DHW: Tony, that was a reply to David. You obviously didn't read his comment. In all these discussions, it's essential that we quote the comments we are replying to, and that each of us reads the quotes. Otherwise it's all too easy to get sidetracked. Later in the same post, you wrote: "I do not think I have ever said that ethics were the province of the godly." Same problem, and you will see that in his latest post David has graciously withdrawn his "poorly thought out off-hand comment".
>-I read his comment, but that part didn't jump out at me. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
 
>DHW: In fact, the only difference between us in this particular discussion, Tony, seems to be the implication that somehow things are different now than they used to be. You complained that education no longer "teaches how to think, but rather what to think". I pointed out that this is and usually has been the case in religious societies, and I'd go so far as to say that throughout history it's caused far more damage than that done by individual scientists pursuing their own careers. Eventually there is every chance that they will be exposed, but it's far more difficult to expose the falseness of religious fundamentalism (if indeed it is false, since nobody knows the mind of God, if he exists). However, that's no excuse for the culprits. I am as sickened by bad science as you are, but we should keep things in perspective, and I am heartened by David's more moderate comment that he is sure "95% or more of atheists and agnostics are honorable folks." I expect it's about the same with theists.-As I have said before, I think, generally speaking, people WANT to be good people, and mostly succeed to varying degrees. I won't lay any numbers on that comment, though. I think a lot of the problem comes from institutionalism, whether it is religious, secular, or political. The entire concept of institutionalizing something is to create a 'common framework' or 'common set of beliefs', and there in lies the problem. Once you have a 'common' anything, it is very, very difficult to derail it, and this is particularly true when the object that needs to be derailed is a 'thought' or a pattern of thinking.-
**Edit** This is particularly true when that pattern of thinking is supported by heavy investments in terms of time, money, or resources. Just look at how we cling to fossil fuels despite the abundance of 'free' energy.

dhw: but it's far more difficult to expose the falseness of religious fundamentalism (if indeed it is false, since nobody knows the mind of God, if he exists). However, that's no excuse for the culprits. -Plucked out of a long discussion from the picket fence (if....if...if...if...), but there is a different point to make. Religious fundamentalism definitely leads some people to declare their religion is better than any other one, which ib turn has led to wars, bigotry, discrimnination, etc. I wonder how much fundamentalism exists in 'my science is better than your science' as shown in biased peer review. I don't know if it all seems worse now that society is more complex, more interdependent, more politically contrived (global warming) or is really that way. I know, being older, every old person says things were simpler when I was a kid. Just musing

Tony: The world philosophy at this point is 'fake it til you make it' and 'get everything you can no matter the cost'. 
> > 
> > The unfortunate side-effect is that the people moving into the research positions are coming up with that attitude, and it is ruining what should be an objective field.
> 
> David: And the climate change phony "science used for politics" ploy is a great example:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/... Tony: Agreed-This is part of an infuriating picture. Science is being used very non-objective ways.

Dhw: You have referred to Darwinism in this context. The agnostic Darwin was scrupulously fair in his assessment of the evidence, and agonized over some of his conclusions, but just like Dawkins and yourselves, he was convinced that his theory was right. -I am aware that Darwin was very troubled about his agnostic decision. He went ot church with Emma until he died, because she never lost her faith. Of course he was a very honorable man, as is Dawkins, who may be somewhat intellectually dishonest in his presentation of science, but I'm sure he never has done the things Tony is describing.-> 
> dhw: But the assumption that ethics are the province of the godly is a step too far for me, and it blinds us to the fact that all parties are equally guilty of ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their theories. That, I'm afraid, is common to beliefs in every walk of life.-I apologized for dashing off a reply to Tony that did not reflect my complete thoughts. Lets try again: Tony was describing unscrupulous scientists who were undercuttng rivals. This action has to be understood within the context of knowledge of scientific grants and what that means. Today to survive as an academic research scientist you must obtain grants for supplies, assistents, your salary, etc. To get grants, mainly from the government, you have to produce innovative ideas for research, produce interesting results, and lots of papers about those results. The mosst successful scientists develop a degree of fame. If you don't get a series of grants your career dies. -I have presented here much evidence of fraud in the science literature, problems with peer review, which is just some evidence of the tension involved.-With that background, let me add that over 90% of the American Acadamy of Science members are atheists by self-admission. In the soft sciences like medicine the rate is 60%. -Given the subset of characterists Tony was describing, the odds are overwhelming that 99% of this group are atheists.-
On the other hand, I'm absolutely sure that 95% or more of atheists and agnostics are honorable folks. You are right to remonstrate me for a poorly thought out off-hand comment, but it reflects the anger I have, as Tony has also, about the people he was describing. I have written this without reviewing his comments.

DHW: Much as I sympathize with the attack on bad science, this correspondence is now bordering on the fundamentalism you both deplore in people like Dawkins. The claim that atheists have no basis in ethical living is almost libellous. We needn't go into the basis of ethics here (I will later if you want me to), but it will suffice to say that I've never heard of Dawkins exhorting his followers to go out and kill those who do not share his disbelief. I don't think either of you would want all religions to be tarnished by the actions of the fundamentalists, and although unquestionably there are bad scientists who deliberately ignore or suppress evidence that goes against their theories, they are no different from theists who have continued to do the same throughout history. -
Did I say anything about atheists? Did I make any comment about one particular group of people at all?-
> 
>DHW: You have referred to Darwinism in this context. The agnostic Darwin was scrupulously fair in his assessment of the evidence, and agonized over some of his conclusions, but just like Dawkins and yourselves, he was convinced that his theory was right. However, just like Dawkins and yourselves, in order to embrace such convictions he had to brush aside those areas of his belief that were not based on available scientific evidence (and was honest enough to acknowledge it). That is the nature of all beliefs, because science itself is not equipped to cover every aspect of life and its history. At least agnostics do not have to resort to faith, but atheists and theists do, and that means ignoring the gaps in the scientific evidence. 
> -The difference with Darwin was that he admitted, repeatedly, the flaws with his theory. Modern evolutionist do not, touting it as fact rather than theory. The same is true with fundamentalist YEC's, who don't even acknowledge what the bible says, much less science.-
>DHW: Our hope is always that successive generations will put right the errors of their bad or mistaken predecessors. This is happening now with Darwin, but we can be quite certain that future generations will also find errors in the work of our current scientists, even the best of them. That is how science works and progresses. It is right to attack deliberate falsification, but scientists on both sides of the fence may also have sincere beliefs and disbeliefs that influence their judgement. -Which is precisely what I have said and done. I even stated sincere belief as the least offensive reason for not acknowledging the evidence stacked against a theory. ->DHW:That is why we have so many books that deal with the same evidence and come to different conclusions. The discussion on the reliability of scientific evidence is genuinely enlightening. I also share the fears David and Tony are expressing about current trends in the academic world, which of course denote a pendulum swing against the equally iniquitous bias when religion held the upper hand. (Tony complains that education no longer "teaches how to think, but rather what to think". Is it or was it ever any different in religious societies?) But the assumption that ethics are the province of the godly is a step too far for me, and it blinds us to the fact that all parties are equally guilty of ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their theories. That, I'm afraid, is common to beliefs in every walk of life.-I do not think I have ever said that ethics were the province of the godly. In fact, that wouldn't even be in line with my faith or what the bible teaches(contrary to popular belief).-I am speaking about a certain subset of a particular group; namely, scientist who simultaneously espouse science's openness to correction and new evidence that falsify it's claims while turning a blind eye from the evidence that would falsify their theories for the sake of financial or social gain.

Tony: The world philosophy at this point is 'fake it til you make it' and 'get everything you can no matter the cost'. 
> 
> The unfortunate side-effect is that the people moving into the research positions are coming up with that attitude, and it is ruining what should be an objective field.-And the climate change phony "science used for politics" ploy is a great example:-http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

David: You are describing incompetent, immoral people. Perhaps that is why the sciences are populated with so many atheists; no basis in ethical living. And you are describing deliberate incompetent thought. Medicine is somewhat different, at least at the practice level: folks might have a good background of training but can't think their way out of a paper bag. I know of one instance when the professors spotted that in one of the fellows in my internship group. They talked him into going into research instead of practice, and he made a wonderful research scientist. Considering how this country has changed, I doubt that can be done now. I am thinking of the grade creep, every one is marvelous fallacy, no competition environment caused by all the liberals who run establishment education. I suspect that you and I are very similar in our philosophy of life.-Quite probably. I have no faith in public education anymore, even at the undergrad+ level. Education no long teaches how to think, but rather what to think. So many of the students I have been in classes with over the last few years are what I would consider borderline mentally handicapped (trying to be a little PC here) for their age. Unfortunately, I doubt that many of them even recognize the ethical implications of their actions. The world philosophy at this point is 'fake it til you make it' and 'get everything you can no matter the cost'. -The unfortunate side-effect is that the people moving into the research positions are coming up with that attitude, and it is ruining what should be an objective field.

tony: I hope that gives some context to my arguments here. Science, even evolution, is not particularly contrary to my faith, so I have no reason to be antagonistic to it on those grounds. Rather, I am just tired of seeing bad science. I'm tired of them taking speculation as scientific fact. I'm tired of them ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their theories. I've come across numerous instances where this has happened at the expense of their peers, reaching out and crushing their careers to save their theories.-You are describing incompetent, immoral people. Perhaps that is why the sciences are populated with so many atheists; no basis in ethical living. And you are describing deliberate incompetent thought. Medicine is somewhat different, at least at the practice level: folks might have a good background of training but can't think their way out of a paper bag. I know of one instance when the professors spotted that in one of the fellows in my internship group. They talked him into going into research instead of practice, and he made a wonderful research scientist. Considering how this country has changed, I doubt that can be done now. I am thinking of the grade creep, every one is marvelous fallacy, no competition environment caused by all the liberals who run establishment education. I suspect that you and I are very similar in our philosophy of life.

Tony: There are a couple of different ways that scientist get twisted, and not all of them are intentional. Either:
> 
> A) Their entire life they have been told something is true, regardless of evidence, and so they believe it whole-heartedly, regardless of evidence. This in turn shapes their perspective on what they see and choose not to see. 
> 
> B) The are afraid of being ex-communicated from the academic world, loosing their careers that they have worked hard for. 
> 
> C) They have invested so much of their life and research into an idea that they are loathe to let it go. 
> 
> D) They have some sort of personal antagonistic bias against religion (i.e. Dawkins)
> 
> A & C to me are the least offensive of the four, and the two that I would consider not necessarily the fault of the individual, per se.-I have to be mainly an A. I was in medicine for 41 years, and I gave some to thought to our discussion before you presented this comment. To do the best for my patients I had to accept the basic tenets of the medical science of the pathophysiology of humans. Obviously I developed my own thoughts as I developed experience, that is, I started as A and then modified. This is the reason I approach physcial sciences as I do. I was trained to trust science and understood it could be modified. Science combined with the art of practicing it. -Your analysis of scientists is right on. A's don't learn to think. B's are the Darwinists, and I've actually been approached by a Darwin research doctoral candidate who was hiding his theism, and secretely wanted some references from me! C's are the stringy ones and they are trapped. And D's misuse science because of their agenda.

Tony: I could list study after study after study that demonstrates my point, but you seem rather determined not to see it, which is, ironically, actually my point. Scientist are so hung up on their theories that they can not see the forest for the trees. All of the data staring them in the face that tells them that they are wrong and they ignore it or discard it because it doesn't fit their precious theories. 
> 
> I think the fact that I am a biblical theist tends to lead to the assumption that every argument I make has to do with creationism or religion. The truth is. This is just bad science. Its no different than the religious fundamentalism of the YEC. Do I think we have the age of the Earth right? No, but it doesn't really make a difference to me either way. It could be a little older, or a lot younger, who knows. The one thing I do know for certain is that the theory of evolution has poisoned the scientific well, and every discipline that has drunk deeply from that well has become sick and twisted, discarding their reason and ethics in favor of dedication to an ideal.-No, I do see your point, but I prefer to trust science generally. I don't care either tht the age of the Earth is 4.5 or 4.7 years old. I don't think the average scientist is as twisted as you imply. But in theoretical science string theory is swallowing a huge number of careers, and they are fighting tooth and nail to save it and their livelihoods, and that is intellectually dishonest On another tack, you are absolutely correct about theoretical evolutionary theories and Darwinist type scientists. Just like the stringy folks.


> Tony: Maybe i shouldn't accept atheist sites, but I do, as long as the science is sound and they are not mucking around with the data and interpretations. I work in applied geophysics. While that does not qualify me as an expert, it's safe to say that I have had fairly extensive training in it. The number of ways that the Earth's layers can be formed, changed, twisted, and generally mucked about are many and varied.-I understand how well trained you are and I am a novice trying to learn, but I still have my point of view. -> Tony: Ok.. 
> 
> Non-Volcanic natural earth layer transference.
> http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/hazards/primer/move.html
> http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Lahars/description_lahars.html
> http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Hydrology/framework.html
> http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Floods/description_floods.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_lake_outburst_flood-Of course sites like these quoted will get mucked up, but what I have been taught is that the layers are all over the Earth and therefore can be compared and reasonable assessments about them can be arrived at through the comparisons.That makes good sense to me.
> 
> 
> Tony:Is 20 million years a big enough difference? What about 45 million? What about when they discard the data they don't want to see?-> http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/123_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr123_30.pdf-For the sake of your argument I've reviewed a number of articles on radiometric time measurement. They make perfect mathematical sense to me and are very useable. Do they fully agree, pretty much. Can they be misused, like using carbon dating for something too old, of course. 
> 
> 
> 
> Tony: Another example of discarding evidence that doesn't fit the theory. Notice how 'early dates' were considered contamination and discarded because they didn't fit the theory.
> https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/1439/1443-This is again a single example of carbon dating problems. I don't think it supports your point of view since it is an isolated example of struggling with data. I don't think you are looking at the whole picture of the science, but finding disconnects to prove a point of view.
> 
> Tony: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027737919290063E
> 
> 
> Now, tell me again why I should trust this garbage?-I could only see the abstract. I understand your point that they were looking at ways around the problem, but I don't think this evidence destroys a whole scientifc approach to radiometric dating.
>> 
> Tony; As for the other, no, I do not believe in a literal 6 day creation some 6000 years ago. As you rightly pointed out, the word used in Genesis means 'period of time' not a literal 24 hour period. In fact, it absolutely states that it does not mean a literal 24 hour period since those weren't established until the 'fourth day'.-Exactly correct. Thank you for the discussion. This website of dhw's is dedicated to avoiding fundamentalism. The Bible needs proper tranlation and interpretation and you have done just that.

David: You are straining. I don't accept creation sites,because I know the true translation of Genesis. 'Yom' is any segment of time, not simply a day, and Christian creationists are confused by the KJV misinterpretation of yom. I've been on the Canyon and at rapid Lava Flow there is some jumbling, but not the other 220 miles. So I admit where appropriate volcanism can confuse layers, but lots of the world has identified layers which is why the great unconformity is identified at the canyon. Sorry, but I'm sticking with the generally accepted geology which I have been taught and seen and the general aging concepts.
> > -Maybe i shouldn't accept atheist sites, but I do, as long as the science is sound and they are not mucking around with the data and interpretations. I work in applied geophysics. While that does not qualify me as an expert, it's safe to say that I have had fairly extensive training in it. The number of ways that the Earth's layers can be formed, changed, twisted, and generally mucked about are many and varied. -Also, you missed the point of the volcano link (though I have more that provide better examples perhaps). It wasn't that the volcano mucked things up, but the LAKE that mucked things up. The lake bed, filled with all sorts of critters that had been there for ages, was transported away and deposited ON TOP OF more recent layers. A geologist from the future might look at the new sedimentary layers and assume, based on superpositioning, that the newly deposited lake bed material was formed AFTER the layers below it, despite the fact that we KNOW they were formed earlier. This has nothing to do with creationism, though I do not deny it lends credence to it. This is about what we have OBSERVED versus what we SPECULATE about. And that is the source of my real complaint here. -We routinely ignore what we have observed because it does not fit the 'consensus of scientist'. Well, the earth being round did not fit the consensus of scientist at the time either, but that didn't make it less true.-
 
>David: Two-three million years gap does not confuse the overall time lines. And besides this is an area where the Pacific plate and the North Americal plates are in a subduction zone where things get very jumbled. I've been on a river in that area where it was jumbled and the petrolium geologist with us was quite clear about that reasoning. And you are quoting a 1983 link. When was drift and subduction zones recognized finally, 1950's or 60's? And this link is 20 years later. Sorry, won't buy the complaint in the referrence which is just an isolated area. 
> > -Ok.. -Non-Volcanic natural earth layer transference.
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/hazards/primer/move.html
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Lahars/description_lahars.html
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Hydrology/framework.html
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Floods/description_floods.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_lake_outburst_flood-
Is 20 million years a big enough difference? What about 45 million? What about when they discard the data they don't want to see?
http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/123_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr123_30.pdf--Another example of discarding evidence that doesn't fit the theory. Notice how 'early dates' were considered contamination and discarded because they didn't fit the theory.
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/1439/1443-
"The comparison of the results shows considerable discrepancies between all three techniques but also inconsistencies between the results of the radiometric dating study with the assumed geological position of the samples. (HEY! These rocks aren't where they are supposed to be!!!) Problems of ESR seem to lie in AD estimation and problems of U-series dating in open system behaviour of the samples. The study implies that samples have to be very carefully selected in order to perform a meaningful dating comparison." (QUICK! Pick samples that fit the theory!)-http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027737919290063E-
Now, tell me again why I should trust this garbage?-
> David: The definition of species is fuzzy. but my point is the same. 99% of all species are gone. Not all the exiting species are identified. More are found every month. Species appear and disappear. Therefore, despite the inadequacies of the Darwin theory to explain it, speciation occurs. I think God helps it along. What is your point? It still is fuzzy to me. Your and I still have 3.5 billion years of life to deal with or are you still implying YEC or OEC to try and fit into a mistraslation of Genesis?-Just to use a different term here to be more clear, did the 'kind' go extinct, or only a variant of a 'kind'. Because I do not doubt for a moment that 90% of all variants are extinct. -As for the other, no, I do not believe in a literal 6 day creation some 6000 years ago. As you rightly pointed out, the word used in Genesis means 'period of time' not a literal 24 hour period. In fact, it absolutely states that it does not mean a literal 24 hour period since those weren't established until the 'fourth day'.


> 
> Tony:I'm not denying layers exist. 
> See: http://creation.com/sedimentation-experiments-nature-finally-catches-up and 
> http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Floods/description_floods.html
> http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/hazards/primer/move.html
> 
> Layers and their contents are not good indicators of absolute chronology. -You are straining. I don't accept creation sites,because I know the true translation of Genesis. 'Yom' is any segment of time, not simply a day, and Christian creationists are confused by the KJV misinterpretation of yom. I've been on the Canyon and at rapid Lava Flow there is some jumbling, but not the other 220 miles. So I admit where appropriate volcanism can confuse layers, but lots of the world has identified layers which is why the great unconformity is identified at the canyon. Sorry, but I'm sticking with the generally accepted geology which I have been taught and seen and the general aging concepts.
> 
> Tony An example of WHY I don't trust dating techniques:
> 
> New 40K-40Ar and fission-track ages from volcanic ash partings in coal beds of the Eocene Puget Group of western Washington indicate a time span of about 41.2 ± 1.8 to 45.0 ± 2.1 (2σ) m.y. for the 1,890-m section of sediments exposed in the Green River area. These age data do not entirely support the previous early Eocene through early Oligocene paleobotanical age estimates for this section and for the four paleobotanical stages defined within it. Radiometric dating of floras assigned to the same stages outside the type section appears to be partially inconsistent with radiometric ages from the type section.(Turner, Frizzle, Tripplehorn, Naeser, 1983)-Two-three million years gap does not confuse the overall time lines. And besides this is an area where the Pacific plate and the North Americal plates are in a subduction zone where things get very jumbled. I've been on a river in that area where it was jumbled and the petrolium geologist with us was quite clear about that reasoning. And you are quoting a 1983 link. When was drift and subduction zones recognized finally, 1950's or 60's? And this link is 20 years later. Sorry, won't buy the complaint in the referrence which is just an isolated area. 
> 
> TONY: This depends on how we define species, as DHW pointed out, and I am not in agreement with the common usage because it does not differentiate between breedable and non-breedable groups, only between those that DO breed, and those that don't. In an environment where the choice is present, individuals tend to stick to those most similar to themselves, which does not preclude them from mixing if the choice is removed.-Absolutely agreed. The definition of species is fuzzy. but my point is the same. 99% of all species are gone. Not all the exiting species are identified. More are found every month. Species appear and disappear. Therefore, despite the inadequacies of the Darwin theory to explain it, speciation occurs. I think God helps it along. What is your point? It still is fuzzy to me. Your and I still have 3.5 billion years of life to deal with or are you still implying YEC or OEC to try and fit into a mistraslation of Genesis?