Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
Last week, I wrote a post titled “Cosmos” Host Neil deGrasse Tyson Speaks Out about the News Media, Flat Earthers, Science Deniers, Climate Change Skeptics, Religion, and Dogma. Tyson—an astrophysicist, director of the Natural History Museum’s Hayden Planetarium in New York City, and the host of Fox Networks’ new science series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey—appeared on a multi-part series on Moyers and Company in January. Tyson and Bill Moyers explored a variety of topics—including the nature of an expanding, accelerating universe (and how it might end), the difference between “dark energy” and “dark matter,” the concept of God in cosmology and why science matters.
In the final episode of the series—which I’ve posted below the fold—the two men discuss science literacy and why it’s so critical to the future of our democracy, our economy, and our country’s standing in the world. Their discussion lasts about twenty minutes.
“Science is an enterprise that should be cherished as an activity of the free human mind. Because it transforms who we are, how we live, and it gives us an understanding of our place in the universe.”
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
********************
~ Submitted by Elaine Magliaro
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Science is NEVER, I repeat NEVER settled. The Jesuits taught me that. Not some union sycophant education industry clone.
Byron,
Read some books about evolution…about punctuated equilibrium. Read books written by the late Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan…by other scientists. I have. I keep my mind open to learning new things. I don’t think our Earth was created about 6,000 years ago. Do you?
Elaine:
“It’s terrible how some of us folks believe the “opinions” we hear spouted by astrophysicists, geologists, petrologists, biologists, paleontologists, climatologists, and other scientists. How silly of us!
;)”
Not really, always have an inquiring mind and question the “settled” science.
If everyone just took scientists word for things, how would we progress?
I believe evolution occurs but I dont think a wolf like creature changes into a whale because it needs to exploit aquatic food sources. What caused the mutations that allowed for the adaptation?
There always seems to be a leap from one species to another, it doesnt seem gradual, it seems interupted.
There are all sorts of questions to ask.
Anyone who happens to have a U–Th–Pb Geochronometer laying around can run the tests and try to prove them wrong.
I should’ve said 3000 years, sorry. I’m getting my “facts” all discombobulated.
Whoa Chuck, that’s a bit older than 6 days.
OK cheap shot, I know. 😳
You are correct Elaine!
Chuck,
4.4 billion or 3.8 billion years compared to 2 or 3 thousand years old? Creationists didn’t miss it by much! 🙂
The oldest piece of earth’s crust found to date was discovered in Australia. It is a piece of zircon 4.4 billion years old. The oldest previous specimen of rock was 3.8 billion years old. Two different methods of dating were used, and both methods were confirmative.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/247803951.html
The original article was published in the peer reviewed journal Nature Geoscience
Charlatan Stanley wrote: “The oldest piece of earth’s crust found to date was discovered in Australia. It is a piece of zircon 4.4 billion years old. The oldest previous specimen of rock was 3.8 billion years old. Two different methods of dating were used, and both methods were confirmative.”
As you know, I am an old earth creationist. To be fair to the YEC, we ought to agree that if their creationist theory is falsified by scientific analysis of empirical data, then their theory was scientifically testable. Right?
rafflaw,
Carl Sagan was too!
I didn’t realize that Neil degrasse Tyson was an amateur scientist?
rafflaw wrote: “I didn’t realize that Neil degrasse Tyson was an amateur scientist?”
Tyson is a good astrophysicist. He is a scientist. I was talking about Wakefield and how the science educators quote his opinion in regards to Gentry who is a scientist like Tyson. I would love to hear Tyson comment on Gentry’s work, but I doubt he has ever read it.
Elaine,
Yup just terrible! Maybe even evil. 😈
annie,
It’s terrible how some of us folks believe the “opinions” we hear spouted by astrophysicists, geologists, petrologists, biologists, paleontologists, climatologists, and other scientists. How silly of us!
😉
To all, I have come to the conclusion that for some folks here, and elsewhere, facts are what they believe, and opinion is what others believe. It’s not complicated in their minds.
David, I have come to the conclusion that for many folks here, and elsewhere, facts are what they believe, and opinion is what others believe. It’s not complicated in their minds.
Byron,
Read the Introduction to the article to which I posted a link in an earlier comment.
BTW, I never thought of you as being a believer in young Earth creationism
*****
Origin of Polonium Halos
Reports of the National Center for Science Education
Title: Origin of Polonium Halos
Author(s): Lorence G Collins     Barbara J Collins
Volume: 30
Issue: 5
Year: 2010
Date: September-October
Page(s): 11–16
http://ncse.com/rncse/30/5/origin-polonium-halos
Excerpt:
INTRODUCTION
It has been more than twelve years since we (Collins 1988, 1997b; Hunt and others 1992) discussed Robert Gentry’s hypothesis proposing that polonium (Po) halos and granite were created nearly instantaneously on Day Three of the Genesis Week (Gen 1:9–10; Gentry 1965, 1970, 1974, 1983, 1988). It is worth examining new information pertinent to the origin of polonium halos. Gentry points out that most granite petrologists believe that all granite bodies of large size are formed deep in the earth’s crust from magma (molten rock) and that as much as 5 million years are required for this magma to be cooled sufficiently for biotite mica to begin to crystallize (see sidebar on p 13 for descriptions of these minerals).
Polonium halos occur in biotite in granites of supposed magmatic origin, and the half-lives of the polonium (Po) isotopes are short (218Po, 3.05 minutes; 214Po, microseconds; and 210Po, 140 days). Gentry claims, therefore, that no matter how much original polonium may have been present in the granite magma, all would have decayed to stable lead (206Pb) in 5 million years, long before the biotite in which polonium halos are found could have formed. He asserts on that basis that polonium halos can be used to support the literal interpretation of the Bible that granite in the earth was created during Day Three of the Genesis Week and not over a period of ~4.6 billion years (Dalrymple 1991). This rapid formation of granite during Day Three and supposed disappearance of polonium isotopes during 5 million years are ideas that are also promoted by Snelling (2008a, 2008b). [Thomas A Baillieul’s detailed summary and critique of Gentry’s views begins on p 17.]
Gentry and Snelling’s claims are without validity (Collins 2008). These creationists ignore the fact that uranium in the original magma would be continuously supplying polonium isotopes during the 5 million years of cooling. The problem is not the disappearance of polonium through 5 million years, as Gentry and Snelling suggest, but the inability of polonium ions produced during this time to migrate from scattered uranium atoms in very viscous magma to precipitate as polonium atoms in a localized place in a growing biotite crystal lattice so that polonium halos can form. The question to ask, therefore, is: how has it been possible for uranium to concentrate in local sources so that polonium, which is derived from the decay of this uranium, could nucleate in growing crystals of biotite or fluorite? There are two possible mechanisms to make this concentration happen. The first is by the formation of either vein-dikes or pegmatites containing uranium minerals that are associated with chemical replacement processes (metasomatism). The second is by the formation of pegmatites containing uranium minerals that result from magmatic processes. Both mechanisms are examined in this article.
DavidM:
“Doesn’t it strike you odd when science educators resort to using amateur evolutionists to stand up to creationists who are scientists?”
That certainly strikes me as odd unless they [other scientists] just dont want to do so for some reason like not wanting to give equal time to other theories.
The paper that you posted above by Gentry certainly seemed like science to me. People can disagree about the hypothesis and the conclusion but the methodology seemed scientific.
“Polonium Halos” Refuted
A Critique of “Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and
Cosmological Perspective” by Robert V Gentry
Thomas A Baillieul
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/baillieul.pdf
Excerpt:
ANSWERS IN NATURE
Do the rocks from which Gentry drew his samples represent the “primordial” basement rocks of the originally created earth?
Gentry is a physicist, not a geologist. Contrary to accepted geologic reporting practice, he consistently fails to provide the information that a third party
would need to collect comparable samples for testing. For his research, Gentry utilized microscope thin sections of rocks from samples sent to him by others from various places around the world. Thus, he is unable to say — and others are unable to confirm — how his samples fit in with the local or regional geological setting(s). He also does not provide descriptive information about the individual rock samples that make up his studies — that is, the abundance and distribution of major, accessory, or trace minerals; the texture, crystal size and alteration features of the rocks; and the presence or absence of fractures and discontinuities.
Because Gentry does not acknowledge that the Precambrian time period represents fully 7/8 of the history of the earth, he does not recognize the wide
diversity of geologic terranes that came and went over that enormous time span. In Gentry’s model, any rock looking vaguely like a granite and carrying the label Precambrian is considered to be a “primordial” rock —a claim that is patently incorrect. True granites are themselves evidence of significant crustal recycling and elemental differentiation (see for example, Taylor and McLennan 1996) and cannot be considered primordial. A little detective work by Wakefield (1988) showed that at least one set of rock samples studied by Gentry are not from granites at all, but were taken from a variety of younger Precambrian metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins in the region around
Bancroft, Ontario. Some of these rock units cut or overlie older, sedimentary, and even fossil-bearing rocks.
Furthermore, polonium halos are found only in rocks that contain myrmekite — a replacement mineral intergrowth — which is a clear indication that the rock is not “primordial” but one that has undergone significant change over an extended period of time. Collins (1997) has noted these and several other contradictory situations between the polonium halo hypothesis and observed geological relationships in the field.
Elaine, the issues raised in your post have been rebutted not only in his original work, but also in an open letter reply to Andrew Snelling in 2003. The problem is that Gentry is bucking a uniformitarian mindset, a bias, that is difficult to penetrate. People confuse opinion with facts and rely upon scientific opinion to rebut the facts that Gentry presents. It is interesting how the article starts out attacking Gentry as being a physicist rather than a geologist, despite his many years of work in the field of geology, yet says nothing about people like Wakefield who they also quote to rebut Gentry. Wakefield’s occupation is as a firefighter. Geology is simply a hobby for him. Doesn’t it strike you odd when science educators resort to using amateur evolutionists to stand up to creationists who are scientists?
gbk:
I understand some of the concepts of the paper you linked to, like fissures, uranium decay, the various minerals which constitute granite and some others.
I do not understand higher level geological concepts because I have never studied geology to an great depth.
I am politely asking for your take or understanding of this paper in layman’s terms and your opinion as to the level of accuracy of the paper.
Is it hard to understand that someone might not know enough to know if a scientific paper has merit?
My perception is that you are a scientist having something to do with this type of thing and would be able to explain the basis of the problem and the reason for the conclusion the paper comes to.
I am not asking a leading question nor do I have time to undertake a study of geology which would allow me to understand your position and DavidM’s position.
I am personally a believer in evolution and a 5 billion year old earth but am certainly willing to look at other evidence which is presented.
If Gentry’s science is wrong, please tell me why you think so in layman’s terms.
Byron wrote: “I do not understand higher level geological concepts because I have never studied geology to an great depth.”
Byron, I encourage you to read “Creation’s Tiny Mystery.” It is written for the layman, explaining radioactive decay at a high school level of understanding. It then builds upon that knowledge to lead a person to understand the scientific studies. He also covers some of the legal case “McLean v. Arkansas” which cost him his access to Oak Ridge National Laboratory. If you like, I would even purchase the book for you to read if you don’t want to read it online. I have donated copies of it to university libraries and some science professors in the past because the information is censored by scientists. By reading the book, if nothing else, you will come to learn of the bias in science against people like Gentry who are willing to follow objectively the empirical data to whatever conclusions it might suggest.
After you read the book, then read all the rebuttals posted online. You will find that most of them were already considered by Gentry. Some newer ones are addressed in other works on Gentry’s website. Unlike many scholars, Gentry actually has worked at answering critics and articulating rebuttals. The man is in his 80’s now.
dm2,
“In any case, my reason for raising Gentry’s work was not to get into a debate here about Polonium halos. This is clearly not an appropriate forum for this type of discussion.”
Then why raise it as a point in your list of creationist science?
“Rather, my point was that work by creationists like Gentry is indeed science.”
That presents an erroneous conclusion.
“If a debate is inconclusive, it is because the opposition is making a religious argument, . . .”
It was Gentry that argued that the pegmatite and biotite samples that he collected were “created” over the span of minutes. Does he, as apparently you do, expect no rebutal?
Gentry’s work, and by extension your reference to it, is laughable.
DavidM wrote: ““In any case, my reason for raising Gentry’s work was not to get into a debate here about Polonium halos. This is clearly not an appropriate forum for this type of discussion.”
gbk wrote: “Then why raise it as a point in your list of creationist science?”
You seem to have a hard time communicating. I did not give a “list” of creation science. I offered one of Gentry’s papers as an example of how it was not what James Knauer claimed when he wrote, ““Why not teach kids Bugs Bunny is the Unvarnished Unassailable Truth That May Not Be Questioned? That isn’t science, either.” The article published in the peer reviewed scientific journal Science is clearly science, despite your assertions otherwise.
DavidM wrote: “Rather, my point was that work by creationists like Gentry is indeed science.”
gbk wrote: “That presents an erroneous conclusion.”
No it doesn’t. I gave you proof that it is science, showing an empirical study by a scientist who published his results in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Any moron can read the paper and see that it is clearly science. The scientists who first read the study and decided to publish it agreed that it was science worth publishing. Gentry’s scientific work is based upon empirical observation, not upon Bible interpretation. If you read his book that I linked to earlier, you will see a progression that he took in constructing hypotheses and conducting scientific tests for them. The objections raised by his critics were previously raised by Gentry, but the difference is that rather than being satisfied with armchair quarterbacking, Gentry actually did the scientific work to test the ideas. For example, in searching for the original source of the halos, he conducted ion microprobe analysis and published these results in another peer reviewed scientific journal Nature 244:282-283. It seems that rather than take the time to read what Gentry offers, you choose to believe in your favorite trusted guys. This style of learning is more akin to religion than science. You rely upon authority rather than examine the evidence for yourself. For you to claim that Gentry’s work is not science is completely laughable. You would have to explain how studying radiohalos and publishing the results in peer reviewed scientific journals is not science. If you are successful at doing that, then you will have completely redefined science for the entire world. Good luck with that.
gbk wrote: “It was Gentry that argued that the pegmatite and biotite samples that he collected were “created” over the span of minutes. Does he, as apparently you do, expect no rebutal?”
Of course he expects rebuttal, and he has taken the time to answer his critics, including those in the creationist camp like ICR. For you to make such a statement shows how you have not even taken time to browse his website long enough to just look at titles much less open up the documents to read the research and rebuttals for yourself.
Byron,
“Can understand some of the concepts but not enough to know if it is correct.”
Is this an example of an oxymoron, or a paradox?
Nah, can’t be a paradox because the statement might be true. But oxymoron doesn’t quite fit either.
I guess the implied question of what is “correct” needs to answered to have any hope of unraveling this conundrum.
If “correct” is a self-determined perspective absent of evidence, then I guess it doesn’t matter what one calls the original statement.
What is “correct,” Byron?