|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 01/11/2011 : 11:52:28
|
The few reviews of books and films that I've posted here have been generally raves, largely because I tend to know in advance what I'm likely to enjoy, and secondly because the stuff I that bores me usually isn't worth a comment.
This time it's different.
Exploring Creation with General Science by Dr. Jay L. Wile is execrable, but requires more than a few comments. Part of a whole "Exploring Creation" series of Creationist home-schooling "science" textbooks by Jay Wile, this text displays a mixture of (apparent) ignorance of many scientific fields, along with the usual Creationist mix of crooked rhetorical fallacies, open-pit quote-mining, demonization of scientists, pious fraud apologetics, and dirty filthy damned lies. What I personally find most infuriating about this book is that it's supposed to be an introduction to science for kids.
There ought to be an specially hot circle of Hell for people like Wile who lie to children to keep them faithfully ignorant.
I have this book because my daughter deals in used books, buying cheap and reselling on eBay. One horrible book she couldn't bear to see going to some poor Christian homeschooler, so she gave it as a curiosity to her atheist daddy, instead. I brought Exploring Creation with General Science with me when I moved to the Philippines last year, along with most of my personal library, and finally ran out of good books and got around to reading it. My edition is the seventh printing, copyright 2006.
It's only fair to state up front that I am not in any serious manner a scientist. My comments are those of a fairly informed layman who has followed science for more than fifty years. I have read many popular science books and quite a few textbooks in my time. Exploring Creation with General Science should not be confused with either of those kinds of books. It's intellectual child abuse.
Please permit me first to go ad hom on Dr. Jay L. Wile. Well, this isn't really ad hominem, because sometimes it really is important to point out the habitual dishonesty of someone as one reason his statements should be viewed with special skepticism.
Wile holds a PhD in Nuclear Chemistry, but does no scientific research. Instead, he "writes home school curriculum and Christian apologetics material." He's a Global Warming denier (PDF file). Wile appears to be the owner of Apologia Online Ministries, Inc. Wile is also Andy Schlafly's go-to psuedoscientist for Conservapedia. Per Wikipedia:| In an analysis in early 2007, science writer Carl Zimmer found evidence that much of what appeared to be inaccurate or inadequate information about science and scientific theory could be traced back to an over-reliance on citations from the works of home-schooling textbook author Dr. Jay L. Wile. |
Simply put, Wile has a penchant for lies and distortion, and seems to make good money doing it.
Wile's biases in writing are Young Earth Creationism, anti-Big Bang, Catastrophism (featuring the Noah's Flood myth) over Uniformitarianism, distrust of scientists ("... because the majority of scientists today are not Christian), and dismissal of radiometric dating ("... usually very unreliable"). His Index has 28 references to "God" and two to "Darwin" (one to "Charles Darwin" and the other to "Charles R. Darwin"). You will probably have noted that Wiles' denigration of radiometric dating is an odd thing to come from someone with a doctorate in nuclear chemistry. It is odd, unless that nuclear chemist is more interested in serving his god through pious fraud and/or selling Bronze Age mythology posing as modern "science" texts for kids, than in telling the truth as he knows it.
Here are some of Wile's statements:
On pages 17 and 18, Wile alleges that not only were all the scientific figures of the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance Christians, but he boldly states that it was their very Christianity that made them great scientists.Notice that each of the great scientists of this era were devout Christians. In fact, they were all clergy (priests, bishops, etc.) of the Roman Catholic church. As you read through the rest of this module, you will notice that, with a few notable exceptions, most of the great scientists from the Dark Ages to modern times were devoted Christians. One again, that is because the Christian worldview is a perfect fit with science. Science is based upon the notion that the world works according to rational laws that do not change. Since Christians believe in a rational Creator whose laws do not change, science and Christianity work very well together.
That last statement surprises some people. Some people actually believe that science and Christianity are at odds with one another. Unfortunately, that myth has developed recently, mostly because the majority of scientists today are not Christian. However, even a quick look at science history tells us that without Christianity, science would never have gotten out of the Dark Ages. The Christian worldview was essential in turning trial-and-error observations into real science. The more you learn about the history of science, the more you will see that this is the case! |
Many, many pages of this "science textbook" are devoted to direct Biblical quotations and discussions of those by Wile that try to paint the Bible as an ultimate "scientific" authority.
Wile often pretends to be equitably presenting rival "scientific theories," as when he compares Creationism to evolution, Catastrophism to Uniformitarianism, "let there be light" to the Big Bang. But he always takes care to set up straw-man versions of accepted scientific theories. He unjustifiably promotes his favored conjectures to "theory" status while vastly exaggerating the number of scientists who subscribe to these myths and pseudoscience concoctions.
Haughtily wrapping himself in a false flag of scientific skepticism, Wile warns his students (page 32) against reliance on authorities with this example of a student exercise, along with the "right" answer:ON YOUR OWN
1.4 Dr. Steven Hawking is one of the most brilliant scientists of the decade. He believes in a theory called "the big bang." This theory tries to describe how the universe was formed. If your friend tells you that you should believe in the big bang because Dr. Hawking is so smart and he believes in it, what famous example from the history of science should you tell your friend?
. . .
1.4 Despite the fact that Dr. Hawking is brilliant, he can be wrong, just like many brilliant scientists. The story of spontaneous generation tells how Aristotle was wrong, despite the fact that he was the greatest thinker of his time. The story of the Ptolemaic system also tells how a great thinker turned out wrong. Either story should illustrate that we should not make scientific decisions based on people. Instead, we should make them based on data. |
All quite true, but somehow less convincing when stated by a religious apologist who consistently ignores scientific data in favor of the unquestionable authority of the ancient myths of people.
Page 176: 3. Many of the fossils we find are of plants and animals which are still alive today. Some of the fossils we find are of plants and animals which are now extinct.
[Emphasis added.] |
Notice Wile's sly use of the words, "many" and "some." In point of fact, living species represented in the fossil record are far better described as "few," while extinct species found there are "many." Wikipedia states:| Most extinctions occur naturally, without human intervention: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. |
Surely, Wile knew better than to write what he did.
Page 197: Of course, you have to remember that the geological column itself is simply a theoretical construct. It doesn't actually exist anywhere. It is based on certain assumptions and a particular way of looking at the geological record. If the assumptions upon which it is based are not true, then the Theory of Evolution is not true, either.
[Emphasis added.] |
False dichotomy, or in stage magic, a "forced card." If the concept of a geological column were false, then the geological column itself would not support (or contradict) evolution. Evolution would have to stand upon the hundreds of other pillars of knowledge that help make it such a firm scientific theory. (And, of course, if evolution itself were falsified, that would hardly prove that Yahweh magically poofed life into existence a few thousand years ago!)
Page 212: | Look at the sketch of what Archeopteryx may have looked like. If you saw something like that today, what would you call it? You'd call it a bird. That's what Archeopteryx seems to be. It seems to be a bird with certain special features that no living bird today has. |
That's pretty much in line with the Old Testament's listing of bats as birds. They also seem to be birds.
Page 231: | Overall, reproduction is God's way of ensuring that a type of living organism will not die out. |
Page 356: | Dr. Michael Behe, one of the most respected scientists in the world. . . |
Enough!
If all this crap weren't being force-fed to trusting and credulous children, I'd be laughing my ass off. As things stand, I'd rather be kicking Wile's lying ass.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/11/2011 19:31:48
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 12:48:14 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner,
I was just poking around to learn more about this guy and ran across this. His Blog.
I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with this one.
To be fair he does seem to be on the correct side of the ant-vaccination debate.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 14:30:40 [Permalink]
|
ON YOUR OWN
1.4 Dr. Steven Hawking is one of the most brilliant scientists of the decade. He believes in a theory called "the big bang." This theory tries to describe how the universe was formed. If your friend tells you that you should believe in the big bang because Dr. Hawking is so smart and he believes in it, what famous example from the history of science should you tell your friend?
. . .
1.4 Despite the fact that Dr. Hawking is brilliant, he can be wrong, just like many brilliant scientists. The story of spontaneous generation tells how Aristotle was wrong, despite the fact that he was the greatest thinker of his time. The story of the Ptolemaic system also tells how a great thinker turned out wrong. Either story should illustrate that we should not make scientific decisions based on people. Instead, we should make them based on data. |
I love the fact that this section is called "On Your Own" as though it is teaching you to think on your own, but really it's the opposite: you're asking to parrot this author's talking point. The "On Your Own" is clearly to mean [i]when you're on your own and challenged to think for a moment, please fall back on these lame defenses" |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 14:36:41 [Permalink]
|
As an aside, I found Wile's dissertation:
Energy equilibration mechanisms in damped heavy-ion collisions
by Wile, Jay Lambert, Ph.D., The University of Rochester, 1989 , 180 pages
Abstract (Summary)
The energy and angular distributions of neutrons emitted in the damped reactions $\sp{139}$La + $\sp{40}$Ar at E$\sb{\rm lab}$ = 400 and 600 MeV were measured in coincidence with projectile-like reaction fragments. The vast majority of the neutron data could be understood in terms of two sources moving at the velocities of the projectile-like and target-like fragments evaporating neutrons isotropically in their respective rest frames. The temperatures of the two reaction partners were found to be different, with the projectile-like fragment being the hotter one, for all values of energy loss. At low energy losses, the data are consistent with both fragments sharing equally in the excitation energy. As energy loss increases, however, the target-like fragment receives a larger percentage of the total excitation energy. The evolution of this excitation energy division with energy loss was very well reproduced by the one-body nucleon exchange model for both reactions. Additionally, the excitation energy division for a given energy loss was found to be independent of the final fragment atomic number. The neutron energy spectra contained a high-energy component whose properties were consistent with the phenomenon of preequilibrium neutron emission. This preequilibrium component grows in intensity with both bombarding energy and energy loss. The data were found to be in agreement with the predictions of the Fermi-jet model, as long as the tail of the nucleon momentum distribution was enhanced to allow a larger percentage of high energy nucleons than the standard Fermi distribution. |
Unfortunately, the formula is certainly garbled. But for our purposes, it doesn't much matter.
I don't have access to the full diss, and I'd be curious to read the acknowledgements (sometimes you see praise to Jesus, etc. in those things). One wonders what happened to have this guy go from PhD in nuclear physics at a respected university to producing Creationist textbooks for homeschoolers, but it must have been an odd journey. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 15:56:22 [Permalink]
|
| Do you get to claim to be a PhD in your dissertation? Don't you have to publish that before your doctorate is granted? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 16:04:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Do you get to claim to be a PhD in your dissertation? Don't you have to publish that before your doctorate is granted?
|
This is from a database. To get to the database, it has to be filed with the university library. To be filed with the university, a person has to successfully defend the dissertation, and thus, their degree. So by the time I can search for it, the person is a PhD... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 17:45:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
This is from a database. To get to the database, it has to be filed with the university library. To be filed with the university, a person has to successfully defend the dissertation, and thus, their degree. So by the time I can search for it, the person is a PhD... |
I see. So it didn't actually say "PhD" on the byline of the paper itself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 17:59:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
This is from a database. To get to the database, it has to be filed with the university library. To be filed with the university, a person has to successfully defend the dissertation, and thus, their degree. So by the time I can search for it, the person is a PhD... |
I see. So it didn't actually say "PhD" on the byline of the paper itself.
|
No. Or, it shouldn't. At my university, for instance, the cover page has-- after the title of the dissertation and author-- the following:
A dissertation submitted to Such-and-Such University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
But nowhere does it read "by Cuneiformist, PhD" (as it were). |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 18:56:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Halfmooner,
I was just poking around to learn more about this guy and ran across this. His Blog.
I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with this one.
To be fair he does seem to be on the correct side of the ant-vaccination debate.
|
Yeah, he's pro-vaccination, and for the right reasons. He'd also probably advocate that his home school students at least occasionally practice respiration. But the rest... Go get 'em, Bone! |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/11/2011 19:21:36 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 19:02:44 [Permalink]
|
Their math test.
Then, there's there biology final. Name that baramin, *****!
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A Creationist's "science" brainwashing textbook
