After the Rick Warren post I thought it might be appropriate to have a laugh. I present to you Dara O'Briain. Enjoy!
D
Showing posts with label creationism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creationism. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
I'm sorry but.......
DINOSAURS AND HUMANS NEVER COEXISTED TOGETHER. THERE IS ZERO, I REPEAT, ZERO EVIDENCE FOR SUCH A CLAIM. ANYONE WHO CLAIMS OTHERWISE IS EITHER IGNORANT OF THE FACTS, WHICH CAN BE FIXED, OR IS JUST A KOOK!
However it is possible that other such factors exist in one's decision to deny history. Usually, one's acceptance of the truth is often clouded by their professions of faith. This is unfortunate considering that the truth is the truth, and the truth of evolution is NOT incapatable with belief in God. Unfortunately there are people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and others, who would have you believe such plain and utter nonsense. Please excuse me for the bold caps at the begining of this post, I was having a Lewis Black moment.
D
However it is possible that other such factors exist in one's decision to deny history. Usually, one's acceptance of the truth is often clouded by their professions of faith. This is unfortunate considering that the truth is the truth, and the truth of evolution is NOT incapatable with belief in God. Unfortunately there are people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and others, who would have you believe such plain and utter nonsense. Please excuse me for the bold caps at the begining of this post, I was having a Lewis Black moment.
D
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Creationism and Public Schools
Below is an essay I wrote for my English class. It is an argument essay about whether we should allow the teaching of creationism in public schools. The only problem is that it is short, only five pages. Sorry, but that is all I was allowed to write; though I could've gone on for much longer. Anyway, I thought I would share it with you. Let me know what you think!
D
Ever since the dawn of man, human beings have tried to make sense of their existence. “What is the purpose of life,” and “How did life come to be,” are just a couple of questions concerning human existence. These questions have been debated by scholars, the clergy, and general laypeople for centuries. But it wasn’t until 1859 when Charles Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of Species, which posited that all life shares a common ancestor. Thanks to Darwin, humans had finally started to grasp how life came to be and how it flourished, namely, though the Theory of Evolution. Before Darwin, the only answer to how life came to be was creationism. But even now, after One-Hundred and Fifty-Years after Darwin’s radical new idea, there are still some today who oppose evolution and want an alternative, creationism, taught in public science classes.
Creationism is the idea that all living things, plants, animals, and bacteria, were created, by God just as they are now. Creationists got this idea by taking a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis in the Bible, which says that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Also, creationists typically have a young earth view concerning the age of the earth. They usually believe the earth to be somewhere between fourteen-thousand and six-thousand years-old (however, these numbers for the age of the earth are nowhere to be found in the Bible). Creationists vehemently deny that all life shares a common ancestor; however they generally accept that micro-evolution happens (i.e. adaptations occur). Ken Ham, the founder of the young earth creationist organization Answers In Genesis (AIG) and the Creation Museum, claims that “Evolutionists” and Creationists have the same evidence, but they have different interpretations of that evidence. It is this claim of difference of interpretations that is giving the creationist movement credibility. But does this sound like science or is creationism merely religion and should it be taught in public school science classes?
“Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution,” was penned by the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, who criticized anti-evolution groups like Answers In Genesis (AIG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR); all of who want creationism taught in science classes. Dobzhansky was making the point that evolution occurs, and all of the evidence from all of the different scientific disciplines (e.g. geology, bio-chemistry, physics) adds to the theory of evolution. In other words, Evolution explains so much of what happens in nature that no other theory makes sense. The theory of evolution has multiple lines of evidence for it. It is time tested and makes positive predictions. Evolution is a working and verifiable science.
Even though evolution has more evidence for it than any other theory, besides Quantum Mechanics, there is still doubt from the general American public. AIG even states that according to surveys, most Americans are creationists; therefore, creationism should be taught in science classes along with the theory of evolution. This however, is a logic fallacy called the argument of popular sentiment (Argumentum ad populum). For instance, if ninety percent of the population believed UFOs exist it does make the preposition, UFOs exist, true. Popular opinion is not evidence. At one point, many people thought that the earth was the center of the universe (which it’s not even the center of the Milky Way) and it was flat. But both of those popular notions were shown to be false.
Shouldn’t the American educational system be teaching students all sides of the origins of life? Students have a right to know and decide for themselves. Knowledge should never be withheld from anyone. This is another argument espoused by AIG and ICR. At first the argument seems on the level and sincere. It appeals to Americans sense of fair play and self-determination. Knowledge should never be withheld from anyone, but sadly, the truth is not democratic. Parents could vote on the sex of their child, but it doesn’t change the child’s sex. But for the sake of argument imagine that creationism can be taught in public schools. Would this now mean that in order to be fair and not withhold knowledge from students, schools would have to teach alchemy in chemistry class? Would it mean that in history class, schools should teach Holocaust denialism? Both “theories” claim to have evidence for them.
To complicate the matter is the First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Creationism is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Creationism is expressly religious in its intent and therefore cannot be taught in science class. This opinion has been expressed in several court cases, one of the most famous being Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), which established that creationism absolutely could not be taught. Though the Edwards case didn’t stop the creationist movement. After the Edwards ruling, a new branch of creationism evolved known as Intelligent Design (ID). However, in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case (2005) it was determined that ID had no secular purpose and was expressly religious in its intent, thus violating the First Amendment.
Because of the religious intent behind groups like AIG and ICR, the real underlying problem seems to be where evolution puts man. Evolution makes man an animal, which ironically enough, the creationist Carl Linnaeus was the first to classify man as a member of the great apes. According to the Bible, which AIG and ICR adhere to, man is special; evolution threatens this idea. Science has seen such battles before in cases of Copernicus and Galileo. They took away mans special status of being the center of the universe. But does knowing such facts make humanity less special? The late Stephen Jay Gould Ph.D, Harvard Zoologist, and science popularizer argued in his essay, “Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)” that science and religion answers two separate questions. Religion answers questions of meaning while science answers questions dealing with the natural world. Science can inform religion, but it is not designed to answer the existential questions. Even Pope John Paul II wrote in his edict “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth” (1996) that evolution, in the neo-darwinian sense, is not just an hypothesis. Pope John Paul agreed with Gould’s NOMA. Creationism is more concerned with man’s place in the universe as opposed to how man came to be. There is no evidence for any of the tenets of creationism: a worldwide flood, a young earth, dinosaurs coexisting with humans, or a literal six day creation of the earth and cosmos. Therefore, creationism is solely a religious movement intended to spread religion and misinformed ideas about the origin of species, and thus doesn’t fit within a public school science class.
In a recent survey, half of all Americans responding when asked if the the earth orbits the sun or the sun the earth, got the question wrong. The fact that half of those respondents got that question wrong says a lot about the science education in the United States. This survey shows why it is important for the United States to take its science education seriously. Doing so requires that the most up-to-date factual content is taught to students. There is no time to be wasted with misinformation. There are no cures for HIV, cancer, and the hundreds of other diseases that kill men, women, and children each year. The theory of evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology and to dismiss it simply because it endangers one’s position on man’s purpose in the cosmos could be a grave mistake.
D
Creationism In Public Schools
Ever since the dawn of man, human beings have tried to make sense of their existence. “What is the purpose of life,” and “How did life come to be,” are just a couple of questions concerning human existence. These questions have been debated by scholars, the clergy, and general laypeople for centuries. But it wasn’t until 1859 when Charles Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of Species, which posited that all life shares a common ancestor. Thanks to Darwin, humans had finally started to grasp how life came to be and how it flourished, namely, though the Theory of Evolution. Before Darwin, the only answer to how life came to be was creationism. But even now, after One-Hundred and Fifty-Years after Darwin’s radical new idea, there are still some today who oppose evolution and want an alternative, creationism, taught in public science classes.
Creationism is the idea that all living things, plants, animals, and bacteria, were created, by God just as they are now. Creationists got this idea by taking a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis in the Bible, which says that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Also, creationists typically have a young earth view concerning the age of the earth. They usually believe the earth to be somewhere between fourteen-thousand and six-thousand years-old (however, these numbers for the age of the earth are nowhere to be found in the Bible). Creationists vehemently deny that all life shares a common ancestor; however they generally accept that micro-evolution happens (i.e. adaptations occur). Ken Ham, the founder of the young earth creationist organization Answers In Genesis (AIG) and the Creation Museum, claims that “Evolutionists” and Creationists have the same evidence, but they have different interpretations of that evidence. It is this claim of difference of interpretations that is giving the creationist movement credibility. But does this sound like science or is creationism merely religion and should it be taught in public school science classes?
“Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution,” was penned by the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, who criticized anti-evolution groups like Answers In Genesis (AIG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR); all of who want creationism taught in science classes. Dobzhansky was making the point that evolution occurs, and all of the evidence from all of the different scientific disciplines (e.g. geology, bio-chemistry, physics) adds to the theory of evolution. In other words, Evolution explains so much of what happens in nature that no other theory makes sense. The theory of evolution has multiple lines of evidence for it. It is time tested and makes positive predictions. Evolution is a working and verifiable science.
Even though evolution has more evidence for it than any other theory, besides Quantum Mechanics, there is still doubt from the general American public. AIG even states that according to surveys, most Americans are creationists; therefore, creationism should be taught in science classes along with the theory of evolution. This however, is a logic fallacy called the argument of popular sentiment (Argumentum ad populum). For instance, if ninety percent of the population believed UFOs exist it does make the preposition, UFOs exist, true. Popular opinion is not evidence. At one point, many people thought that the earth was the center of the universe (which it’s not even the center of the Milky Way) and it was flat. But both of those popular notions were shown to be false.
Shouldn’t the American educational system be teaching students all sides of the origins of life? Students have a right to know and decide for themselves. Knowledge should never be withheld from anyone. This is another argument espoused by AIG and ICR. At first the argument seems on the level and sincere. It appeals to Americans sense of fair play and self-determination. Knowledge should never be withheld from anyone, but sadly, the truth is not democratic. Parents could vote on the sex of their child, but it doesn’t change the child’s sex. But for the sake of argument imagine that creationism can be taught in public schools. Would this now mean that in order to be fair and not withhold knowledge from students, schools would have to teach alchemy in chemistry class? Would it mean that in history class, schools should teach Holocaust denialism? Both “theories” claim to have evidence for them.
To complicate the matter is the First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Creationism is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Creationism is expressly religious in its intent and therefore cannot be taught in science class. This opinion has been expressed in several court cases, one of the most famous being Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), which established that creationism absolutely could not be taught. Though the Edwards case didn’t stop the creationist movement. After the Edwards ruling, a new branch of creationism evolved known as Intelligent Design (ID). However, in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case (2005) it was determined that ID had no secular purpose and was expressly religious in its intent, thus violating the First Amendment.
Because of the religious intent behind groups like AIG and ICR, the real underlying problem seems to be where evolution puts man. Evolution makes man an animal, which ironically enough, the creationist Carl Linnaeus was the first to classify man as a member of the great apes. According to the Bible, which AIG and ICR adhere to, man is special; evolution threatens this idea. Science has seen such battles before in cases of Copernicus and Galileo. They took away mans special status of being the center of the universe. But does knowing such facts make humanity less special? The late Stephen Jay Gould Ph.D, Harvard Zoologist, and science popularizer argued in his essay, “Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)” that science and religion answers two separate questions. Religion answers questions of meaning while science answers questions dealing with the natural world. Science can inform religion, but it is not designed to answer the existential questions. Even Pope John Paul II wrote in his edict “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth” (1996) that evolution, in the neo-darwinian sense, is not just an hypothesis. Pope John Paul agreed with Gould’s NOMA. Creationism is more concerned with man’s place in the universe as opposed to how man came to be. There is no evidence for any of the tenets of creationism: a worldwide flood, a young earth, dinosaurs coexisting with humans, or a literal six day creation of the earth and cosmos. Therefore, creationism is solely a religious movement intended to spread religion and misinformed ideas about the origin of species, and thus doesn’t fit within a public school science class.
In a recent survey, half of all Americans responding when asked if the the earth orbits the sun or the sun the earth, got the question wrong. The fact that half of those respondents got that question wrong says a lot about the science education in the United States. This survey shows why it is important for the United States to take its science education seriously. Doing so requires that the most up-to-date factual content is taught to students. There is no time to be wasted with misinformation. There are no cures for HIV, cancer, and the hundreds of other diseases that kill men, women, and children each year. The theory of evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology and to dismiss it simply because it endangers one’s position on man’s purpose in the cosmos could be a grave mistake.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Creationist Science Fair Cartoon
I found this on the Richard Dawkins forums. I had to post this because it's sooooo funny. It's funny because it's true.
D
D
Ray Comfort on the Swine Flu
The following is a post from P.Z. Myers blog. It's so good that I had to re-post it here for all of you.
Enjoy,
D
Re-posted from: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/a_little_study_in_contrasts.php
Ray Comfort has made a post on the swine flu. You know already what kind of idiotic tripe he's going to trot out.
"The spread of the so-called 'swine flu' demonstrates yet again how useless and sometimes deadly a mutation can be. Furthermore, as the infection spreads around the world, the search for an antidote is desperately sought, but the very fact that the virus is seen as something to be opposed actually supports the Biblical view of this world. It is always good and right to oppose sickness, but in evolutionary terms, why don't humans simply resign themselves to it and allow the strong to survive? The evolutionary point of view would say the virus has a 'right' to live, so 'good luck' to it!"
How wrong can he be? It's hard to imagine screwing it up more. In the evolutionary point of view, we are the children of ancestors who fought off disease and lived to procreate; those who surrender to a viruses imaginary right to live, if such imaginary beings ever existed, didn't make much of a contribution to the current gene pool.
Well, you might wonder, what will the Ray Comforts of the world do to fight the virus?
"The great hope for this fallen, diseased, weatherworn world, is the return of Christ, who has promised to bring restoration, everlasting health and peace to all people."
If waiting for Jesus is his only answer, he can join his fantasy evilutionists in the graveyard. But he's lying here, because we know what will happen if Comfort feels the stirrings of the flu — he'll scurry to his nearest doctor to take advantage of the work of scientists who don't think the only hope is to cry out to Jebus.
Here's the contrast: Nick Anthis describes the molecular mechanism of the flu's resistance to some of the drugs in our arsenal. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't cite the Bible even once, nor does he beg for mercy from a merciful deity. He does cite the scientific literature, though, and explains the natural, material processes — those mutations — that have contributed to the potency of this strain.
Who contributes more to the health and happiness of the people of this world, scientists or bible-thumpin' idjits?
Enjoy,
D
Re-posted from: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/a_little_study_in_contrasts.php
Ray Comfort has made a post on the swine flu. You know already what kind of idiotic tripe he's going to trot out.
"The spread of the so-called 'swine flu' demonstrates yet again how useless and sometimes deadly a mutation can be. Furthermore, as the infection spreads around the world, the search for an antidote is desperately sought, but the very fact that the virus is seen as something to be opposed actually supports the Biblical view of this world. It is always good and right to oppose sickness, but in evolutionary terms, why don't humans simply resign themselves to it and allow the strong to survive? The evolutionary point of view would say the virus has a 'right' to live, so 'good luck' to it!"
How wrong can he be? It's hard to imagine screwing it up more. In the evolutionary point of view, we are the children of ancestors who fought off disease and lived to procreate; those who surrender to a viruses imaginary right to live, if such imaginary beings ever existed, didn't make much of a contribution to the current gene pool.
Well, you might wonder, what will the Ray Comforts of the world do to fight the virus?
"The great hope for this fallen, diseased, weatherworn world, is the return of Christ, who has promised to bring restoration, everlasting health and peace to all people."
If waiting for Jesus is his only answer, he can join his fantasy evilutionists in the graveyard. But he's lying here, because we know what will happen if Comfort feels the stirrings of the flu — he'll scurry to his nearest doctor to take advantage of the work of scientists who don't think the only hope is to cry out to Jebus.
Here's the contrast: Nick Anthis describes the molecular mechanism of the flu's resistance to some of the drugs in our arsenal. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't cite the Bible even once, nor does he beg for mercy from a merciful deity. He does cite the scientific literature, though, and explains the natural, material processes — those mutations — that have contributed to the potency of this strain.
Who contributes more to the health and happiness of the people of this world, scientists or bible-thumpin' idjits?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Dr. Dino's Son And Population Growth
Bad news from P.Z. Myers today, Eric Hovind (son of tax dodger and creationist Kent Hovind) has picked up where Daddy left off. Eric uses new slick and up to date graphics and web technology to lure in the ignorant masses. He may be using new technology, but he is still using the same old arguments. All of these have been thoroughly debunked and explained ad nauseum. But being a masochist I just had to wonder over to his site and take a peek.
Eric Hovind's website ( http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=137) asks:
How could population levels be minimal for millions of years and then suddenly explode in the last 2,000 years?
Here's the short answer. Actually the world's population didn't really "take off" until the 1950s. The world's population had been on an upward trend from 1750 to 1950 (see the graph below). But because of industrialization and the rise of technology, we were able to dramatically change the quality of life around the globe, thus increasing the world's population.
D
Eric Hovind's website ( http://www.drdino.com/read
How could population levels be minimal for millions of years and then suddenly explode in the last 2,000 years?
Here's the short answer. Actually the world's population didn't really "take off" until the 1950s. The world's population had been on an upward trend from 1750 to 1950 (see the graph below). But because of industrialization and the rise of technology, we were able to dramatically change the quality of life around the globe, thus increasing the world's population.
D
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Another Creationist?
Do we have another creationist on the blog? This one is a bit tougher to decifer. This person does pose an interesting question (see below).
Mynym wrote:
..and every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth.Interesting... so what type of biological observation would not confirm "evolution," whatever it may be?
Actually there is a few answers to this but I think I will take HIV for two-hundred Alex.
Berkley University has a website dedicated to understanding evolution. One of their web pages lists in detail how the HIV virus evolves. I will re-post their findings below. You can also see this example in the PBS Evolution series which can be found here. I warn you, it is long but well worth the time.
D
Re-posted from: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/medicine_04
Mynym wrote:
..and every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth.Interesting... so what type of biological observation would not confirm "evolution," whatever it may be?
Actually there is a few answers to this but I think I will take HIV for two-hundred Alex.
Berkley University has a website dedicated to understanding evolution. One of their web pages lists in detail how the HIV virus evolves. I will re-post their findings below. You can also see this example in the PBS Evolution series which can be found here. I warn you, it is long but well worth the time.
D
Re-posted from: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/medicine_04
HIV: the ultimate evolver
Evolutionary biologists can help uncover clues to new ways to treat or vaccinate against HIV. These clues emerge from the evolutionary origins of the virus, how human populations have evolved under pressure from other deadly pathogens, and how the virus evolves resistance to the drugs we've designed. Controlling the disease may be a matter of controlling the evolution of this constantly adapting virus. 
Taking an evolutionary perspective on HIV has led scientists to look in three new directions in their search for treatments and vaccines:
- What are the evolutionary origins of HIV?
- Why are some people resistant to HIV?
- How can we control HIV's evolution of resistance to our drugs?
 |  | 1. What are the evolutionary origins of HIV? HIV, like any evolving entity, has been deeply marked by its history. Scientists studying the evolutionary history of HIV found that it is closely related to other viruses. Those viruses include SIVs (simian immunodeficiency viruses), which infect primates, and the more distantly related FIVs (the feline strains), which infect cats. However, studies of these related viral lineages showed something surprising: primates with SIV and wild cats with FIV don't seem to be harmed by the viruses they carry. If scientists can figure out how non-human primates and wild cats are able to live with these viruses, they may learn how to better treat HIV infections or prevent them altogether. The diagram shows some of the evolutionary history of HIV as we know it today. An ancestral virus (bottom) evolved into strains that infected chimpanzees (SIV). Over time, new strains began to infect humans (HIV). |
2. Why are some people resistant to HIV?
HIV is by no means the first plague that human populations have weathered. Many pathogens have deeply affected our evolutionary history. In fact, the human genome is littered with the remnants of our past battles with pathogens — and one of these remnants, a mutation to a gene called CCR5, may lead researchers to a new treatment for HIV.
In some parts of Europe today, up to 20% of the population carry at least one copy of the protective allele. However, the populations of Asia and Africa were not exposed to the same epidemics; very few Asians and Africans now carry the allele (see map above). Thus, CCR5 is fairly common in northern Europe but its frequency diminishes as one moves south, and the mutation is rare in the rest of the world.
We now know that the mutant CCR5 allele has an unexpected side effect: it confers resistance to HIV. Scientists hope that studying this by-product of past selection will help them develop new treatments for the HIV epidemic ravaging human populations today.
3. How can we control HIV's evolution of resistance to our drugs?
HIV evolves so quickly that it evolves right out from under our treatments. When a patient begins taking an HIV drug, the drug keeps many of the viruses from reproducing, but some survive because they happen to have a certain level of resistance. Because of HIV's speedy evolution, it responds to selection pressures quickly: viruses that happen to survive the drug are favored, and resistant virus strains evolve within the patient, sometimes in just a few weeks. However, basic evolutionary theory points out a way that this evolution of resistant viral strains can be delayed. Patients are prescribed "drug cocktails" — several different HIV drugs taken together.
When taking any single drug, it is fairly likely that some mutant virus in the patient might happen to be resistant, survive the onslaught, and spawn a resistant lineage.
But the probability that the patient hosts a mutant virus that happens to be resistant to several different drugs at the same time is much lower. Although multiple-drug-resistant HIV strains do eventually evolve, drug cocktails delay their evolution.
An evolutionary trade-off
If a patient is already infected with a drug-resistant HIV strain, basic evolutionary theory has also pointed out a way to make the drug useful again. Studies of the evolution of resistance often show that you don't get something for nothing. Specifically, it "costs" a pest or pathogen to be resistant to a pesticide or drug. If you place resistant and non-resistant organisms in head-to-head competition in the absence of the pesticide or drug, the non-resistant organisms generally win.
Consider a patient who takes a particular drug and winds up with viruses resistant to the drug. If the patient stops taking the drug for a while, evolutionary theory predicts that her viral load will evolve back towards a non-resistant strain. If she then takes very strong doses of the drug, it may be able to halt the replication of those non-resistant viruses and reduce her viral load to very low levels.
This therapy has shown early, promising results — it may not eliminate HIV, but it could keep patients' virus loads low for a long time, slowing progression of the disease.
Ultimately, understanding the evolutionary history of HIV and its pattern of evolutionary change may help us control this disease.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Made it On Jerry Coyne
I am stoked that my blog has made mention on Jerry Coyne's blog. I must give credit where credit is due (and I think that I have). All of the responders at Richarddawkins.net deserve all of the credit for answering Christina. If you haven't been to the Richard Dawkins forums then you have to check it out right now! But really they did all of the hard work and came up with the answers. Also, I did pick up the Jerry Coyne quote from Phil Plait's website. I thought it was such a wonderful quote that I had to duplicate it here. I had never read a more complete yet succinct quote about evolution and the truth of it before. It is a truly wonderful quote. All the thanks really goes to Jerry Coyne for writing a great piece about evolution in the first place. Go buy his book "Why Evolution Is True". Thank you all for your insights and your love of communicating science. The credit is all yours.
D
D
Friday, April 17, 2009
Great Quote About Evolution
The following quote is taken from Jerry Coyne's new book, "Why Evolution Is True".
"Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature… and every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible explanations that could prove evolution untrue, we don’t have a single one. We don’t find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that benefit only a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific fact."
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Sorry....
Sorry, I've been a bit preoccupied with home stuff as of late and I have been ignoring you. In the coming days I will try to rectify this situation so please hold tight. To make things a little better, here is a video of Michael Shermer at the Creation Museum. Yes, there is a creation museum, and yes, I have been there. I did feel a bit dirty giving them $20 but I am a masochist and had to see it for myself. Enjoy, well.......do the best you can, don't put your head through your computer screen.
D
This is a Repost from my facebook page:
D
This is a Repost from my facebook page:
This is a good interview by Michael Shermer with Ms. Purdom at the Creation Museum. Can anyone say circular logic? Ms. Purdom uses it and thinks it's acceptable in science. She even says that there is NO reason to test a creation hypothesis.....she really said that. Does anyone really think this is a science anymore after that? There's your smoking gun right there. The bible isn't a science book, and excepting evolutionary theory DOES NOT mean that you can't believe in god. Michael Shermer mentions Ken Miller (orthodox catholic) and Francis S. Collins (evangelical christian), they along with many others have no problem with reconciling science with their belief in god. To say that you have to have either god or evolution is presenting a false dichotomy (claiming that there is only two possible answers when there are really more than two). I'm sorry, I don't mean to be on a soapbox here but this just makes my head hurt.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Only 2 Out Of 5......Really?
According to recent Pew and Gallup poll surveys (see story below), only 40% of Americans accept the theory of evolution. The only good to point thing about these results is that they are holding steady from previous years. That is also one of the bad points as well. I guess I am just glad that the numbers aren't dropping. Why is this so? My guess is:
1) People not being educated properly on the issue of evolution (We are not communicating it well enough to the public!).
2) For some, religion can't coexist with evolution. So, those with a strict literal interpretation of holy books will not accept evolution (or any other ideas/theories/facts that contradict their world view)
3) Because of number 2, the doors are open wide for those in power to misrepresent evolution (often, science in general).
4) Some people just don't care either way.
What to do? Number one is starting to get fixed. Lawrence Krauss, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, P.Z. Myers, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer and many others are now reaching out to the public to make evolution (science in general) more accessible to the public. Number two and three are a bit tougher. This is in part because you are challenging someones world view. People who are religious are very guarded about their beliefs. I think this is due to the fact that they don't just accept those ideas or beliefs and that's it. Those ideas/beliefs become apart of their identity. When this happens, challenging their ideas/beliefs quickly becomes very sticky situation. But as we have learned from history, just believing something doesn't make it right. At one time, people believed that the sun revolved around the earth, some did because the bible says it does (or at least was interpreted that way). That belief didn't change the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
So, where do you fit in here? If you already accept the theory of evolution, are you explaining it clearly to those you converse with? Or are your religious beliefs conflicting with science? If so, they don't have to. Ken Miller (Orthodox Catholic and Cell Biologist at Brown University), Francis Collins (Evangelical Christian and former head of the human genome project), David Sloan Wilson, and others have written books on how they reconcile their personal belief in god with evolution (science). If you do fall into number two from above, have you been getting your information exclusively from Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, and so on? Try getting some accurate info from some of the folks I have listed here or go to a website like talkorigins.org (which happens to be down at the moment!! but there are others like PBS).
D
Reposted From: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491345,00.html
A new poll released just in time for Charles Darwin's 200th birthday found that only 39 percent of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," and just 24 percent of those who attend church weekly believe in that explanation for the development of life on Earth.
The Gallup survey, released Wednesday, found a quarter of those polled do not believe in evolution, and 36 percent said they don't have an opinion either way.
Another survey by the Pew Research Center got similar results.
The Gallup poll of 1,018 American adults found strong ties between education level and belief in the theory of evolution.
"Among those with high-school educations or less who have an opinion on Darwin's theory, more say they do not believe in evolution than say they believe in it," Gallup found. "For all other groups, and in particular those who have at least a college degree, belief is significantly higher than nonbelief."
Just 21 percent of respondents who had up to a high school level of education believe in evolution, compared with 74 percent of those with postgraduate degrees.
Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief, wrote that attitudes were shaped to an even greater degree by religion.
"Previous Gallup research shows that the rate of church attendance is fairly constant across educational groups, suggesting that this relationship is not owing to an underlying educational difference but instead reflects a direct influence of religious beliefs on belief in evolution," he said.
Among weekly churchgoers, only 24 percent said they believe in evolution, while 41 percent do not and 35 percent have no opinion.
Inversely, 55 percent of those who seldom or never attend church expressed belief in evolution, while 11 percent do not, and 34 percent have no opinion.
1) People not being educated properly on the issue of evolution (We are not communicating it well enough to the public!).
2) For some, religion can't coexist with evolution. So, those with a strict literal interpretation of holy books will not accept evolution (or any other ideas/theories/facts that contradict their world view)
3) Because of number 2, the doors are open wide for those in power to misrepresent evolution (often, science in general).
4) Some people just don't care either way.
What to do? Number one is starting to get fixed. Lawrence Krauss, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, P.Z. Myers, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer and many others are now reaching out to the public to make evolution (science in general) more accessible to the public. Number two and three are a bit tougher. This is in part because you are challenging someones world view. People who are religious are very guarded about their beliefs. I think this is due to the fact that they don't just accept those ideas or beliefs and that's it. Those ideas/beliefs become apart of their identity. When this happens, challenging their ideas/beliefs quickly becomes very sticky situation. But as we have learned from history, just believing something doesn't make it right. At one time, people believed that the sun revolved around the earth, some did because the bible says it does (or at least was interpreted that way). That belief didn't change the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
So, where do you fit in here? If you already accept the theory of evolution, are you explaining it clearly to those you converse with? Or are your religious beliefs conflicting with science? If so, they don't have to. Ken Miller (Orthodox Catholic and Cell Biologist at Brown University), Francis Collins (Evangelical Christian and former head of the human genome project), David Sloan Wilson, and others have written books on how they reconcile their personal belief in god with evolution (science). If you do fall into number two from above, have you been getting your information exclusively from Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, and so on? Try getting some accurate info from some of the folks I have listed here or go to a website like talkorigins.org (which happens to be down at the moment!! but there are others like PBS).
D
Reposted From: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491345,00.html
A new poll released just in time for Charles Darwin's 200th birthday found that only 39 percent of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," and just 24 percent of those who attend church weekly believe in that explanation for the development of life on Earth.
The Gallup survey, released Wednesday, found a quarter of those polled do not believe in evolution, and 36 percent said they don't have an opinion either way.
Another survey by the Pew Research Center got similar results.
The Gallup poll of 1,018 American adults found strong ties between education level and belief in the theory of evolution.
"Among those with high-school educations or less who have an opinion on Darwin's theory, more say they do not believe in evolution than say they believe in it," Gallup found. "For all other groups, and in particular those who have at least a college degree, belief is significantly higher than nonbelief."
Just 21 percent of respondents who had up to a high school level of education believe in evolution, compared with 74 percent of those with postgraduate degrees.
Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief, wrote that attitudes were shaped to an even greater degree by religion.
"Previous Gallup research shows that the rate of church attendance is fairly constant across educational groups, suggesting that this relationship is not owing to an underlying educational difference but instead reflects a direct influence of religious beliefs on belief in evolution," he said.
Among weekly churchgoers, only 24 percent said they believe in evolution, while 41 percent do not and 35 percent have no opinion.
Inversely, 55 percent of those who seldom or never attend church expressed belief in evolution, while 11 percent do not, and 34 percent have no opinion.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - A Refutation (From Skeptic Blog)
Reposted from: http://skepticblog.org/2009/02/09/ten-major-flaws-of-evolution-a-refutation/#more-1188
Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - A Refutation
February 12th is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. This year is also the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of the Species - arguably one of the most important scientific publications ever. In honor of Darwin’s idea and the subsequent scientific triumph of evolutionary theory, I am posting my refutation of a popular creationist internet meme. Creationists love to imagine that they have dismantled evolution or discovered it’s “major flaws,” however they only succeed in exposing the major flaws in their understanding of evolution and ability to reason.
TEN MAJOR FLAWS OF EVOLUTION - REVISED
by Randy Alcorn (with additional editing by Jim Darnall). I wrote the following article many years ago, but it needed to be thoroughly revised and updated. Thanks to Jim Darnall for adding some important new information.1) The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.
This statement is not an argument at all, but merely an assertion. It is simply asserting what appears to be the point of this list of supposed arguments – that evolution through natural forces is impossible. But it contains many implied claims. It refers to irreducible complexity and gives the examples of vision and blood clotting. It does not address the century and a half old refutation of this argument – that biological systems could have evolved from simpler systems that were functional but served a different purpose from their current one. Further, all the examples (stated here and elsewhere) of supposed irreducibly complex systems have been shown to have simpler antecedents.
The statement also implies that evolution is “random.” This is false. Mutations are random, and variation may be random, but natural selection is decidedly not random, and therefore evolution is not random. Evolution is the non-random survival of those traits that provide an advantage to survival and reproduction in the current environment. Evolution is a designing force.
The watch analogy is not valid because a watch is an inanimate object. Biological evolution occurs within systems that are self-reproducing and contain variation and differential survival and reproduction. Life can use energy to grow, reproduce, and therefore evolve. Watches do not.
2) The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human’s DNA. While we’re waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we’re ignoring those built into us.
Information science does NOT say that all complex information has an intelligent source. In fact, it has been shown that complex information can emerge spontaneously out of blind and natural processes following relatively simple rules. Creationists abuse information theory by making claims about information without ever defining the term. They then drift as needed from one definition to another in order to make false analogies – like the one here about SETI.
Here is a detailed refutation by Jeffrey Shallit of information claims by ID proponents. Here I deal with the SETI false analogy.
3) No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from “amoeba” to “man” would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
All mutations increase genetic information (again we see the misuse without proper operational definition of the term “information”). If you start with one version of a gene and then it mutates in one offspring but not in another – now you have two versions of that gene. That represents an increase in information. Also, entire genes may be duplicated in the reproductive process. If you start with one copy of a gene and end up with two copies – that is an increase in information. This is especially pertinent to evolution, because one copy can continue to perform its original function while the redundant copy is free to mutate and evolve a new function.
The statement that such increases in the raw amount of information actually represent “preprogrammed variation” is nonsensical. This is a meaningless statement that has no bearing on information. How, exactly, are new mutations “preprogrammed.” If this statement is meant to refer to recombination – the formation of new combinations of genes without mutations – that absolutely increases information by increasing variation, which is the raw material for natural selection.
The idea that natural selection removes variation from the gene pool is true but a non sequitur. Mutations, duplication, and recombination increase information and increase variation and then natural selection causes differential survival of that variation which is better adapted to its niche.
Here is an article by me further discussing the abuse of information theory by creationists.
4) Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or “the least energetic state”). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.
I can see by the above paragraph that at least the author is making the attempt to account for prior criticisms of the “violates the second law of thermodynamics” argument, but in so doing he has simply included more misconceptions, factual errors, and logical fallacies. In this extremely confused statement, however, are the kernels of truth where the correct analysis lies. The author admits that “local order can increase, but at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere.” If I set aside the fact that the author is grossly oversimplifying thermodynamics and falsely equating entropy with disorder, the statement is essentially correct. What this means is that the biosphere of the Earth can experience a local increase in order because it is being more than offset by a decrease in thermodynamic order (an increase in entropy) in the sun. The sun is burning through its fuel and spewing energy at the earth. The entropy of the sun-earth system (and the universe as a whole) IS increasing, but there is nothing in thermodynamics that states that the Earth cannot use energy from the sun to create a local decrease in entropy.
The author has a glimmer of awareness of this fallacy, which is why he anticipates and tries to refute this argument by stating that “Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction.” This is a gross misdirection. Biological systems on the Earth are not just being cooked by “raw” (whatever that means) energy. Biological systems use solar and other energy in a very directed and purposeful way. They use energy to grow, reproduce, and evolve. Energy by itself may not be able to generate information, but a biological system that can use energy in the processes of life can.
An acorn can grow into an oak tree. According to the author, energy could only cook an acorn.
Here is a longer article by me on the second law of thermodynamics.
5) There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms (”missing links”) required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized “kinds.” Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.
The “there are no transitional forms” argument is a simple lie – and a lie that is getting more bold and desperate as more and more fossils are discovered. In reality – all species are transitional. Transitional does not mean some impossible monster or bizarre hybrid (like Kirk Cameron’s ridiculous crockoduck). Transitional just means that one species can be seen to bridge two other species (morphologically, genetically). All the transitional species can both be extant, or the transitional species can be ancestral to the other two, or three species may lie in a temporal sequence.
The notion that the categories of living things can be cleanly divided into “kinds” (without, by the way, ever defining what a “kind” is) is patently wrong. The categories of life are frustratingly fuzzy – precisely because evolution is a chaotic process. Are duck-billed platypus mammals? What about fish with lungs, are they fish or terrestrial vertebrates. The notion that dogs are dogs is nonsensical, because there is no objective demarcation line. What about wolves, coyotes, hyenas, foxes, etc.? There is no objective place to draw a line and proclaim that you have a “kind.” There is rather a branching order of relatedness.
The fossil record has served to fill in the morphological gaps between extant species, as evolutionary theory predicts. We have discovered early mammals that are part reptile and part mammal, early birds that are still half theropod dinosaur, early terrestrial vertebrates that are still part fish (Tiktalik). We have discovered walking whales (Ambulocetus) that are only half-way adapted to aquatic life. We have even discovered numerous hominid species that are a mixture of modern human and ape ancestor features. Only the willfully blind can deny the transitional nature of these fossil species.
6) Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-men” would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the “missing link” (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn’t come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone’s eyes based on a few old bones.
This is a monster straw man. The evidence for the transitional status of hominid species is not dependent upon the artists’ reconstruction or interpretation of what these species may have looked like. That is a monumental bit of scientific illiteracy. Paleontologists have published countless careful and detailed anatomical analyses of the fossils. They clearly show transitional ape-human species. The species that have been clearly established are not based upon mixed ape and human fossils, but multiple specimens collected and documented in such a way as to prove they are one species.
What creationists do with any such sequence is simply take the first half and declare them members of the ancestral group (in this case apes) and the second half and declare them members of the derived group (in this case humans). They have done the same for dinosaurs and birds. But this is just misdirection through labeling. Calling a Homo erectus a human will not change the fact that it has features not seen in any modern human, and has a brain capacity for its size that is comfortably between that of modern humans and modern apes. That is the very definition of transitional.
7) The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions. Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It’s common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don’t fit their expectations. What’s not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.
This is nothing more than a collection of unreferenced false assertions. The reality is that dating methods are very accurate and reliable. There are error bars, like everything in science, but multiple methods can be used on multiple samples and an average can be taken to make a very accurate estimate of the ages of various rocks, strata, and fossils. Dating methods are generally in very good agreement. Typically what creationists do is say that because one dating method yields a result of 3 billion years and another of 2.5 billion years – the two dates do not agree (again, without defining what that means - agree to what degree?) and therefore argue that the true age could be thousands of years. That there may be problems with some samples does not invalidate the dating of all samples. For example, moon rocks taken from the highlands (which geologically likely represented the oldest lunar crust) have been dated to about 4.6 billion years old, and none of the processes discussed above have been present during that time on the moon.
Also, much more than our dating methods for rocks points to an ancient Earth and universe. All of cosmology, astronomy, stellar science, physics, etc. points to the same timescale for the age of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe.
More information of dating methods.; And here.
8) Uses continue to be found for supposedly “leftover” body structures. Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That’s been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It’s worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed ( e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.
The existence of vestigial organs is not an essential line of evidence for the fact of evolution, but it is further evidence for evolution. It is true that conclusions about the lack of utility of an organ are always tentative and can be overturned if a use is discovered. It is probable that few organs or structures will be found to be totally useless, for such structures tend to be quickly selected against and removed.
It is funny that the author brought up the subject of blind cave species that still have vestigial and useless eyes. (Eventually such species lose their eyes entirely, but species recently adapted to the dark environment of caves still retain vestigial eyes.) In a laughable non sequitur the author admits such structures are vestigial (even though his premise was that there are no vestigial organs) but then changes criteria mid-stream to say that vestigial organs are only evidence of “devolution” not evolution. What is “devolution?” This is based on a misconception of evolution – that it must produce greater complexity. Evolution only adapts creatures to their local environment, and there is nothing that states that such evolution cannot produce a simplification or elimination of structures if that is what is advantageous.
So the author admits vestigial organs exist, and that they are evidence of evolution, but then dodges the whole issue with an ignorant misconception about the nature of evolution.
I will also point out that genetic analysis has given us another window on vestigial parts -namely vestigial genes. For example, chickens, who do not have teeth at any part of their life cycle, still retain the vestigial genes for teeth that can be reactivated. Chickens with inactivated genes for teeth - it doesn’t get more vestigial than that.
9) Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.” Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.
This paragraph proves that no argument is so bad or often disputed to be discarded by creationists. Evolution is NOT about the origin of life but the subsequent change in life over time. It is not even dependent upon the naturalistic origin of life. They are completely separate scientific questions.
But that non sequitur aside, it is also ridiculous to compare the quaint notion of “spontaneous generation” with the science of life origins. It is true that we do not yet have a complete model of how life arose (lack of knowledge does not render something impossible – that’s the unknown equals unknowable logical fallacy). But we have figured out many interesting pieces to the puzzle – amino acids are readily made and are abundant, for example. The raw material of life was abundant on the early Earth, as was energy for organic chemical reactions.
The only thing that really would have had to happen spontaneously is the formation of a molecule that could make crude copies of itself. That’s it – that is enough to get a foothold in evolution. The rest is not random, but the very non-random accumulation of improvements by evolutionary processes.
10) Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.
The author – like all prominent creationists – has proven himself to be a master of the non sequitur. The pattern should be entirely clear, now. Start with one criterion then subtly shift to another. The paragraph starts out talking about probability, and then after essentially proving the case for evolution by acknowledging that time (and multiple opportunities, I would add) does render low probability events probable, he then shifts to another point entirely. So then we discover that his real premise is that evolutionary change is inherently impossible (a point that has nothing to do with probability). But this is just asserting his premise – the point he is allegedly trying to prove. Evolution does not require coins to sprout legs.
11) The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn’t mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word.
by Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2229 E. Burnside #23, Gresham, OR 97030, 503-663-6481, http://www.epm.org
Ah – the last refuge of the truly desperate. Unable to provide a single cogent argument against evolution the author tries to do away with all historical sciences. Since no one was around millions of years ago, the lame argument goes, we can never scientifically explore the past, and so we must rely upon faith. This is the ultimate moving back of the goalpost.
But science is not limited to direct observation. We can scientifically infer what happened in the past by the traces it has left in the present. Life itself is a record of its own history. The past is recorded in our genes, in our anatomy, and our development, and in our physiology. It is recorded in the fossils that our ancestors left behind.
But to get more directly to the point – the core quality of science is that it makes testable predictions. Evolutionary theory makes many testable predictions about what we should find when we look at the world – and so far it has passed every predictive test with flying colors.
What does creationism predict? It depends on how you formulate it, but in practice, it predicts nothing because any possible observation can be interpreted as the unfathomable and unlimited will of the creator. What we can say about an alleged creator by looking at life is that, of all the possible designs and patterns for life a creator might have chosen, they appear to have chosen to create life to look exactly as if it had evolved.
So the ten (really 11) major flaws in evolution turn out to be major flaws in the understanding of evolution, the logic, and the intellectual integrity of creationists. And this is really the best they have.
Happy Darwin Day, everyone.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
How to Discredit the Theory of Evolution (Not Really)
This is just hilarious because it is the same inane, non-sensical and illogical debating points/tactics that creationists use.
Enjoy,
D
Reposted From: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=wright_29_2
How to Discredit the Theory of Evolution Advice for believer Christian Wright
CHRISTIAN WRIGHT
If ever you find yourself in a debate with an evolutionist, be aware that your opponent might attempt to seduce you with “facts” and “science.” He* will point toward a variety of “evidence,” and state that the community of “real” scientists around the globe overwhelmingly believes that the theory of evolution is a fact.
You must resist!
Instead, commit yourself fervently to spreading the truth of Creation—even though most evolutionists obviously don’t want to hear it. That’s okay. Remember that every minute you can keep an evolutionist busy in a debate is another minute in which he can’t be spewing his foul mistruths to those who might believe him. In that sense, even though it might appear to be a waste of time, you are, in fact, doing God’s work.
Of course, before you enter into this sort of discussion, it pays to be prepared. You have a duty to present the case for Creation in a sensible, logical manner. To that end, below are a few talking points that can help you achieve a resounding victory.
However, before we continue, a quick aside: there are some Christians who insist that Creation and evolution are somehow compatible, that they can coexist peacefully, side by side, in a melding of God and science. If you buy into that misconception, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But keep in mind that this view is akin to denouncing Genesis altogether, and, as a result, you will burn for eternity in the fire of a thousand suns.
Now that we have that unpleasantness out of the way, here are several rebuttals that will help you prove the case for Creation.
- Point out that evolution is just a theory.
- Mention Darwin’s deathbed conversion to Christianity.
- Insist that humans couldn’t have come from monkeys.
- Ask how life could arise from nothing.
- Claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
- Remind him that a bacterium can’t turn into an elephant.
- Question the gaps in the fossil record.
- Turn the tables on him.
- Cite the ultimate source of evidence: the Bible.
This will really upset your opponent and throw him off balance. He will respond by saying that the word theory as it is defined in the field of science is quite different than the everyday usage of the word. Ridicule this foolish rationalization by asking if the word dinosaur has two different meanings. Say that, as far as you’re concerned, theory has the same meaning as guess or hunch. Would they call it a “theory” if it were really true?
Say that the father of evolution recanted everything. Say that he finally saw the light and realized that all of his work had been heresy. He accepted Christ and is now in the loving arms of God. Your opponent won’t like hearing these things, and he’ll deny them bitterly. He’ll say that this “conversion story” is nothing but an unfounded rumor that has circulated for a hundred years. But since evolutionists are so big on proving things, ask if he has any evidence to deny your claim. You’re right until he can prove you wrong.
Evolutionists will agree with you on this one. They’ll say, instead, that man and monkeys came from a common apelike ancestor, but this ancestor wasn’t actually a monkey. To rebut this, all you have to do is whip out some pictures of these common ancestors. Anybody can plainly see that they are monkeys. They’re covered in hair! As a coup de grace, say that if we teach our children that they came from monkeys, they’ll act like monkeys. How could anyone argue in favor of children who behave like monkeys?
Life just sprang up from the mud on its own? Poppycock! The only feasible explanation is a Creator. Any logical mind can see that. Your opponent will start ranting about something called “abiogenesis,” which, admittedly, isn’t easy to understand. But that’s a point in your favor! After all, isn’t the idea that God created everything much easier to follow? Of course it is! And that is all the proof you really need. At this point, if he still has his wits about him, he’ll likely say that the origin of life is a different topic—that evolution doesn’t concern itself with the beginnings of life, only the changes in the inherited traits in a population of organisms over time. Which means you can scorn him for being evasive.
Even if you don’t understand this particular law, it’s a good thing to throw into the conversation. If he attempts to explain how you’re wrong, just shake your head and say, “Good try, but I’m not buying it.”
The theory of evolution includes something called “macroevolution,” which attempts to explain how new species can form from old ones. It claims that simple life-forms can turn into more complex life-forms, but it takes millions of years and involves all sorts of strange mutations. Imagine how ridiculous that is! This phenomenon has never been observed, and isn’t science about observation? Macroevolution is just too hard to comprehend, so how can it possibly be true?
Ask him why scientists haven’t discovered transitional forms, especially fossils that prove the emergence of new species from old ones. Your evolutionist friend will say that you are wrong, that we have found examples of such fossils. Simply say, “Got one on you?” If he drags you to a computer and shows you a purported example, remind him that it would be easy for a trickster to create a fake fossil. In fact, this would be a good time to point out that God might have created all of these so-called fossils in an effort to test our faith.
Make sure you call his beliefs “dogmatic” before he gets a chance to use that label on you.
Tell him that all he has to do is read Genesis and he’ll see that God was behind all of Creation, not something called “evolution” with its voodoo systems of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest.” The truth is right there in scripture, available to anyone who is willing to read it with an open mind. Evolutionists might argue that there is a mountain of evidence in their favor, but remember that faith can move a mountain.
Christian Wright is the alter ego of an author and essayist living near Austin, Texas. While some might consider his religious views offensive, unwelcome, hypocritical, and possibly even oppressive, he feels that it is his sacred duty to share them with anyone who will listen—and many who won’t.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Creationists in Texas......Get a Clue!
What the hell is going on in Texas? PZ Myers brings us the story below from his blog. The stupid makes me want to sharpen a pencil and shove it in my ear (thank you Lewis Black!).
D
D
Reposted From: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
It's getting hot and nasty in the battle over the Texas science standards. Donna Garner, one of the members of the forces of darkness, has distributed a letter in which she claims that the atheists are winning Texas (I wish!), and that those of us who are working to teach evolution must be opposed more fiercely. And, of course, any accusation levied against scientists is perfectly fair. The kicker in her letter is a bit of slander:
Jeffrey Dahmer, one of America's most infamous serial killers who cannibalized more than 17 boys before being captured, gave an [sic] last interview with Dateline NBC nine months before his death, and he said the following about why he acted as he did: "If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there was nothing...." (Dateline NBC, The Final Interview, Nov. 29, 1994).
Well, yes, of course! Why didn't we think of consulting a convicted and confessed sexual sadist and serial killer on matters of ethics and science? I guess this is one perspective in which the religious have an advantage over us atheists — they're already accustomed to regarding the clergy as authorities.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Ray Comfort......If you only had a clue (part 2)
Ray says in his newest post at http://www.pulltheplugonatheism.com/art16.shtml:
When an atheist understands the impossibility of his belief that nothing made everything, he often defaults to the belief that the universal is eternal. But that won’t work. It’s a scientific impossibility. The Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe cannot be eternal. Everything material runs down in time (even the sun will wear out). Leave a rock for a billion years and it will crumble to dust.
There are only a couple of things wrong with the above:
1) The atheist doesn't necessarily think that the universe is eternal (and the atheist certainly doesn't "believe" like Ray believes. Ray's meaning of belief has to do with faith, which is belief in a proposition without any evidence. This is opposed to "belief" or accepting tentatively a proposition which could be proven wrong. The point: Faith can't be proven wrong.).
2) Now Ray seems to misunderstand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. What is the second law of thermodynamics (you may be asking)?
"No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25]
I don't know what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has to do with whether the universe is eternal or not. The universe is expanding (what is expanding it, we aren't sure yet) and it is possible that the universe will keep expanding, possibly forever. Even if the universe stopped expanding and all the energy in the universe turned to heat and became unusable, it wouldn't mean that the universe isn't eternal. The universe would have just reached maximum entropy/randomness. At that point, who knows what would happen. There are theories that the universe has "banged" and collapsed over and over again. The point is, we just don't know enough about what makes up the universe to know all of what is going on (yet?).
Below is an example of how the 2nd Law works when applying it to Earth:
Also, for a more in depth explanation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
Ray goes even further:
If the universe was eternal, it would be a trillion billion (plus infinite time) years old, and would have turned to dust a thousand billion trillion years ago. Only that which is non-material, dwelling outside the dimension of time, can be eternal. God qualifies for both. He is Spirit (non-material), and He dwells outside of time.
1) The universe would be infinitely old and would have turned to dust a thousand billion trillion years ago. Funny, he doesn't show any mathematical formula for this nor does he show any sources. Don't believe me? See it for yourself (http://www.pulltheplugonatheism.com/art16.shtml)
2) Ray goes for the jugular and states that god beats his own laws of entropy because he is non-material and dwells outside of time. Though, Ray doesn't give much thought to the theological implications to this statement. If god is outside of time - space, then there is no way for anything within time - space to know of, let alone communicate with such a being. Even if we allow Ray's premise, there is no way to prove that it is his god that made the universe.
And Ray finishes with this whopper:
If we believe that there is no Hell, we will live our life accordingly. If we believe Hell exists and that there will be divine retribution (ultimate justice), then we need a Savior to wash our sins away before the Day of Judgment. God provided one. Read the Gospel of John to see the details.
The above will be tackled tomorrow, so..........same time, same station!!
D
For further reading on the Big Bang and space-time check out:
Big Bang by Simon Singh
Fabric of The Cosmos by Brian Greene
Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
Universe In a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking
Road To Reality by Rodger Penrose
When an atheist understands the impossibility of his belief that nothing made everything, he often defaults to the belief that the universal is eternal. But that won’t work. It’s a scientific impossibility. The Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe cannot be eternal. Everything material runs down in time (even the sun will wear out). Leave a rock for a billion years and it will crumble to dust.
There are only a couple of things wrong with the above:
1) The atheist doesn't necessarily think that the universe is eternal (and the atheist certainly doesn't "believe" like Ray believes. Ray's meaning of belief has to do with faith, which is belief in a proposition without any evidence. This is opposed to "belief" or accepting tentatively a proposition which could be proven wrong. The point: Faith can't be proven wrong.).
2) Now Ray seems to misunderstand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. What is the second law of thermodynamics (you may be asking)?
"No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25]
I don't know what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has to do with whether the universe is eternal or not. The universe is expanding (what is expanding it, we aren't sure yet) and it is possible that the universe will keep expanding, possibly forever. Even if the universe stopped expanding and all the energy in the universe turned to heat and became unusable, it wouldn't mean that the universe isn't eternal. The universe would have just reached maximum entropy/randomness. At that point, who knows what would happen. There are theories that the universe has "banged" and collapsed over and over again. The point is, we just don't know enough about what makes up the universe to know all of what is going on (yet?).
Below is an example of how the 2nd Law works when applying it to Earth:
Energy and Order in Biological Systems
The concept of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics suggests that systems naturally progress from order to disorder. If so, how do biological systems develop and maintain such a high degree of order? Is this a violation of the second law of thermodynamics?
Order can be produced with an expenditure of energy, and the order associated with life on the earth is produced with the aid of energy from the sun.
For example, plants use energy from the sun in tiny energy factories called chloroplasts. Using chlorophyll in the process called photosynthesis, they convert the sun's energy into storable form in ordered sugar molecules. In this way, carbon and water in a more disordered state are combined to form the more ordered sugar molecules.
In animal systems there are also small structures within the cells called mitochondria which use the energy stored in sugar molecules from food to form more highly ordered structures.
(Diagram from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/bioentropy.html#c1)
Also, for a more in depth explanation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
Ray goes even further:
If the universe was eternal, it would be a trillion billion (plus infinite time) years old, and would have turned to dust a thousand billion trillion years ago. Only that which is non-material, dwelling outside the dimension of time, can be eternal. God qualifies for both. He is Spirit (non-material), and He dwells outside of time.
1) The universe would be infinitely old and would have turned to dust a thousand billion trillion years ago. Funny, he doesn't show any mathematical formula for this nor does he show any sources. Don't believe me? See it for yourself (http://www.pulltheplugonatheism.com/art16.shtml)
2) Ray goes for the jugular and states that god beats his own laws of entropy because he is non-material and dwells outside of time. Though, Ray doesn't give much thought to the theological implications to this statement. If god is outside of time - space, then there is no way for anything within time - space to know of, let alone communicate with such a being. Even if we allow Ray's premise, there is no way to prove that it is his god that made the universe.
And Ray finishes with this whopper:
If we believe that there is no Hell, we will live our life accordingly. If we believe Hell exists and that there will be divine retribution (ultimate justice), then we need a Savior to wash our sins away before the Day of Judgment. God provided one. Read the Gospel of John to see the details.
The above will be tackled tomorrow, so..........same time, same station!!
D
For further reading on the Big Bang and space-time check out:
Big Bang by Simon Singh
Fabric of The Cosmos by Brian Greene
Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
Universe In a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking
Road To Reality by Rodger Penrose
Monday, January 19, 2009
Texas Doomed?
I have read some potentially bad news from the skeptic community. Creationism is trying to creep into Texas public schools and the BOE (board of education) will be voting next week on the new science standards. Apparently, the creationists have a slight minority and only need to sway one vote so they can teach their non-science (that's the nicest way I can put that). To say the least, Texas is on the brink of science (educational?) destruction.
But there is hope and you can help!
Go visit: http://teachthemscience.org/texas
There, they will inform you on how you can get involved. If you live in Texas, go to the school board meeting and voice your opinion (that's if you can!). There are other ways to help out if you can't be at the board meeting, for instance, writing an Op/Ed piece in your local paper and so on. The time is now Texas!
D
But there is hope and you can help!
Go visit: http://teachthemscience.org/texas
There, they will inform you on how you can get involved. If you live in Texas, go to the school board meeting and voice your opinion (that's if you can!). There are other ways to help out if you can't be at the board meeting, for instance, writing an Op/Ed piece in your local paper and so on. The time is now Texas!
D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)