vortigern00's Journal: Creation's Tiny Mystery

I have started my reading on ID with Creation's Tiny Mystery by Robert Gentry. I started with this book because I was able to find an online copy and therefore was able to begin reading immediately rather than having to wait for something from Amazon.

So far I have read the intros and the first several pages. Since I will have to leave work to head home soon I will go ahead and post my reaction to what I've read so far.

Gentry is rightfully upset by the rejection of his proposed thesis topic. It is truly a shame that the university did not allow him to continue on with this work even at risk to their own reputation. Unfortunately, though tenured faculty may be immune to some extent from this sort of treatment, I'm afraid graduate students have no rights. This behavior, however, may imply that they treat their faculty this way as well.

He has foreshadowed that he will talk about how the scientific community in general has disparaged his work without even debunking it in a rigorous way. This reminds me of the plight of Meyerhoff, whose proposal of Surge Tectonics was widely ridiculed, and is only more recently being treated with any sort of serious scrutiny.

It is easy to get caught up in theories you have been thoroughly convinced of the trueness of. Any time I see something like "all serious scientists agree" my little red flag goes up. Proof by concensus is a fallacy.

Science is not about judging whether or not you like a particular theory, it is about rigorously testing theories using the scientific method. And the more interesting theories that are scrutinized, the more quickly our understanding moves forward. For this reason, I believe that research should never be limited by preconceived notions.

Gentry also foreshadows taking a few potshots at Hutton's uniformitarianism. Although this is a given for most research of the Earth, and although it may be utterly true, uniformitarianism is pretty much untestable, and is therefore on really tenuous ground, in my opinion. It will be interesting to see what Gentry does with this.

I was somewhat irritated when he incorrectly referred to historical geology as "evolutionary theory." My red flag started to go up to look for twisting of facts based on this redefinition, but I will reserve judgement for later on that one.

ID

[clockwise_music]

Hi vortigern00, I'm the person who recommended "case for a creator". I have not read "Creation's Tiny Mystery" and have no idea if it's any good.

>Any time I see something like "all serious scientists agree" my
>little red flag goes up. Proof by concensus is a fallacy.

I have never thought about this before and so your point is taken. I also couldn't count the number of times I've heard that statement! Holy crap, everyone uses it. That's pretty funny when you think about it :)

Re:ID

[vortigern00]

Before I thought carefully about it, I used to say things like that too, but there was always this uncomfortable feeling in my stomach when I did. I forget who awoke me to the fallacy, but it was, unfortunately not completely my own realization.

Hey, you're a metal guy too, huh? One of these days I'll get my new metal site up. At the moment I only have three presentable songs, so perhaps I'll wait until a few more gel out.

Re:ID

[vortigern00]

Oh yeah, forgot. I haven't received Case for a Creator from Amazon yet. I'm eager to get into that one though. I'm starting with the ones I could read online because I didn't want to wait and allow the initial inspiration to wear off before I got started.

Re:ID

[clockwise_music]

Yes, I am a gigantus metal head. Big fan of progressive stuff, Dream Theater and Opeth are great. Also a big fan of Rage.

Re:ID

[vortigern00]

Meybe I'll try one journal article per book. In that case the right thing to do is reply to the journal article when I want to continue.

So, it's time for my thoughts on my second reading of Creation's Tiny Mystery.

The author makes an interesting point here, talking about the formation of stars after a big bang:

"The problem was that fragments of an ordinary explosion don't reaccumulate. Then why would matter formed in the greatest of all possible explosions ever reunite to form stars? My doubts about this w

Re:ID

[CFrankBernard]

I replied to your post http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=173561 &cid=14447874 [slashdot.org] and asked a question; I'll look here and there for your reply.

Reading list candidates: The Young Earth [amazon.com] by John Morris ~ Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe [amazon.com] by D. Russell Humphreys ~ In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (7th Edition) [amazon.com] by Walter T. Brown

Re:ID

[vortigern00]

You're right, I should have posted the url in my journal. Here it is:

http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-toc.htm [halos.com]

Oh, how annoying. I tried to post the url in both the response to your question and here, and slashdot rate-limited me. I didn't know they'd do that with only two posts.

Re:ID

[clockwise_music]

>what I'm going to say next will sound like the opposite of the open mindedness I promised.

I disagree. Coming up with your own alternate theory is an example of being open minded, as opposed to just blindly accepting whatever the book says. But I know what you mean, wanting to argue every point in the book might be an example of close mindedness :)

>I tend to think about things within the framework of the science that I know rather than in the framework of creationist theory

Interesting stat