So recently I became involved in a discussion concerning Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Evolution or more specifically the principle of Natural Selection. (In retrospect the discussion goes much deeper than that but I will save that for another day.) Debating such is NOT my forte, and I approach it from a layman's POV but considering I was unprepared, I think I held my own. While the gentleman (Michael was the name he gave) involved, claimed he was not a biblical Creationist per se he was referring to a "creator" or "creative force"; his arguments where basically the standard fare presented in such discussions. Michael's fall back position, used prominently throughout the conversation - besides the rejection of peer review [1] because of alleged bias against thinking outside the box [2], ie. Christian persecution complex - Natural Selection does not account for the introduction of new genetic material. (No shit Sherlock, if you would quit conflating NS as Evolution you may not be so confused. NS is only one mechanism of Evolution.) Like I said standard fare.
What I would like y'all to do whilst listening, is to remember I am a layman. I am not a scientist nor a researcher. Just like y'all I get into these discussions and sometimes flounder around trying to hold my own against individuals who have a very polished apologistic agenda. In other words, they are religious fucktards. Science, on the other hand, does not have an agenda; it is either true or it is not. You either accept it or you don't.
My confrontation with Michael, was in essence the straw that broke the camels back. It was time for me to become better able to counter his type of bullshit. I wanted to know exactly "how" bad I did and where I could improve. If his "research" (he actually referred to "his team" and taking into consideration an "author" he cited was published by the Discovery Institute, I can imagine who his team consisted of) is so fucking brilliant and groundbreaking, why then is he hawking his shit on a BTR program? [3] I even asked him where his paper was published and when he was receiving his Nobel prize. But to no avail.
This segment is the result of such. This segment is the accumulation of my google-foo over the years. It is a look at specific points with (what I think are) solid examples to refute those points. [Whether a Creationist or IDer chooses to accept such evidence is a whole different story but at least I know I ain't crazy.]
What was missing at first listen though was the "Tornado in a Junkyard Fallacy". It was there but I missed it in the beginning as Michael re-packaged the fallacy in more modern sounding terms, a computer coding analogy as well as moving the interjection of the "creative force". It was an analogy I was unfamiliar with and have come to learn, that it is not new and has been around for some time. So his "claim" for original thinking falls flat. Just as with standard apologia, there is nothing new; just re-packaged garbage. Other forms I have come across: DNA is like a computer, or DNA is like data on a hard drive. There are others, but I think you get my drift.
So today we're going to take a look at this analogy and why it is a fallacy AND even if there was a prime mover Michael would still have to show this PM's existence. Which we all know is not a possibility. And, even if this PM existed, Evolution would still be true. [Note:: It was at this point that Michael abruptly disappeared from the conversation. Stan another participant, had alluded to this point and I was going to drive the point a bit more, but didn't get the chance.]
There is no question whatsoever about the truth of Evolution. The only debates that exist about Evolution are about the relative importance of different forces on particular cases [4]. With that said,,,
The Fallacy
Background: http://www.planwallpaper.com/static/images/1968081.jpg
Originally coined by British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, it was originally used as an argument against Abiogenesis not Evolution. It is an oversimplifying of a complex theory hence a strawman. Abiogenesis does not suggest that complex high-order beings appeared from primordial soup in one magical step. As an argument against Evolution, it also fails as one of the main mechanisms of Evolution is Natural Selection which is non-random. [5]
Michael wants to know the "initial formulation" of DNA as it comes together in a "system kind of way."
If I am understanding his POV we have this:
BUT,,,
DNA cannot be placed in isolation, or taken out of context. "It is not a stand alone piece of the puzzle." As blogger Smilodon notes, it get us into some really techie areas of chromatids, histones and effects on replication, translation, and mutations, etc,,,.
One final point concerning analogies [8]. As with Paley's Watch, [9] the JA , is comparing a nonliving object to living things capable of self-reproduction and subject to mutations. Again as Smilodon points out, ",,,there is a false analogy. Because watches and living things are so very different, a comparison between the two cannot be valid." It is an invalid argument regardless of whether living things have a designer or not. [10]
So what is this analogy?
Let's take a we bit of a closer look.
As noted prior, the Junkyard Analogy can be attributed to Fred Hoyle, as an argument against Abiogenesis. What was not mentioned in that brief introduction, the JA is a statistical analysis applied to Evolutionary origins. In other words, the statistical probability of life originating by chance. There are earlier iterations alluded to by the ID crowd such as the so-called "Borel's Law" [11] as well as other bad analogies. [12] Regardless of which is used, they all fail as noted prior "[b]ecause watches and living things are so very different, a comparison between the two cannot be valid."
Also it gets into the sticky wicket of a Probability argument after the fact.
Ian Musgrave in "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" highlights 5 problems: [13]
Background:: http://www.planwallpaper.com/static/images/colorful-triangles-background_yB0qTG6.jpg
While Musgrave goes into much more detail, his overall conclusion, "The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies." Remember Abiogenesis, or origin of life is not Evolution. They are two distinct fields with Natural Selection (Michael's apparent issue) being just one aspect of the later. As Dr Mohammed Noor references in my class on Genetics and Evolution: [14]
Background::http://feelgrafix.com/data/background-images/Background-Images-11.jpg
In essence the JA is well, junk. It doesn't really explain what IDer's or Creationists thinks it does and over looks the differences between complex living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves with inanimate objects that are unable to pass on any reproductive changes.
What about us peons?
So that in a nutshell is a more technical look at what is wrong with the JA, but what about for us peons that do not have the "science" at our finger tips to counter the bullshit? What can we do besides using our google-foo?Ten years ago I came across a really nice break-down of what is wrong with the JA, I have broken it down even further to "KISS" it.
Background:: http://www.mrwallpaper.com/wallpapers/gradient-background.jpg
So next week we will take a look at what I consider four primary points of contention with the JA and how one can begin to counter the bullshit.
Notes:
[1] https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-scientific-peer-review-a-sacred-cow-ready-to-be-slaughtered/
[2] http://www.forwardprogressives.com/time-say-creationists-arent-christians-theyre-cult/
While I disagree that, "God and science can co-exist", I do agree with Clifton's overall point.
"To me creationists aren’t Christian (though they might believe in God and Jesus), they’re something entirely different. I see them more like a cult than a religion. A brainwashed grouping of people who reject all proven science for the sake of unrealistic beliefs.[3] http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theforbiddenfruit/2015/12/16/things-arent-like-they-used-to-be-back-in-the-day-intellegent-design
,,,
But the fact is, Christianity is a faith – not science. That’s something creationists fail to understand. That’s why creationism doesn’t belong in a science class, because it’s not science."
,,,
And that’s the mindset of most who join cults. They ignore all the reality outside of their system of beliefs and convince themselves (despite all facts to the contrary) that they’re right and everyone else is a part of some massive conspiracy to cover up the truth. Just like creationists believe that science is some conspiracy to “get rid of God.”
[4] Class notes: Introduction toGenetics and Evolution w/ Dr. Mohamed Noor, Lecture 1.1: What is Evolution? https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/home/welcome
[5] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy
[6] http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/24/the-genome-is-not-a-computer-p/
[7] http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/09/10/dna-is-not-like-a-computer/#comment-1586623594
[8] I lied, here is another pertinent point from Smilodon concerning computer-DNA analogies http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/03/23/evolution-analogies-and-why-they-arent-arguments/:
,,,DNA is nothing like a computer program. A computer program executes steps in a particular order. DNA can be transcribed in any order and each cell on uses part of the DNA. Again, a reasonably competent programmer can understand the code, figure out what it’s doing and even repair the program. Not so with DNA.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
DNA is also not something that runs on some kind of platform. It is an integral part of the ‘platform’. Indeed, it is the “hardware” as well as the “software”. Oh and it’s also the memory and it’s also the CPU. Even further, the DNA can undergo some pretty drastic changes to the code and still work. In fact, random changes to DNA can actually result in new effects and improvements in the resulting proteins. Which simply does not happen with software.
[10] http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/01/29/argument-by-analogy/
[11] Any discussion concerning Emil Borel, while fascinating, is way beyond the scope of this presentation. I note it only because 1) I'm an information junky, and 2) as John Stockwell notes, it is another bit of science (in this case mathematics) that has been hijacked by creationists to suit their "needs". The only issue, once examined the hijacking is thwarted. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html
The "law" in question does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law.
As noted by Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado, "[t]he true law being referenced is actually the Strong Law of large numbers, but creationists have taken a simple statement made by Borel in books written late in his life concerning probability theory and called this statement Borel's Law." Under his subsection "A Discussion of Borel's Law", Stockwell explain how and why this hijacking may have occurred and why such is in error, ",,,Borel says what many a talk.origins poster has said time and time again when confronted with such creationist arguments: namely, that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless.
[12] With all the various analogies floating about, I will admit to some confusion. These are but a few ideas to explore in a bit more depth:
- “[W]hat is the probability that a monkey (or chimpanzee) with a typewriter randomly pounding on the keys could produce the works of Shakespeare?” A better analogy is a monkey with a word processor, whose program (like your spell checker) automatically deletes or fixes mistakes, so that even by typing random keys, the monkey will eventually assemble a recognizable string of words.
- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
,,,
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
- Richard Dawkins (in The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, and Climbing Mount Improbable, 1996) has provided many interesting examples and computer models that show just how easily this can be done. This is the fundamental misunderstanding: evolution is not just “random chance” but a strong non-random force capable of changing genomes and acting upon material provided by chance.
- Explosion in a print shop producing a dictionary
- DNA in a blender producing a human being
[14] Class notes: Introduction to Genetics and Evolution w/ Dr. Mohamed Noor, Lecture 1.4: Responding to Criticisms of Evolutionary Theory https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/home/welcome
No comments:
Post a Comment