on mitochondrial DNA that was published recently, if I can find the reference I will give it to you.

Great! I’m about as up to date on mitochondrial genetics as I can be- it’s a particular interest of mine. Since resident genomes are a terrific example of many evolutionary mechanisms at play, they’re a go-to example for me when teaching evolutionary theory.

Wait, are you conceding that no matter how good the actual work is- if it points to creation it deserves to get rejected for publication? That’s quite the concession.

I’m saying that if you conclude that it can never be characterized, described, or tested on (supernatural), it’s a science stopper- not any science editor’s choice of how to further the general knowledge. Imagine if no one had ever kept looking for the cause of disease because everyone know witches were responsible?

Would you allow a paper that concluded that the pyramids were built by the Egyptians to be published in your hypothetical journal?

If you’re making a design argument- that the pyramids in Egypt were probably constructed by Egyptians because they’re obviously man-made, then it’s not an argument I’ve ever found compelling when you move it to a deity. We know a lot about the abilities of human designers over the history of civilization. We don’t know anything about the abilities of a hypothetical supernatural being. In any case, we come back to the same argument: appearances can fool you. Look at the primary research and see which case is better supported by it.

It seems that you have too much faith in the system. I am far more skeptical.

I know the limitations of the system. Being skeptical is good, because there are liars, cheaters, and poor thinkers everywhere. It takes time to be able to evaluate scientific arguments and methods properly, and even then, you’re only able to do it in a limited area. When you get to that point, however, you don't need faith in the system. You need a good Journal Club group and a laboratory.

You seem to be conflating operational sciences with the science of origins. I see no reason as to why creation cannot be a valid conclusion in our theories of origins.

There is no difference between claiming a witch cursed you and claiming a deity did X action. Both are supernatural ideas that cannot be studied, because they are supernatural and outside any of the known mechanisms of physics, biology, or chemistry. People have found lots of evidence for witches cursing them (and there ARE people who claim to be witches and able to curse people- just as there are people who claim to be living deities). Claiming the supernatural is a daily occurrence outside of Christianity.

Of course you have not seen anything supporting creation- you have already admitted that you rule out such an explanation even before you observe the evidence

I have done no such thing. I have said, very reasonably, that it is wise to look for natural explanations first, and I haven’t seen any evidence yet. If you get sick, are you going to go to the doctor, or are you going to start complaining that your neighbor is a witch who cursed you? Doctors run into really thorny and inexplicable issues all the time. What they should do is keep looking for the natural source of the problem and a natural solution. Why should any other scientist be held to any other standard?

You cannot say that you will not allow the evidence to point to creation and then pretend that you are proving anything by saying the evidence does not point to creation. That’s called begging the question.

Well,it's a good thing I haven't said that. I have been doing nothing but asking you for evidence, but so far it has not been provided in a field I can intelligently comment on. I’m dying to look at the evidence, and I have never said I will not allow it, because I don’t even know what it looks like. I have certainly been skeptical, but apparently it’s only OK for you to be skeptical. This whole conversation has been about your feeling that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” but now you are doing the same thing. Please don’t misrepresent my position.

No, bad science and science that has implications the reviewers do not agree with get filtered out.

If the implications are magical or supernatural, they don't belong in a science journal because those things are outside the purview of science. Science papers exist to study the studyable. Is there bias? Absolutely. Heretical scientists lose jobs, are denied tenure and funding, called quacks, denied publication, etc. They keep going, and if they're right, they win.

You do not find it a bit odd that when a creationist does an experiment that has implications you agree with it gets published but when the exact same creationist submits an experiment that has implications you disagree with it gets rejected? The science is not changing in those two examples, only the implications of the science.

I find it odd that you are using papers that don’t make any creationist arguments to support a creationist position. I haven’t seen any experiments whose conclusions I disagree with from you yet, so I think you're jumping the gun on me. I have asked you repeatedly to point out to me where those creationist implications in the papers are. If I am missing them, show me where. Saying that something is an “unresolved question” means just that: it’s unresolved.

That’s not what peer-review is for; it is not supposed to filter out where the science leads us.

It’s supposed to hold scientists to a high standard of method and analysis. Since I haven’t seen any creationist work in my field yet, I can’t comment on whether or not it meets those criteria.

Sure I read through as much as I can, but I do not always have the time unfortunately. The articles I gave to you should give you a good idea of some of the work creationists are doing right now. I really enjoyed the articles concerning Biblical kinds, I find that very interesting.

Looking forward to these. It may take me some time, but I will be looking closely at them. Thank you for doing the work to provide them. Much of the round and round we are doing should get resolved.

It would be interesting to do a forum Journal Club for one of these, where we pick an article and discuss it- down to brass tacks. The purpose of Journal Club is to try to find problems with the method or the analysis, as we do with all papers that may be useful to scientists, so I’m not sure how you’d feel about it, but that would be subjecting it to the same treatment as any other paper.

Well not all research needs to propose a mechanism. You will not find any, “Poof! Then a miracle happened”-in their research if that is what you mean. However, their research is conducted within the working framework of a Biblical timescale and history because they adhere to that axiomatically.

Then that will be a problem. For someone who doesn’t like presuppositions on the part of anyone else, presupposing a young Earth and then fitting data to that is surprising. And the purpose of primary bench research IS to propose a mechanism, or to elucidate one. I appear to be of a more open mind here: if presented with rock-solid evidence of a supernatural phenomenon, I would have to accept it. You appear to be saying that no evidence could ever be presented that would convince you of anything but what you already believe to be true. Am I misunderstanding?

I believe what I gave you fits the bill, although it is not all genetics. Keep in mind that gene sequencing is expensive, so they will ‘piggy-back’ off of sequences already done by labs and published in secular journals. I see no issue with that myself- if someone else has already paid the money for the data by all means use it.

Gene sequencing is not expensive anymore. Genome sequencing is expensive- and almost never necessary. But it is very standard to look at publicly available sequences and use them, so that shouldn’t be a problem.