← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · friedrich braun
Thread ID: 18312 | Posts: 37 | Started: 2005-05-20
2005-05-20 09:48 | User Profile
Intelligent Decline
By Robert McHenry Published 05/19/2005
"What's all this I hear about Intelligent Decline? Decline isn't intelligent; it's sad. Sad or tragic. Who could think that it's intelligent? That's just...".
"Excuse me, Miss Litella, but the phrase is Intelligent Design. Not Decline; Design."
"Intelligent Design? Oh, you mean that so-called alternative to Darwinian evolution. I see. Never miââ¬Â¦.wait a minute! That's still sad; sad or tragic."
Of course, the late, great Gilda Radner, aka Emily Litella, never actually did this sketch on "Saturday Night Live", but I like to think she might have, perhaps prompted by the present recurrence of "debate" over the "theory" of Intelligent Design. (Style mavens generally deprecate the use of shudder quotes, but when dealing with a movement that is built on using common words in unconventional or undefined ways, they are unavoidable.)
The ID party holds that certain aspects of the world, especially details of the anatomy and biochemistry of living beings, are simply too complex to have evolved without guidance. The approved phrase is "irreducible complexity," a "concept" to which we will return.
ID partisans have trained themselves not to be too specific about the Designer, either, for they have learned the lesson left by the political failure of their predecessors, the Creation Scientists, namely, that too much frankness in the matter of Who the Intelligent Designer is does not pay. So, carefully avoiding anything that sounds like theology, while all the time the butter remains quite firm in their mouths, they simply aver that there is a Design and that it prima facie evidences Intelligence. "God? Oh, heavens, we're not talking about God. It might just be his next-door neighbor Wilson."
Philosophically this is old ground, of course. William Paley's argument for the existence of a watchmaker, given a watch, is the best known example of the type. Not surprisingly, Paley assumed in his analogy that the watch in question was well made and actually kept time. So the naturalist's response to this form of theism has taken a standard form. He points to the very considerable amount of relevant contrary evidence: black flies, killer asteroids, the vermiform appendix, acne, tsunamis, hiccups, and Jerry Springer, not to mention death and disease and a hundred other varieties of human depravity, all of these suggesting if they do not prove that ours is perhaps not the very best of all possible worlds.
But -- correct me if I'm wrong -- this is creation as we actually know it. Any objective observer must report that the universe, if it is the product of conscious design, is clear proof that the designer is incompetent, a blunderer, an all-thumbs amateur who should not be allowed back into the workshop. (As a lad I read a science fiction story whose premise was that the universe is the product of a young Being-in-training, a kind of test piece by an apprentice not yet ready for journeyman status. For the life of me I can't recall the title or author of the story.) Unfortunately, however well Not-Quite-Bright Design might fly as an intellectual position, it lacks market appeal.
The duplicity of the ID party as to theology is all quite transparent. What seems to be less so, at least to some, is the violence the ID party does to the work of the intellect. Consider "irreducible complexity." What does it mean to say that a given degree of complexity is irreducible? And who gets to say it? Has the ID party discovered a scale by which this question can be answered? Up (or down) to a certain point complexity is open to naturalistic explanation, but beyond that point it is not? "We don't know this yet, therefore it is unknowable." And further, "If you do happen to find it out anyway, don't tell me, because if you do I'll stick my fingers in my ears and go La-la-la-la-la really loud." The "debate" whose current installment is playing out in Kansas is a debate in just that sense and no other.
Then there is the simple fact that the "theory" of ID is no theory at all, not in the sense that the word is used in science. It is not based on the best available evidence; it enables no predictions; and it is thus not testable. It is, at best, a paltry substitute myth that incorporates some of what actual science has learned or theorized but spurns not only scientific rigor but any intention to perform science. It is not, as claimed, a legitimate criticism of a scientific theory but a criticism of having such a theory at all. No less than the Creation Scientists, and no less than dear Bishop Wilberforce in 1860, though far less forthrightly, the proponents of ID wish to draw an arbitrary line and use the force of the state to declare that science shall not cross it.
Had that watch been found, not by the good Rev. Paley -- equipped as he was by culture and training not only to recognize in it the work of a human artisan but to judge his competence according as it got him to tea on time or not -- but by, say, a mud man of New Guinea, the conclusion drawn would have been quite different. The mud man instantly recognizes what could only be the work of a god, its materials unfamiliar, its intricacy beyond imagining, and its purpose utterly occult.
The difference between the mud man, gazing in awe at the watch, and the ID man, coolly regarding the bacterial flagellum, is that the mud man acts in good faith. The ID man is heir to a culture of knowledge-building that has evolved over millennia, and, for quite private reasons that have nothing to do with the rest of us, he declines the legacy. To be sure, he has every right, for himself, to decline whatever, and however far, he chooses. It only remains for the rest of us decline to decline with him. That would be intelligent.
Robert McHenry is Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopćdia Britannica, and author of How to Know (Booklocker.com, 2004).
Copyright é 2005 Tech Central Station - [url]www.techcentralstation.com[/url]
2005-05-20 10:26 | User Profile
This guy clearly didn't read the Universe manual, The Bible :biggrin:
2005-05-20 11:14 | User Profile
Here's a genuine example of "irreducible complexity": a wheel turning on an axle.
It's not possible for a living organism to move around using this mechanism, because it would require two separate freely-moving parts and therefore the "wheel" appendage would not be able to receive blood etc from the main body through the axle. Also, it is not possible to evolve a wheel through a series of gradual intermediate steps: the wheel has to be freely turning or not at all. This is in contrast to other supposed examples of "irreducible complexity" such as eyes (which could start off as photo-sensitive patches of skin and work from there etc). The discovery of an organism with organic wheels would be a genuine piece of evidence against evolution.
Needless to say no such organisms exist. The closest you can get are tumbleweeds and insects that roll up into balls. But none with 2 separate moving parts.
Arguably they wouldn't be a good adaptation, but given that wheeled transportation (e.g. a bicycle) is much more energy efficient use of muscle energy than walking/running etc you would think that given the variety of life on earth there would be some organisms in some environments that benefit from it (e.g. beach/desert dwelling organisms). The fact that these organisms don't exist is consistent with the notion that gradual evolution/adapation is responsible for the "design" of an organism's anatomy. Anatomical features such as organic wheels that cannot appear via this mechanism never make it into existence.
I think bio-engineering a lifeform with a biological wheel would be a cool pet project for some evil genius to undertake in his/her spare time. Perhaps it could be formed by a big disc of calcium that grows on the end of a limb and then separates to form a wheel, with bones for the wheel forks and axle. The axle could be covered in mucous glands for lubrication. How's about it science?
/Just musing
2005-05-20 14:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Here's a genuine example of "irreducible complexity": a wheel turning on an axle.
It's not possible for a living organism to move around using this mechanism, because it would require two separate freely-moving parts and therefore the "wheel" appendage would not be able to receive blood etc from the main body through the axle.
RowdyRorddyPiper, when are you going to announce that you're a Creationist? You put forth a wheel - two seperate freely-moving parts - as an example of irreducible complexity. The favorite example of the ID people is the bacterial flagellum which has a seperate and freely moving "wheel". motorized, to boot.
You argue that the wheel appendage is non-viable (can't get blood, etc.). Something non-viable wouldn't exist regardless of whether or not Evolution is true. So, you've just refuted your own example of a hypothetical observation that would support ID.
In the natural world, wheels are about worthless. Without paved streets, they don't work well. In the desert, they'd get bocked down in sand. In the forest, they couldn't be used to climb trees or to get over logs and big rocks.
Yet, if there were a big animal with wheels, Evolutionists would just apply their imagination to explain how it evolved. No facts needed. "The early wheel was a fixed arc that worked as skis. Animals with the most complete arc of a circule were selected because their skis would work in any position. At some point, the link between the axil and the wheel broke, and this allowed the animals to move faster, so these animals were more competative."
2005-05-20 15:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]You argue that the wheel appendage is non-viable (can't get blood, etc.). Something non-viable wouldn't exist regardless of whether or not Evolution is true. So, you've just refuted your own example of a hypothetical observation that would support ID.
In the natural world, wheels are about worthless. Without paved streets, they don't work well. In the desert, they'd get bocked down in sand. In the forest, they couldn't be used to climb trees or to get over logs and big rocks.
Yet, if there were a big animal with wheels, Evolutionists would just apply their imagination to explain how it evolved. No facts needed. "The early wheel was a fixed arc that worked as skis. Animals with the most complete arc of a circule were selected because their skis would work in any position. At some point, the link between the axil and the wheel broke, and this allowed the animals to move faster, so these animals were more competative."[/QUOTE]
Yeah you're right, the reason that animals don't have wheels is probably because they are poor adaptations or are unviable. Irreducible Complexity doesn't have anything to do with it. So much for my example. I can't even think of a valid example of irreducible complexity even as a hypothetical.
2005-05-20 15:26 | User Profile
Just because people don't yet understand how something evolved doesn't mean it didn't evolve.
It's important to remember that evolution doesn't occur in a vacuum. The needed "information" that creationists always say is lacking comes straight from the environment. Environmental pressures give rise to the "design" over countless generations. Mutations alone aren't enough for evolution to take place; environmental pressure is also needed in order to select certain kinds of mutations.
The fossil record already proves that evolution happened, and DNA sequencing makes it clear that, in particular, mankind and chimps evolved from the same now-extinct ancestor. Of course there are still many unanswered questions. But they'll be answered, in time.
"Irreducible complexity" is just a cop-out. It's a way of saying, "We don't understand; therefore, Goddidit." It hearkens back to the Middle Ages, when people knew that the occasional person who uncontrollably blurted out obscenities and blasphemies had to be possessed by a demon. Of course we now know that such people have Tourette's Syndrome, a purely organic disorder of the brain that can cause its sufferers to feel an uncontrollable urge to spew out words that are socially unacceptable. (More often, it just causes uncontrollable limb movements known as "tics.")
In a couple hundred years, people will look back on creationism and ID precisely as (most) people today look back on medieval views about demonic possession, sorcery, and other superstitious beliefs. As time moves on, less and less of the world needs to be described by supernaturalism. That trend will continue indefinitely.
2005-05-21 13:37 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][I][B] - "Irreducible complexity" is just a cop-out. It's a way of saying, "We don't understand; therefore, Goddidit."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
The whole hypothesis of spontaneous evolution of all life is a one giant anti-theistic cop-out: "[I]life simply [B]cannot[/B] (because it offends our personal sensibilities) have been a result of design: therefore, Evolutiondidit[/I]"
Richard Dawkins reminded his disciples how every time they tend to see some organism that seems to have been designed, they must firmly drive away such heretical thoughts!
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "It hearkens back to the Middle Ages, when people knew that the occasional person who uncontrollably blurted out obscenities and blasphemies had to be possessed by a demon. Of course we now know that such people have Tourette's Syndrome, a purely organic disorder of the brain that can cause its sufferers to feel an uncontrollable urge to spew out words that are socially unacceptable. "[/I][/B][/COLOR]
Irrelevant pep-talk that also assumes [I]a priori [/I] that all forms of demoniac-like behavior can be explained away by Tourette's syndrome or something like that.
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "The fossil record already proves that evolution happened"[/I][/B][/COLOR]
No it doesn't.
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "In a couple hundred years, people will look back on creationism and ID precisely as (most) people today look back on medieval views about demonic possession, sorcery, and other superstitious beliefs. As time moves on, less and less of the world needs to be described by supernaturalism. That trend will continue indefinitely."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
Blind faith in enlightenment progressivism. In reality, "endarkenment" (science=materialism paradigm) modernism has already surpassed its high-water mark and the future belongs to the ID in the secular world, and to hard-core creationism among believers.
Petr
2005-05-21 17:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The whole hypothesis of spontaneous evolution of all life is a one giant anti-theistic cop-out: "life simply cannot (because it offends our personal sensibilities) have been a result of design: therefore, Evolutiondidit"[/QUOTE] Very well put, Petr.
2005-05-21 18:28 | User Profile
The whole hypothesis of spontaneous evolution of all life is a one giant anti-theistic cop-out: "life simply cannot (because it offends our personal sensibilities) have been a result of design: therefore, Evolutiondidit" Not true. For example, there is no reason why God could not have created through evolution. In fact, if there is a God, then that's almost certainly what He did, because evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you don't agree, then you (1) haven't looked at the evidence (2) don't understand it (and I admit, some of it can be confusing for non-specialists), or (3) refuse to acknowledge it.
There are reasons to suspect that organisms were not designed. It seems counterintuitive that a loving God would have created creatures that had to prey on each other in order to survive. If human beings have compassion for animals, then God should have even more. Furthermore, some creatures are so poorly "designed" that any self-respecting God would be ashamed to take credit for their existence.
Anyway...what do you think is the proper approach people should take when confronted with phenomena they don't understand? Automatically assume Goddidit, then stop investigating those phenomena? That seems to be what you're saying. But how far do you think human knowledge would have progressed if people always did that? Would people still think Tourette's Syndrome was caused by demonic possession? Of course.
Science is not anti-theistic in any way, shape, or form. Neither is science pro-theistic. It's simply a way of gaining further knowledge about the natural universe in terms of what is already known. It never, ever appeals to the supernatural; it's silent on the question of God's existence. But insofar as beliefs conflict with facts that are known to science (e.g., it's a known fact, not open to reasonable debate, that the earth is WAY over 6000 years old) those beliefs are wrong and cannot be held by rational, dispassionate people.
Irrelevant pep-talk that also assumes a priori that all forms of demoniac-like behavior can be explained away by Tourette's syndrome or something like that. The only rational position is to assume demons don't exist until one has evidence that they do. The same is true of leprechauns, gnomes, fairies, etc. And people claiming they've seen them or interacted with them are about as credible as people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
The reason fundamentalists refuse to accept evolution is because of religious bias. That is a fact. If the Bible contradicted quantum mechanics or relativity, then fundamentalists would attack those areas of science, too.
There is NO bias on the part of evolutionists; many evolutionists are Christian, Muslim, or religious in other ways.
Ask yourself right now if you would be emotionally upset if evolution were proved true. Let's say someone put the proof right in your hand, and you knew it was true. Imagine how you'd react. If it would be upsetting to you, then you're biased and unable to think dispassionately about the subject.
If someone came along and proved to me that evolution was NOT true, then I would not be the least bit emotionally upset, though I'd be extremely surprised. I know that's not going to happen, but if it did, why would I care? Even if I didn't want a God to exist, the truth or falseness of evolutionary theory has nothing to do with God's existence. The only thing at stake is the literal truth of Genesis, which I already know is just a myth, evolution or no evolution.
2005-05-21 19:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Not true. For example, there is no reason why God could not have created through evolution.
Why are many Atheists and agnostics so friendly with the idea of the possibility of God creating through Evolution? That seems a bit disingenuous, like a heroin dealer offering you a free sample just because he likes you.
God didn't use Evolution because Evolution is not how nature works.
In fact, if there is a God, then that's almost certainly what He did, because evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you don't agree, then you (1) haven't looked at the evidence (2) don't understand it (and I admit, some of it can be confusing for non-specialists), or (3) refuse to acknowledge it.
In other words, if I don't accept Evolution, it's because 1) I'm ignorant. 2) I'm stupid. Or, 3) I'm bigoted. The correct answer is 4) I know Evolution is not how nature works.
Just save us a lot of debate and rhetoric, just point to some examples of Evolution. Evolution being the accumulation of naturally selected mutations that increase the sophistication and fitness of a species. Show me Evolution and I'll believe in Evolution.
There are reasons to suspect that organisms were not designed. It seems counterintuitive that a loving God would have created creatures that had to prey on each other in order to survive.
See, I knew your claim "there is no reason why God could not have created through evolution" is insincere. Here you are saying that it would be counterintuitive for God to have used Evolution.
Furthermore, some creatures are so poorly "designed" that any self-respecting God would be ashamed to take credit for their existence.
More insincerity. As an Evolutionist, you believe that every animal is the result of "survival of the fittest." Its existence is proof of its fitness, its fitness is proof of its "good design."
Anyway...what do you think is the proper approach people should take when confronted with phenomena they don't understand? Automatically assume Goddidit, then stop investigating those phenomena?
Feel free to investigate. Just don't make up something and believe it to be fact because you otherwise would have no explanation.
The reason fundamentalists refuse to accept evolution is because of religious bias. That is a fact. If the Bible contradicted quantum mechanics or relativity, then fundamentalists would attack those areas of science, too.
There is NO bias on the part of evolutionists
Almost everthing I read from Evolutionists is dripping with arrogance and insincerity.
Ask yourself right now if you would be emotionally upset if evolution were proved true.
Nope, no emotional upset here. If Evolution were proven true, it would be like magic is true. Instead of objects from thin air, we'd get information from thin air. That would be exciting.
2005-05-21 19:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Just because people don't yet understand how something evolved doesn't mean it didn't evolve......
. Of course there are still many unanswered questions. But they'll be answered, in time.
"Irreducible complexity" is just a cop-out. It's a way of saying, "We don't understand; therefore, Goddidit." And you say - we don't understand, therefore evolution did it.
You're as much a creature of faith as we are.
That trend will continue indefinitely.[/QUOTE]Indefinitely - always the classic mistake of scientists in over their heads.
2005-05-21 19:43 | User Profile
The only people who have problems with evolution are those who hold a very narrow and literalistic reading of Genesis.
How can one objectively and with an open mind look at the evidence as exposed, for example, by [B]Talk Origins [/B] web site (see espacially the FAQ) and not be convinced is perplexing.
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/[/url]
2005-05-21 20:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]And you say - we don't understand, therefore evolution did it.
We don't completely understand, but all evidence points in that direction.
You're as much a creature of faith as we are.
Faith isn't postulated in science. Come up with a better argument that doesn't require blind faith, and it will be considered.
2005-05-21 20:43 | User Profile
[COLOR=Sienna][I][B] - "How can one objectively and with an open mind look at the evidence as exposed, for example, by Talk Origins web site (see espacially the FAQ) and not be convinced is perplexing." [/B] [/I] [/COLOR]
I find it perplexing how evolutionist debaters always refer us to [B]TalkOrigins[/B]. I wonder if they are accepting its material uncritically.
Here is rebuttal site to that blatant evo-propaganda site:
[COLOR=Indigo][I][B]The TrueOrigin Archive[/B] is a primarily science-based response to the essentially religious trilogy of evolutionism, scientism, and naturalism which is popularly perceived as science in contemporary western culture.[/I][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.trueorigins.org/[/url]
Petr
2005-05-21 20:53 | User Profile
[I]Nice article on evolution and its enemies. [/I]
One Longsome Argument By any objective measure, the evolution of species ranks among the most successful scientific theories ever. So why is the message not getting through?
Dennis R. Trumble
Charles Darwin liked to describe the origin of species as "one long argument," but his extensive treatise in support of biological evolution now seems painfully brief compared to the argument that has followed in its wake. Indeed, never in the history of science has a more prolonged and passionate debate dogged the heels of a theory so thoroughly researched and repeatedly validated. And the end is nowhere in sight. Despite all evidence to the contrary, a large portion of the world's population continues to cling to the belief that human beings are fundamentally different from all other life forms and that our origins are unique. It's a lovely sentiment to be sure, but how is it that so many people continue to be drawn to this thoroughly discredited notion?
Like most mystic mindsets, creationist beliefs are normally instilled at an early age, nurtured by well-meaning parents and sustained by religious organizations whose vested leaders are traditionally loath to amend church doctrine in the face of emergent scientific facts. Though seemingly antithetic to the inquisitive nature of our species, the rote acceptance of received wisdom has been a hallmark of human culture almost from the get-go, arising initially as a benign behavioral adaptation geared to promote the rapid transfer of communal survival skills to our young hominid forebears. It was only with the advent of modern civilization that this age-old habit finally began to outlive its usefulness and yield serious negative consequences-most notably by granting gratuitous momentum to all kinds of ill-conceived notions about how the world is "supposed" to work. Today, this surge of ideological inertia remains a surprisingly powerful force, pushing beliefs as impossibly anachronistic as geocentrism and flat-Earth cosmology past the ramparts of the enlightenment to foul the fringes of modern thought.
Fortunately, unlike the veiled forces that impart momentum to particles of mass, the impulse that propels incongruous ideas from one generation to the next is fairly transparent at its base. After all, youngsters imprinted with self-flattering beliefs are understandably reluctant to amend them later in life owing to the special status and privileges they bestow. And once someone has grown accustomed to the hollow pleasures of this egocentric world view, it's easy to see how these inflated beliefs would come to be shielded from the prickly barbs of reason by a panoply of family, friends and other like-minded folks, all of whom harbor the same inscrutable notions (mystery loves company).
Although this perpetual pattern of natal indoctrination and communal reassurance does not begin to encompass the full psychosocial breadth of this phenomenon-especially where adult converts are concerned-it does go a long way toward explaining the inordinate longevity of creationist mythology and why so many intelligent, well-educated, and otherwise rational people appear unable to step back and examine certain beliefs with a critical eye. Because creationist beliefs are both deeply rooted and profoundly comforting, it isn't hard to understand why certain people feel compelled to enlist any and all means at their disposal to discredit Darwin's theory. Nor is it difficult to imagine the sense of frustration they must feel when repeatedly told by scientists that their arguments are fundamentally flawed.
Problem is, most folks-including many of the more learned among us-don't understand the basic workings of science well enough to appreciate how feeble the arguments against evolution really are. If they did, they would realize that the scientific process is not about gathering data to prove a favored hypothesis but instead involves the testing of ideas against the totality of real-world observations. Creationists turned amateur scientists almost always fail to grasp this essential scientific precept and so unwittingly launch from false premises all kinds of pseudoscientific arguments in support of special creation. In fact, if there's one reason why creationist critiques are so consistently misguided it's that adherents generally presuppose that special creation is true and then sift the evidence for clues to support that supposition-a recipe for self-deception that stands in stark contrast to the scientific method, which mandates that fresh hypotheses be derived from all available evidence.
Were this fundamental misconception to be extinguished in a sudden wave of scientific literacy, the illusory evidence that thinking creationists use to anchor their beliefs would be swept away in an instant, leaving precious little demand for the writings of creation "scientists." As it is, however, an ungodly amount of literature is being published by the sectarian faithful in a spirited attempt to preserve mankind's privileged place in the grand scheme of things. Whether knowingly or not, creationists of every stripe have come to rely on an assortment of pseudoscientific arguments to legitimize their efforts to unravel the fabric of evolutionary theory, hoping against hope that the extensive tapestry woven by seven generations of scientists might somehow dissolve with the tug of a few loose threads. Unfortunately, as the weave of evolutionary theory has continued to tighten and expand, the number and variety of confused arguments in defense of creationism and intelligent design have only risen to keep pace.
One popular approach enlisted by creation "scientists" is the classic all-or-nothing argument wherein proponents claim that nothing in science can be known with confidence until every last detail is described with absolute certainty. Appealing largely to those unschooled in the scientific method, critics point to such nonissues as gaps in the fossil record, poorly understood aspects of gene function, and the mystery of life's origins as reasons to view evolutionary theory as speculative or provisional. What they fail to appreciate is that scientific theories are built solely upon evidence that is actually available for study and so cannot be refuted by speculation regarding those clues that remain hidden. As long as a theory remains consistent with observed phenomena and yields valid predictions, it must be considered a viable explanation regardless of what remains to be discovered. Thus, it is entirely irrelevant that gaps in the fossil record exist, but vitally important that those fossils that do exist make sense in the context of evolution. A single hominid fossil found among the trilobites of the Burgess Shale, for instance, would immediately throw Darwin's theory into doubt. Likewise, the fact that certain aspects of molecular genetics remain to be fully described in no way negates the fact that the substantial amount that is known about gene function is entirely consistent with evolution as we understand it today.
Yet despite the proverbial admonition against doing so, many still view the absence of evidence as evidence of absence and remain all too eager to fill this fictional void with the narrative of their choosing. Indeed, this particular brand of argumentum ad ignorantiam has long been a mainstay for creationists looking to wedge their cosmology between the narrowing gaps of scientific knowledge (an increasingly difficult task). But issues of legitimacy aside, because this fallacy has sired so many specious claims over the years it seems only fitting that the mother of all such "arguments to ignorance" should stem from the granddaddy of all biological data gaps: the evolution of single-celled life forms.
Because no physical body of evidence exists to document the beginning of life on Earth, this information gap has proven to be a wildly popular (albeit wholly inappropriate) foil for those seeking to discredit evolutionary theory. In truth, the origin of life is an issue entirely separate from the origin of species, rendering this otherwise important question utterly irrelevant as far as the veracity of natural selection is concerned. Whether the first primitive life form arose from known physical processes or was somehow willed into being through means beyond our understanding, evidence that all life on Earth descended from simple primordial beings remains just as compelling, and the myth of independent creation just as untenable.
But even this slender refuge for creationist sentiment has now begun to evaporate under the light of modern scientific scrutiny, for although Earth's original life forms left no physical evidence for scientists to examine, credible hypotheses regarding the spontaneous formation and assembly of self-replicating molecules have been proposed and tested nonetheless. Laboratory experiments and astronomic observations suggest that key organic compounds were present in abundance shortly following Earth's formation and that natural chemical affinities and mineral scaffolds may have acted in concert to produce the simplest of biochemical copying machines. In 1953, Stanley Miller became the first to demonstrate that amino acids and other organic molecules could have formed through chemical means in prebiotic oceans capped with an atmosphere of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen gas. Although geochemists now question Miller's assumptions regarding the reducing power of the prebiotic atmosphere (Bada 2003), reducing environments may well have existed in isolated pockets on the embryotic Earth (near volcanic vents for instance). Moreover, many of these same organic compounds have been found to exist among interstellar dust clouds and meteorites, suggesting that life's building blocks may have been delivered to Earth on the backs of icy comets and carbonaceous asteroids.
Based on these and other findings, biochemists have proposed several plausible mechanisms by which these compounds may have coalesced of their own accord into the precursors of life. Experiments confirm that layered mineral deposits can attract, concentrate, and link organic molecules and that certain clays may function as scaffolding for assembling the molecular components of RNA (Hazen 2001). Crystalline templates have also been proposed as possible means of primitive protein assembly, their mirror-image surface structure accounting for the curious predominance of "left-handed" amino acids found in all creatures living today. These and other minerals have also been shown to facilitate the sequence of chemical transformations needed to spark life, acting as sheltered containers (feldspar), catalysts (magnetite), and iron sulfide reactants (pyrite). What's more, a complex mixture of organic compounds formed within simulated interstellar ices has recently been observed to spontaneously form cell-like vessels when immersed in water (Dworkin 2001), providing yet another viable mechanism by which particles awash in a dilute prebiotic soup might have assembled themselves into crude cells.
Although the precise sequence of events will never be known with absolute certainty, these and similar experiments strongly suggest that the earliest terrestrial life forms arose spontaneously and in accordance with the known laws of nature. In short, everything we have come to understand about our world suggests that living creatures are a natural consequence of the laws that govern the physical universe-no more anomalous than the matter they comprise or the space they occupy. Yet despite all efforts to disseminate this hard-earned knowledge, a broad swath of creationist sentiment lingers on, fueled by well-worn arguments ranging from the philosophical and dogmatic to the confused and plain disingenuous. The great majority of these objections, however, quickly collapse under even the most cursory examination.
Many of the "scientific" arguments for intelligent design, for instance, invoke common misconceptions about how the physical world really works, as in the classic "watchmaker" argument wherein nature is assumed to act randomly and possess no organizational tendencies. Given this false premise, it is a simple matter to show that complex molecular structures could never have formed by chance alone any more than a factory whirlwind could assemble a Mercedes Benz from its component parts. But anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry knows full well that such analogies do not apply to atoms and molecules. If the physical sciences have taught us nothing else, it's that the world of the very small is surprisingly counterintuitive. Processes in the realm of the microscopic simply do not behave as one might expect based on our experience living on the macroscopic plane. Electric charges, energy barriers, and nuclear forces all dominate the realm of the minuscule and compel individual atoms to form stable chemical bonds with neighboring elements, blindly building molecular structures of every possible type and complexity that the laws of physical chemistry will allow.
Objects large enough to arouse our naked senses, on the other hand, behave quite differently. Because they exhibit no special affinity for one another, the scattered components of a disassembled watch will never coalesce of their own accord-the odds against such haphazard assemblies are simply too long. Nature, however, does not act without organizational tendencies nor are living organisms randomly assembled. There is now ample reason to believe that simple unicellular life forms arose through processes endemic to the life-friendly universe we occupy and that more sophisticated beings slowly emerged from these modest beginnings. Indeed, all complex organisms on Earth (including humans) begin life as single cells that multiply, differentiate, and ultimately mature to assume the form of its parent-all in strict accordance with the natural laws of biochemistry.
The contention that evolution somehow violates the second law of thermodynamics is another popular fiction that has endured through widespread confusion over a fundamental physical concept-in this case, thermodynamic entropy. Couched in the plainest possible terms, the second law simply states that energy tends to spread from areas where it is concentrated to areas where it is not. Although it is not widely recognized, this phenomenon is an integral part of our everyday experience and shapes our commonsense expectations. Because energy always flows from where it is concentrated to where it is more diffuse, we expect, say, a warm bottle of Gewà ¸rztraminer to chill when lowered into a bucket of ice water. In this instance, thermal energy will flow from the tepid wine to the surrounding fluid until both reach a common temperature and an energetic balance is achieved. Like the ice bucket and its contents, self-contained systems receiving no external energy will always experience a net increase in the diffusion of thermal energy, or a rise in thermodynamic entropy, resulting in lower energy gradients and less potential to do work.
Regrettably, this same term has also come to be used in a statistical context involving the distribution of particles placed in random motion within a closed system-a situation that has bred a great deal of confusion. Unlike thermodynamic entropy, which defines energy distributions, "logical" entropy describes the probability that randomly distributed particles will assume a certain configuration or organized pattern. Ordered systems with low entropy values may appear to the casual observer to contain discernable patterns whereas high entropy systems seem more disorganized. Gas molecules distributed within an enclosure, for example, are said to exhibit greater entropy when they are scattered than when they are grouped together. Why? Because although every possible pattern of molecules has an equal chance of occurring, there are a great many more ways to define a diffuse pattern than any given clumped arrangement and, as physicist Richard Feynman was keen to observe, logical entropy is simply "the logarithm of that number of ways."
Despite the fact that thermodynamic and logical entropy are wholly independent concepts, many laymen-and a few scientists who really should know better-have nonetheless come to confuse and intermingle the two, transforming the second law of thermodynamics into a fictitious "law of disorder" that ostensibly explains why all material things decay and fall apart. In truth this has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics and even misuses the concept of logical entropy in that it attempts to explain large-scale phenomena. There is, in fact, no such universal mandate of decay that precludes the spontaneous formation of complex assemblages. Just because all complex systems will eventually break down as energy throughout the cosmos becomes evenly distributed doesn't mean that some interesting patterns can't take shape in the meantime.
Those who argue this point from a purely energetic standpoint are somewhat less confused but just as easily refuted. The fact that the amount of energy available to do work must always decrease in a closed system would indeed be a serious impediment to the evolution of life if our planet were isolated from all external energy sources, but one need look no further than our companion star to see that such is not the case. Energy is constantly being delivered to the thin shell of our biosphere both from above, in the form of sunlight, and below, via heat generated by Earth's radioactive core, providing ample energy to fuel the assembly of structured molecules. Moreover, while it is true that the overall entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease, the entropy of certain parts of a system can, and often do, spontaneously decrease at the expense of even greater increases in adjacent regions, as with the formation of crystalline salts and snowflakes. Besides that, millions of chemical compounds including water, cholesterol, and DNA actually carry less energy than the elements they contain (possessing "negative energies of formation" in scientific parlance). In these cases, the second law of thermodynamics actually favors the impromptu formation of complex structured molecules due to their tendency to disperse energy as they coalesce.
Another threadbare canard spread by the creationist camp is that biological evolution is still not widely accepted within the scientific community-a ruse for which competing evolutionary hypotheses are offered up as evidence. The truth of the matter is quite the opposite. The fact that biologists support alternate hypotheses regarding specific evolutionary mechanisms no more challenges the reality of evolution than Einstein's relativistic views threatened the existence of gravity. Whether evolution proceeds in fits and starts as envisioned by the punctuated equilibrium model or progresses with more stately regularity, each competing hypothesis simply seeks to explain a certain aspect of evolution in a plausible way. The overarching framework of evolution itself, however, remains astonishingly consistent with the huge body of evidence accumulated to date. Far from being the object of scientific debate, the evolution of species is actually no more, and no less, than the collection of observed facts that these hypotheses are meant to explain. Gene flow, frequency dependence, and punctuated equilibrium are but three possible mechanisms put forward to explain the nature of this overarching phenomenon. Which, if any, of these hypotheses survive the test of time bears no influence on whether modern species are the product of biological evolution-the evidence in this regard, now comprising countless independent observations, is simply overwhelming. It is only the processes that drive the phenomenon of evolution that remain the object of scientific scrutiny.
Unencumbered by the rules of scientific inquiry, others proclaim with total aplomb that evolution can never be truly validated until major speciation events (the transformation of land mammals into whales for instance) are observed directly. In this case, what is ignored is the important fact that reliable scientific evidence is not limited to firsthand experience of real-time events but includes all forms of physical clues. The folly of this argument becomes evident when one considers that knowledge of galaxy formation, stellar composition, and subatomic particles would be impossible if researchers were to adopt similar rules of evidence across the whole of science. But why stop at the boundaries of academia? Imagine for a moment the chaos that would ensue within the criminal justice system if such an unreasonable burden of proof were placed on prosecutors! Indeed, as many jurors would no doubt attest, it is often the physical evidence that proves most compelling in a court of law, eclipsing even eyewitness accounts that can be tainted by errors of interpretation or outright deceit.
Beliefs maintained through the narrow interpretation of isolated facts or held in default against evidence not readily understood can be called any number of things, but "scientific" is certainly not one of them. As these few examples illustrate, the myriad approaches adopted by creation "scientists" in their attempts to undermine evolutionary theory are indeed quite creative but hardly scientific. As has been demonstrated time and again, evidence carefully sifted can be enlisted to endorse practically any supposition so long as the preponderance of contrary clues are ignored and the rules of sound scientific practice are suspended. It is precisely this brand of exclusionary thinking that enables young-Earth devotees to dismiss mountains of physical evidence while defending their assertions with such flawed assumptions as constant population growth and the linear decay of Earth's magnetic field (both demonstrably false). Likewise, partisans who claim that evolutionary processes have never actually been observed inexplicably dismiss the scientific literature where such observations have been reported in abundance. In truth, physical adaptations to environmental pressures have been documented in hundreds of modern species from bacteria and fruit flies to birds, squirrels, and stickleback fish (Pennisi 2000). Even Darwin's own finches have been caught in the act of adaptation thanks to decades of meticulous study spearheaded by Princeton biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant.
A full accounting of the ways in which the scientific method has been manipulated to promote creationist sentiment would doubtless occupy many volumes, but in no instance has a legitimate scientific case ever been made to countermand the notion that, as Darwin phrased it: "from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
References: Bada, Jeffrey L., and Antonio Lazcano. 2003. Prebiotic soup-revisiting the Miller experiment. Science 300:745-746. Dworkin, Jason P., David W. Deamer, Scott A. Sandford, and Louis J. Allamandola. 2001. Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated interstellar/precometary ices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(3): 815-819. Hazen, Robert M. 2001. Life's rocky start. Scientific American April: 77-85. Pennisi, Elizabeth. 2000. Nature steers a predicable course. Science 278: 207-208.
[url]http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-03/evolution.html[/url]
2005-05-21 21:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Why are many Atheists and agnostics so friendly with the idea of the possibility of God creating through Evolution? That seems a bit disingenuous, like a heroin dealer offering you a free sample just because he likes you. Atheists obviously don't believe God created through evolution. Agnostics may or may not think God had a hand in evolution.
God didn't use Evolution because Evolution is not how nature works. Sure it is. It's clear that human beings and chimps have a common ancestor, and similar relationships can be found between other species. If God exists and He didn't create through evolution, then He deliberately deceived mankind by creating all these creatures to look like they're related by evolution.
In other words, if I don't accept Evolution, it's because 1) I'm ignorant. 2) I'm stupid. Or, 3) I'm bigoted. The correct answer is 4) I know Evolution is not how nature works. I do not think the choices I outlined were insulting as you indicate, and I stand by them. I would not call creationists "ignorant" in any general sense, seeing as no one can be knowledgeable in everything. For example, I'd be the first to admit that I'm ignorant in many areas of history. But creationists are typically ignorant about science in general. This is readily seen by reading creationist websites or reading creationist postings in which utterly ridiculous claims are made (e.g., "evolution violates thermodynamics"). And in spite of that lack of understanding, creationists don't hold back from making definitive statements about scientific concepts they don't understand. I've seen this again and again.
Just save us a lot of debate and rhetoric, just point to some examples of Evolution. Evolution being the accumulation of naturally selected mutations that increase the sophistication and fitness of a species. Show me Evolution and I'll believe in Evolution. I've done this many times on this board. You reject any evidence I show you.
See, I knew your claim "there is no reason why God could not have created through evolution" is insincere. Here you are saying that it would be counterintuitive for God to have used Evolution. I do not actually believe that God created through evolution; I was merely saying that it's possible. It's not a matter of "either God created everything and there's no evolution, or there's evolution and no God." There are more than two possibilities. And remember, one of those possibilities is that an "impersonal" God -- one who isn't bothered by suffering -- created everything.
More insincerity. As an Evolutionist, you believe that every animal is the result of "survival of the fittest." Its existence is proof of its fitness, its fitness is proof of its "good design." Fitness in one environment can translate to lack of fitness in another, and environments change during the process of evolution. Because of this, natural selection often jury-rigs structures and modifications in a manner that allows continued survival, but in a sub-optimal manner. There are many examples of this -- here's a whole page of them:
[url]http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm[/url]
For example, human beings have muscles that serve no function other than to pull on the ears, yet human ears are basically fixed. What purpose did the "designer" have in mind for those muscles? They serve a purpose in lower animals, but not in humans, even though they remain in humans. How do you explain that?
How about human body hair -- apart from the areas that benefit from its lubricating function (armpits and groin) or the head (which is insulated against heat loss by hair), what purpose does human body hair serve? It doesn't keep you warm. Does an "intelligent designer" add features that have no purpose other than to make us resemble apes more?
Eyeless fish are yet another good example. Scroll down a bit after clicking the link above to read about them. Why would God give incomplete, non-functioning eyes to fish that don't even need them? Does that make sense? Seriously.
Evidence upon evidence upon evidence...the world is full of organisms that either evolved (and thus appear somewhat "improvised") or were designed by a Creator who wasn't fully competent.
Feel free to investigate. Just don't make up something and believe it to be fact because you otherwise would have no explanation. Nothing is ever considered completely proven in science. That's why it's a much better method of understanding the world than faith-based dogmatism.
Almost everthing I read from Evolutionists is dripping with arrogance and insincerity. What do you call it when creationists -- most of whom lack relevant scientific training at even a basic level -- tell all the world's most experienced and accomplished scientific experts in genetics, molecular biology, geology, etc. -- that they're full of it? Humility? It's like telling someone he doesn't pronounce his own name properly.
James Watson, one of the co-discoverers of DNA, is an atheist; I'd say it's safe to say that he believes in evolution. Do you think you know something about biology that he doesn't? Ask yourself honestly. What do you think you could teach Dr. Watson?
Nope, no emotional upset here. If Evolution were proven true, it would be like magic is true. Instead of objects from thin air, we'd get information from thin air. That would be exciting.[/QUOTE]The "information" you refer to comes from the environment. An organism's genome contains a kind of genetic image of all the environmental pressures to which its ancestors have been exposed.
2005-05-21 22:03 | User Profile
Good article, FB. One criticism I have is the distinction the author makes between between "thermodynamic entropy" and "logical entropy" (the latter is often called "configurational entropy"). The two concepts are actually not distinct; they are two sides of the same coin. Nevertheless, the author's basic arguments stand.
2005-05-22 00:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Why are many Atheists and agnostics so friendly with the idea of the possibility of God creating through Evolution? That seems a bit disingenuous, like a heroin dealer offering you a free sample just because he likes you.[/QUOTE] Not just Atheists and Agnostics, but Catholics too, including the previous two Popes (with a few caveats)
[url]http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html[/url] [QUOTE]In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animal enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet"; Encyclical Humani generic, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575).
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.[/QUOTE] So the teaching of the Church is basically that evolution is OK as an explanation of the material/biological origins of life, as long as it is not coupled with a materialistic philosophy that denies the reality of a spiritual soul or it's divine origins.
2005-05-22 00:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]We don't completely understand, but all evidence points in that direction. At least all the evidence that supports your position. In the end - its all a matter of interpretation - and your faith in the objectivity of the interpreters.
As a russian, you seem to have a certain confidence in scientific authority and authority in general not really recognized today's American academia, outside of grant time. In a way that's bad and in a way that's good. I do stumble a little bit over your mindset though. It may still be spoken at Scientific American and the upper echelons of the National Academy of Sciences, but by and large people don't really pay attention anymore.
Faith isn't postulated in science. Come up with a better argument that doesn't require blind faith, and it will be considered.[/QUOTE]Sometime it might be interested in reviewing the presuppositions of science you seem to acknowledge. The most acute though is of [B]the disinterested and objective observer [/B].
Postmodernism today I think pretty much completely rejects this. Today's scientists in America can assert this authority inside their cloistered laboratory ghettoes, and can occasionally emerge to engage in paid jihads against biblical Christians (fundamentalists) but elsewhere exert no authority, at least of a scientific nature (as opposed to pseudoscientific studies like the Frankfurt Schools works).
2005-05-22 01:04 | User Profile
There would have to be alternative explanations for a partial subjective observer to reject and pick another one. Also, there would have to be a vast conspiracy to consistently reject an outcome so favored by your side.
There is no Christain sciense just like there was no Communist sciense. Although the Soviets at some point did insist that there was bourgeois science.
2005-05-22 01:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]At least all the evidence that supports your position. In the end - its all a matter of interpretation - and your faith in the objectivity of the interpreters. It would be wrong to claim that all scientists are completely objective. Nevertheless, every good scientist strives for objectivity, as that is one of the primary characteristics of meaningful work. Also, the inevitable biases that do exist ("pet theories" and such) almost never all point in the same direction; scientists compete with each other for funding and look for every opportunity to make themselves known by successfully challenging the ideas of others. The way to gain fame in science is NOT to simply support the status quo, but to come up with new theories that can be supported by empirical evidence.
If the scientific community is misled about something, its course is corrected as soon as the mistake becomes clear. This is in stark contrast to religious (or political) dogma, which maintain their correctness regardless of contrary evidence.
In the final analysis, the scientific method is vindicated simply because it works. Its results are everywhere around us, from the computers chips containing millions of microscopic transistors to the satellites in space that allow us to use our cell phones. And precisely the same "self-policing" processes of peer-review and merit-based funding that are responsible for these and other wonders are also behind the development of evolutionary science. The sole difference is that evolution is offensive to some people, while other areas of science generally are not.
As a russian, you seem to have a certain confidence in scientific authority and authority in general not really recognized today's American academia, outside of grant time. In a way that's bad and in a way that's good. I do stumble a little bit over your mindset though. It may still be spoken at Scientific American and the upper echelons of the National Academy of Sciences, but by and large people don't really pay attention anymore. To reiterate, scientific authority has proven itself generally trustworthy simply because it produces real-world results. If people don't want to pay attention to scientists, then that's fine -- but in order to be self-consistent, they really should also stop taking advantage of scientists' and engineers' work. That means no more computers, cell phones, microwave ovens, antibiotics, etc., etc.
2005-05-22 01:31 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - " If people don't want to pay attention to scientists, then that's fine -- but in order to be self-consistent, they really should also stop taking advantage of scientists' and engineers' work. That means no more computers, cell phones, microwave ovens, antibiotics, etc., etc."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
Why should we thank the evolution hypothesis for any of these things?
This is just another case of evolutionists [B]parasitically[/B] attaching their cause to the entire idea of science just like neocon Jews pretend that any aggression against Israel is also an aggression against America and should be fought in the same manner.
Petr
2005-05-22 01:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - " If people don't want to pay attention to scientists, then that's fine -- but in order to be self-consistent, they really should also stop taking advantage of scientists' and engineers' work. That means no more computers, cell phones, microwave ovens, antibiotics, etc., etc."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
Why should we thank the evolution hypothesis for any of these things?
This is just another case of evolutionists [B]parasitically[/B] attaching their cause to the entire idea of science just like neocon Jews pretend that any aggression against Israel is also an aggression against America and should be fought in the same manner.[/QUOTE]As I've already said, exactly the same scientific method is responsible for both evolutionary theory and the scientific theories that led to the development of the aforementioned gadgets. There is also NO difference in the peer-review process for journal publication, the procedures for acquiring research funding, etc. It's all the same science. The only distinction between evolutionary science and other science is that one conflicts with some peoples' religious dogma, while others don't.
As far as the practical use of evolutionary theory, it has led to the development of new drugs and pesticides, a better understanding of disease vectors, etc.
2005-05-22 01:51 | User Profile
Not to delve too deeply into religion on a science thread, but I have to come back to this issue:
Genesis 1:6-8
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
It sure seems to me like the ancient writer(s) of Genesis thought that the sky was blue because there was water up there, contained in a firmament with floodgates and all.
If Genesis isn't mythology, then where is this firmament? Where are the waters above it? Wouldn't this tend to pose difficulties for the space program?
2005-05-22 02:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr] This is just another case of evolutionists [B]parasitically[/B] attaching their cause to the entire idea of science just like neocon Jews pretend that any aggression against Israel is also an aggression against America and should be fought in the same manner. [/QUOTE] Can you point out scientific opposition to "evolutionists"? You seem to insist there are competing theories supported by good scientists and suppressed by evil ideologized scientists with an agenda.
2005-05-22 02:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Sure it is. It's clear that human beings and chimps have a common ancestor, and similar relationships can be found between other species. If God exists and He didn't create through evolution, then He deliberately deceived mankind by creating all these creatures to look like they're related by evolution.
The similarity of species seems to refute Evolution, which would build creatures by naturally selected, [I]random[/I] mutations. Why does a frong, a chimp, and a person all have five digits on their feet? The Evolutionist says common ancestry. That's absurd. If natural forces could turn something into such different creatures as frog and a man, it would not have preserved something so easily changed and with so little value as the number five, five digits. The number of digits between different species would be essentually random.
If Evolution really existed, we wouldn't be in this silly debate about what the results of Evolution would look like. We'd simply look at Evolution happening and see what it leaves. We can't even look at a computer simulation.
I've done this many times on this board. You reject any evidence I show you.
No, you have never, not once, provided a real example of observed Evolution. If you could have, you would have. But, you can't, so you didn't. The only relevant example would be an accumulaton of mutations that make a species more fit and sophisticated. The examples you give don't do a thing, zelch, to make credible the belief that one kind of species can transfrom into another.
Fitness in one environment can translate to lack of fitness in another,
What does that statement have to do with your claim that there are examples of poor design in nature when under Evolution, it's truism that everything is a good design? Yes, a fish isn't well designed to live out of water. But, that's avoiding the point.
Because of this, natural selection often jury-rigs structures and modifications in a manner that allows continued survival, but in a sub-optimal manner. There are many examples of this -- here's a whole page of them:
[url]http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm[/url]
Jury-rigged is not the same as poor design. Anyway, last time you linked to a list of poor or jury-rigged design, I easily refuted every example. No reponse from you.
For example, human beings have muscles that serve no function other than to pull on the ears, yet human ears are basically fixed. What purpose did the "designer" have in mind for those muscles? They serve a purpose in lower animals, but not in humans, even though they remain in humans. How do you explain that?
You're pushing the Humans Evolved From Rabbits Theory (because you're not claiming that this muscle is jury-rigged from the design of higher primates, but from those twitchy-ear rodents). You don't believe that, so why should I? Your example stands refuted. The question remains: What's are those muscles for? I don't know enough about the subject to think I should have an answer. I can't move my ears and I would guess that whatever those muscles do, moving the ears is just a side-effect. Maybe they do something very practical, like open that tube in the ear that is used to relieve pressure on inner ear. Maybe they're just improtant for facial expressions. Do you think facial expresson is proof of Evolution?
How about human body hair -- apart from the areas that benefit from its lubricating function (armpits and groin) or the head (which is insulated against heat loss by hair), what purpose does human body hair serve? It doesn't keep you warm. Does an "intelligent designer" add features that have no purpose other than to make us resemble apes more?
Hair on the head can be very valuable, and you recognize that. I have three possible answers. Some humans are very hairy, this could have been more so in the past (for reasons having nothing to do with Evolution). So, in the past, for some population groups, there could have been enough body hair to provide significant insulation. Good for tribes of humans that wanted to move north.
My next possible answer is that humans have body hair as a matter of genetic efficiency (good design). Given that there is good value in head hair (hair growing out of the skin), it may have been less efficient (genetically speaking) to restrict hair to the head (more DNA information). Body hair isn't harmful, and may be good, so it not being fully localized to the head is not reason to believe body hair is jury-rigged design (beyond body vs. head).
The last possible answer is that it body hair is valuable. I'd wager even for the average person, the small amount of body hair has some insulating value, if even just by a degree or two (Evolutionsits like to make this marginal value argument, so don't reject it now). Hair certainly has aesthetic value. And, body hair, like a cat's wisker, signficantly inhances sensation.
Eyeless fish are yet another good example. Scroll down a bit after clicking the link above to read about them. Why would God give incomplete, non-functioning eyes to fish that don't even need them? Does that make sense? Seriously.
It doesn't take Evolution to get rid of an eye. The observed Law of Nature is Devolution (ironic, ain't it), it just means that this fish had eyes and lost the function because there was no selective pressure to preserve working eyes against demaging mutations. A non-functioning eye isn't jury-rigged design.
Evidence upon evidence upon evidence...the world is full of organisms that either evolved (and thus appear somewhat "improvised") or were designed by a Creator who wasn't fully competent.
Evidence upon evidence shot down as evidence for Evolution. Nothing you gave is even mildly compelling evidence of jury-rigged design. Of the thousands of Evolutoinists studying thousands of species, surly if Evolution is true, you could find more compelling examples of what should be a rule of nature.
Here's a hint: Next time you want to show me an example of jury-rigged design, don't show me what you think might be degenerated function. Strickly speaking, a jury-rigged design is one thing put to a different use. What new use do you think Evolution has put non-functioning fish eyes to? See the point?
Nothing is ever considered completely proven in science. That's why it's a much better method of understanding the world than faith-based dogmatism.
Yet, you think the Theory of Evolution is completely proven in science.
What do you call it when creationists -- most of whom lack relevant scientific training at even a basic level -- tell all the world's most experienced and accomplished scientific experts in genetics, molecular biology, geology, etc. -- that they're full of it? Humility? It's like telling someone he doesn't pronounce his own name properly.
There you go again, appealing to state-approved authority.
James Watson, one of the co-discoverers of DNA, is an atheist; I'd say it's safe to say that he believes in evolution. Do you think you know something about biology that he doesn't? Ask yourself honestly. What do you think you could teach Dr. Watson?
I know that if he were a Creationist, he probably would not have been allowed to get into a position to discover DNA (not that Creationists haven't made many great contributions to science, especially before the Evolution cult took over government). On other other hand, the other co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, also an atheist, knew that nature can't make DNA so he appeals to little green men from space. Do you agree with Crick's theory of Directed Panspermia? So, what makes Watson more of an expert? Does Watson know how to make Evolution happen? So much for being an expert on Evolution.
2005-05-22 05:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]The similarity of species seems to refute Evolution, which would build creatures by naturally selected, [I]random[/I] mutations. Why does a frong, a chimp, and a person all have five digits on their feet? The Evolutionist says common ancestry. That's absurd. If natural forces could turn something into such different creatures as frog and a man, it would not have preserved something so easily changed and with so little value as the number five, five digits. The number of digits between different species would be essentually random.[/QUOTE]
Horses have 3 toes (of which only 1 is functional). Humans have 5. Birds have 3 or 4, depending on the genus. Frogs have 4 toes on their front feet and 5 toes on their back feet. Dogs, cats & foxes have 4 front and 4 back toes.
There's plenty of toe-countin' variety in nature.
[url]http://www.biokids.umich.edu/guides/signs/tracks_key.html[/url]
(sorry to link to a kids site, best one I could find in a pinch)
2005-05-22 10:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]The similarity of species seems to refute Evolution, which would build creatures by naturally selected, [I]random[/I] mutations. Why does a frong, a chimp, and a person all have five digits on their feet? The Evolutionist says common ancestry. That's absurd. If natural forces could turn something into such different creatures as frog and a man, it would not have preserved something so easily changed and with so little value as the number five, five digits. The number of digits between different species would be essentually random. The mutations are random, but their selection is not.
If Evolution really existed, we wouldn't be in this silly debate about what the results of Evolution would look like. We'd simply look at Evolution happening and see what it leaves. We can't even look at a computer simulation. We look at the results of evolution, including fossils left behind, DNA sequences, and geological data, to find out what happened. No one needs to actually see it happening to know that it happened.
I've used this analogy before: a murder investigation. If a suspect is found with the victim's blood on his clothes, a knife with the victim's blood on it and the victim's wallet in his possession, then there is no need for anyone to have seen the murder to know who committed it.
Similarly, when a series of fossils have been found that show extinct hominids who looked progressively less like apes and more like men, it's pretty clear what happened.
No, you have never, not once, provided a real example of observed Evolution. If you could have, you would have. But, you can't, so you didn't. The only relevant example would be an accumulaton of mutations that make a species more fit and sophisticated. The examples you give don't do a thing, zelch, to make credible the belief that one kind of species can transfrom into another. I believe I have posted this in the past, as well as other examples:
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html[/url]
I hope you will actually take the time to read it so that you don't continue to say that speciation has never been observed.
Jury-rigged is not the same as poor design. Anyway, last time you linked to a list of poor or jury-rigged design, I easily refuted every example. No reponse from you. I must have missed that.
You're pushing the Humans Evolved From Rabbits Theory (because you're not claiming that this muscle is jury-rigged from the design of higher primates, but from those twitchy-ear rodents). "Humans evolved from rabbits"???
HH, seriously: I don't mean to sound belittling, but your remarks show that you still don't understand evolutionary theory well enough to be arguing against it. No one claims that humans evolved from rabbits. There is a BIG difference between evolving from something and having a common ancestor.
You don't believe that, so why should I? Your example stands refuted. The question remains: What's are those muscles for? I don't know enough about the subject to think I should have an answer. I can't move my ears and I would guess that whatever those muscles do, moving the ears is just a side-effect. Maybe they do something very practical, like open that tube in the ear that is used to relieve pressure on inner ear. Maybe they're just improtant for facial expressions. Do you think facial expresson is proof of Evolution? That's the whole point: those muscles have no purpose. They are attached to two immovable points. There is no conceivable function for them.
Hair on the head can be very valuable, and you recognize that. I have three possible answers. Some humans are very hairy, this could have been more so in the past (for reasons having nothing to do with Evolution). What other reasons would there be?
My next possible answer is that humans have body hair as a matter of genetic efficiency (good design). Given that there is good value in head hair (hair growing out of the skin), it may have been less efficient (genetically speaking) to restrict hair to the head (more DNA information). Body hair isn't harmful, and may be good, so it not being fully localized to the head is not reason to believe body hair is jury-rigged design (beyond body vs. head). This is a creative answer, but do you have any evidence for this?
The last possible answer is that it body hair is valuable. I'd wager even for the average person, the small amount of body hair has some insulating value, if even just by a degree or two (Evolutionsits like to make this marginal value argument, so don't reject it now). Hair certainly has aesthetic value. And, body hair, like a cat's wisker, signficantly inhances sensation. Then why don't women have arms, chests, and backs as hairy as men?
It doesn't take Evolution to get rid of an eye. The observed Law of Nature is Devolution (ironic, ain't it), it just means that this fish had eyes and lost the function because there was no selective pressure to preserve working eyes against demaging mutations. A non-functioning eye isn't jury-rigged design. Mutations are not always damaging. That creationist argument has been debunked over and over again. Here are some examples of beneficial mutations: [url]http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html#mutations[/url]
Here's a major mutation that could turn out to be beneficial all by itself, although that's unknown for now: [url]http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=519696[/url]
Evidence upon evidence shot down as evidence for Evolution. Nothing you gave is even mildly compelling evidence of jury-rigged design. Of the thousands of Evolutoinists studying thousands of species, surly if Evolution is true, you could find more compelling examples of what should be a rule of nature.
Here's a hint: Next time you want to show me an example of jury-rigged design, don't show me what you think might be degenerated function. Strickly speaking, a jury-rigged design is one thing put to a different use. What new use do you think Evolution has put non-functioning fish eyes to? See the point? No, no, no. There doesn't have to be a function for those eyes. Calling it "jury-rigging" might be an unfortunate semantic choice on my part, but the point remains: those eyes were probably useful in a prior environment, but the environment changed (perhaps through simple migration due to water temperature changes, volcanic activity, or whatever); subsequent mutations that caused deterioration of the eyes did not hinder selection.
Which makes more sense? The above, or the notion that God gave those fish non-working eyes?
Yet, you think the Theory of Evolution is completely proven in science. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but again, nothing is 100% proven.
There you go again, appealing to state-approved authority. People with education and experience in a given subject are more credible than people without education or experience in that subject. Do you deny this?
Appealing to authority is NOT a fallacy if the authority in question has expertise in the subject at hand.
I know that if he were a Creationist, he probably would not have been allowed to get into a position to discover DNA (not that Creationists haven't made many great contributions to science, especially before the Evolution cult took over government). You are appealing to a conspiracy theory. What evidence do you have that this worldwide conspiracy exists? What are the motives for this conspiracy?
On other other hand, the other co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, also an atheist, knew that nature can't make DNA so he appeals to little green men from space. Do you have a source for the claim that Crick believes nature can't make DNA? I find that hard to believe, since even I know that many highly complex molecules form spontaneously in nature.
Do you agree with Crick's theory of Directed Panspermia? I can't rule it out, though I think simple evolution is more plausible.
So, what makes Watson more of an expert? Does Watson know how to make Evolution happen? So much for being an expert on Evolution.[/QUOTE]Watson is a biologist; Crick is a physicist. And yes, I'm sure Watson knows how evolution happened.
2005-05-22 10:25 | User Profile
Oh yeah: Someone please answer the question about the firmament I asked above when you get a chance.
2005-05-22 13:16 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Oh yeah: Someone please answer the question about the firmament I asked above when you get a chance."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
I haven't yet fully delved into this issue, but here is some interesting discussion about Biblical firmaments and seas (and also about the symbology in the Temple of Solomon):
[url]http://www.christiangeology.com/firmament.html[/url]
When apostle Paul speaks about visiting the "third heaven" (2 Corinthians 12:2), it makes perfect sense.
The first heaven is the atmospheric heavens. This is the clouds and where the birds fly (Ps. 8:8, 77:17-18, 79:2, 104:12).
(for example, in Finnish language, the word "[I]taivas[/I]" can mean both "sky" and "heaven"),
The second heaven is the starry heavens. This is the moon and the stars (Gen. 22:17, Ps. 8:3, Isa. 13:10)
The third heaven is the abode of God. We pray to the Father in heaven. (2 Cor. 12:2, Matt. 5:45, 6:9, 16:17).
[B]When the Bible speaks of the heavens passing away (2 Pet. 3:10), it is speaking of the first and second heavens being destroyed, but not the third heaven.[/B]
Petr
2005-05-23 08:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Horses have 3 toes (of which only 1 is functional). Humans have 5. Birds have 3 or 4, depending on the genus. Frogs have 4 toes on their front feet and 5 toes on their back feet. Dogs, cats & foxes have 4 front and 4 back toes.
Leaving aside horses (which is one of the Evolutionist's favorite mammals), basically all mammals have 4 or 5 toes. I already indicated that a change in digits is a somewhat common mutation, and a mutation that doesn't really seem to be harmful. Therefor, I would think that if Evolution accounts for all mammals, then there should be some randomness in the number of digits. Just 4 or 5 is not much randomness. Horses, as you say, get by with just one functional toe (still, they have 3). Imagine the damage a large cat with 10 toes could do. In those books of extra-interesting creatures, why don't we read about the Australian Wallaby, for example, with 60 toes (several rows of toes like sharks teeth, use your imagination)? How about 3-toed dogs? 7-toed mice? 3-toed horses are the exception that proves the rule.
I used the example of toes because I've seen in Biology textbooks use the five digits of very different species as "proof" of Evolution, but it's absurd to believe that common ancestry, of animals as diverse as mammals, could account for it. An honest Evolutionist would have to say that mammals have five toes because of convergent pressure (meaning, the five toes of one animal have nothing to do with the five toes of another animal). But, that bit of honesty wouldn't serve to promote Evolution.
If I were picking my own example of similarity refuting Evolution, I'd pick eyes. Why does every species with eyes, from bugs to people, have two and only two eyes? Why not a 3rd-eye in back to see approaching predators - great survival value. Whey not a dozen (redundancy can have survival value). Why doesn't that hypothetical 60-toed Australian Wallaby have a hundred tiny eyes (working together as a sort of compound eyes)?
Where's the randomness that reflects the absolutely random material that Natural Selection has to work with? If Evolution accounts for modern life, there would be that randomness for Evolutionists to point to, "That's the randomness that comes from the random mutations." Polytheists would point and say, "various gods made these various animals."
(sorry to link to a kids site, best one I could find in a pinch)[/QUOTE]
Nothing to be sorry for.
2005-05-23 09:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Horses have 3 toes (of which only 1 is functional). Humans have 5. Birds have 3 or 4, depending on the genus. Frogs have 4 toes on their front feet and 5 toes on their back feet. Dogs, cats & foxes have 4 front and 4 back toes.
Leaving aside horses (which is one of the Evolutionist's favorite mammals) and hooved animals, basically all mammals have 4 or 5 toes. I already indicated that a change in digits is a somewhat common mutation, and a mutation that doesn't really seem to be harmful. Therefor, I would think that if Evolution accounts for all mammals, then there should be some randomness in the number of digits. Just 4 or 5 is not much randomness. Horses, as you say, get by with just one functional toe (still, they have 3). Imagine the damage a large cat with 10 optimized toes could do. In those books of extra-interesting creatures, why don't we read about the Australian Wallaby, for example, with 60 toes (several rows of toes like sharks teeth, use your imagination)? How about 3-toed dogs? 7-toed mice?
I used the example of toes because I've seen in Biology textbooks use the five digits of very different species as "proof" of Evolution, but it's absurd to believe that common ancestry, of animals as diverse as mammals, could account for it. An honest Evolutionist would have to say that mammals have five toes because of convergent pressure (meaning, the five toes of one animal have nothing to do with the five toes of another animal). But, that bit of honesty wouldn't serve to promote Evolution.
If I were picking my own example of similarity refuting Evolution, I'd pick eyes. Why does every species with eyes, from bugs to people, have two and only two eyes? Why not a 3rd-eye in back to see approaching predators - great survival value. Whey not a dozen (redundancy can have survival value). Why doesn't that hypothetical 60-toed Australian Wallaby have a hundred tiny eyes (working together as a sort of compound eyes)?
Where's the randomness that reflects the absolutely random material that Natural Selection has to work with? If Evolution accounts for modern life, there would be that randomness for Evolutionists to point to, "That's the randomness that comes from the random mutations." Polytheists would point and say, "various gods made these various animals."
Blind faith in Evolution means telling yourself that what you see is exactly what you would predict with Evolution. And, because Evolution doesn't really exist, it cannot be observed to see what it would really produce. All you and I can do is
Here are examples of cats with random numbers of digits: [URL=http://www.messybeast.com/poly-cats.html]cats[/URL].
(sorry to link to a kids site, best one I could find in a pinch)[/QUOTE]
Nothing to be sorry for.
2005-05-24 16:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I believe I have posted this in the past, as well as other examples:
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html[/url]
No, Angler, you have never provided even one example of Evolution. Evolution is the accumulation of mutations that increase sophistication and fitness of a species. It is not nominal speciation, deteriation, and all the other nonsense you try to pass off as Evolution. You cannot provide an example of Evolution because it doesn't exist.
"Humans evolved from rabbits"???
HH, seriously: I don't mean to sound belittling, but your remarks show that you still don't understand evolutionary theory well enough to be arguing against it.
When you start pointing to twitchy ears and the appendix as alleged vestigal organs, you must be thinking Humans evolved from rabbits, because these aren't vestiges or jury-rigged changes from higher primates. Do you know any apes that twitches their hears to move them to hear better?
Instead of accusing others of ignorance, you might try to exhibit some understanding of what's being told to you.
That's the whole point: those muscles have no purpose. They are attached to two immovable points. There is no conceivable function for them.
Don't humans have any benefit from twitching or factial expression? How about chasing a flay away that lands on the ear? Why would humans have evolved unused muscles? Or, why would Evolution have preserved these muscles from rabbits, via whatever very long path you think Evolution took to humans?
he point remains: those eyes were probably useful in a prior environment, but the environment changed (perhaps through simple migration due to water temperature changes, volcanic activity, or whatever); subsequent mutations that caused deterioration of the eyes did not hinder selection.
The point remains, no matter how many rabbit organs degenerate, you're never going to get a person. You'll just get an extinct rabbit. You still refuse to acknowledge what the objection to Evolution is.
Appealing to authority is NOT a fallacy if the authority in question has expertise in the subject at hand.
What makes an an Evolutionist such an athority when he can't produce Evolution and when he is expressing the only view that the government allows in schools?
A real expert, Angler, gives definitive answers to questions, answers that stand on their own rather than his authority. And, experts can explain things so anyone can understand. He's an authority because he knows how something works, not because he has a PhD and the government's blessing.
Do you have a source for the claim that Crick believes nature can't make DNA? I find that hard to believe, since even I know that many highly complex molecules form spontaneously in nature.
Directed Panspermia
A second prominent proponent of panspermia is Nobel prize winner Francis Crick, who along with Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. This suggests that the seeds of life may have been purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Crick argues that small grains containing DNA, or the building blocks of life, fired randomly in all directions is the best, most cost effective strategy for seeding life on a compatible planet at some time in the future. The strategy might have been pursued by a civilization facing catastrophic annihilation, or hoping to terraform planets for later colonization.
Other proponents of panspermia believe that life never evolved from inorganic molecules, but that it has existed as long as all other forms of matter. This is an extension of panspermia called cosmic ancestry. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia[/url]
Do you need a source to document that Crick appeals to intelligent aliens because he didn't think nature itself was up to the task of making DNA? Actually, scientifically speaking, Crick isn't half as nuts as those who think DNA can form naturally.
2005-05-24 19:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia[/url]
Do you need a source to document that Crick appeals to intelligent aliens because he didn't think nature itself was up to the task of making DNA? Actually, scientifically speaking, Crick isn't half as nuts as those who think DNA can form naturally.[/QUOTE]Interesting. I don't think Angler is going to have an answer for this. Supposedly "all the best" scientific minds believe evolution is possible, except for the Christian "Intelligent Design" crackpots, considered crackpots because of the basic anti-Christian bias of the labelers, WN's and ADLers united.
Crick might be characterized as a pagan "Intelligent Designer". No matter how you label it, the idea that life was introduced on earth is a limited form of intelligent design. Limited of course because it doesn't address the question of how life ultimately originated in whoever was the first to introduce it, but intelligent design nevertheless.
Some people like Angler seem to have a naive faith in science that transcends medieval ecclestical reverence. Scientists are omnipotent, their conclusions never fail, and eventually they'll explain and solve everything.
And they view Christians as credulous. :lol:
2005-05-24 19:48 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Some people like Angler seem to have a naive faith in science that transcends medieval ecclestical reverence. Scientists are omnipotent, their conclusions never fail, and eventually they'll explain and solve everything."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
I agree. Many former believers like Angler seem to cling to "scientism" like to some [I]substitute religion [/I] - many "born" materialists more easily recognize the limitations of scientific theorizing.
Petr
2005-05-26 12:36 | User Profile
Article on ID in the New Yorker:
[url]http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact[/url]
2005-05-26 15:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Article on ID in the New Yorker:[/QUOTE]
Many scientists avoid discussing I.D. for strategic reasons. If a scientific claim can be loosely defined as one that scientists take seriously enough to debate, then engaging the intelligent-design movement on scientific grounds, they worry, cedes what it most desires: recognition that its claims are legitimate scientific ones.
Sure, "Scientists" (euphemism for Evolutionists, most of whom are not scientists) don't want to debate IDers because they don't want to cede apparent legitimacy. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Evolutionists almost always get their tails kicked in debates.
There isn't any better way to show the superiority of one idea over another than in a debate. Evolutionists have the government on their side, so they don't need to the better idea. Evolutionists avoid debates because they don't want to cede legitimacy to the concept of letting the best idea prove itself.
In a species whose eye amounts to nothing more than a primitive patch of light-sensitive cells, a mutation that causes this patch to fold into a cup shape might have a survival advantage. While the old type of organism can tell only if the lights are on, the new type can detect the direction of any source of light or shadow. Since shadows sometimes mean predators, that can be valuable information.
What kind of real scientist has to make his case using purely hypothetical examples? Show us some real Evolution! Oh wait, they can't show us a real examples of Evolution because Evolution doesn't exist. It's not how nature works.
Evolutionists show fear and trembling at the idea of allowing criticism, scientific skepticism, at Evolution in public schools. All their evidence falls like a house of cards, like Bush's Weapons of Mass Destruction claims in Iraq.