The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

VadeRetro wrote:
A uniform mix of simple gas molecules is very "complex" and thus has a lot of information-theory "information." It does, that is, if you're trying to specify the exact, exact, exact, exact state of the gas at a given moment.

By comparison, your bacterium is "simple." It has lots of liquids, in which molecules are not so free to move as in a gas, and solids, which are even more predictable. It would be far harder to statistically summarize the bacterium, but that's not the point of the really technical definitions of information you see in some disciplines.

What about the genetic code of the bacterium? Certainly the information stored in it is more than what can be described simply by the positions and energies of the atoms - just like the words of a book contain more information than is embodied by an arbitrary collection of the same number of letters.

That's why it is necessary to get your terms straight, and why people like Dembski can dazzle willing creationists with BS. Certain kinds of "information" and "order" can't go up in the universe, but what most people think of as "order," "information," and "complexity" have done nothing but go up.

Just because people disagree with you does not mean that they are part of the ignorant masses that are being duped by charlatans.

[BMCDA]

just like the words of a book contain more information than is embodied by an arbitrary collection of the same number of letters.

Wrong, an arbitrary collection of the same number of letters can contain more information than the original text. Just think of how this text looks like if you use a compression algorithm and how long the output may be if compared to the input.

[unspun]

You're just choosing the predetermined explanation that you prefer. First you say that science cannot effect God; then you would presuppose the converse, that God does not effect nature, in order to exclude God from consideration in origin study.

Intelligent Design theory is a part of a real live world view that includes science. Science does not exist in a vacuum outside well reasoned understanding of what includes it among other factors.

At the same time you write that science requires evidence you have a fellow traveler in this thread who believes has a much lower view of his science, saying that it can consist of insufficiently proven theory. Hypothesis is hypothesis, theory is theory and demonstrated fact is demonstrated fact.

[unspun]

...very clear evidence that on one particular planet billions of years after the Big Bang modern life forms evolved from a few simple ancient life forms, they're doing something that they don't have to do and which forces them to abandon fact and logic.

Please see immediately prior posts. First you assume that a well crafted and apparently/somewhat theory is fact, then you declare that anything that would dispute it must actually be incontrovertably empirical (scientific) fact.

[VadeRetro]

What about the genetic code of the bacterium?

A subset of the total information in the bacterium.

Certainly the information stored in it is more than what can be described simply by the positions and energies of the atoms - just like the words of a book contain more information than is embodied by an arbitrary collection of the same number of letters.

Not at all. You attempt to bludgeon with information theory as coopted by creationist lawyers like Dembski, but you use "information" as synonymous with humanly-assigned, humanly-relevant "meaning." There is no conservation of humanly-relevant meaning in the second law of thermodynamics or anywhere else. When bondserv cries that he has to clean up his garage, he means that he has to keep it tuned for his purposes rather than the purposes of various rats, birds, termites, spiders, molds, and fungi. There's typically more Dembksi information in a trash heap than in a neat, clean, eye-appealing, everything-new-and-sparkling garage.

Just because people disagree with you does not mean that they are part of the ignorant masses that are being duped by charlatans.

No, you are repeatedly and stubbornly committing the same old fallacies invariably committed by Dembksi-dupes who show up asking "What about the increase of information?" Just because being exposed as a dupe is unpleasant doesn't mean you can buy out of the experience on ad hominem grounds. I am not claiming to know you personally, but I can see that you only have a certain slant on the story and you couldn't be given the rest if someone stuffed it in a hollow-point bullet and shot it into your head.

[unspun]

apparently/somewhat theory = apparently/somewhat established and systematic theory

[VadeRetro]

Please see immediately prior posts. First you assume that a well crafted and apparently/somewhat theory is fact, then you declare that anything that would dispute it must actually be incontrovertably empirical (scientific) fact.

I see creationists in denial, trying to beat reality with their ability to wish it away. I see creationists demaninding evidence, getting truckloads of same dumped on them, closing their eyes and saying "I see NOS-sink."

There is no creation science. There is no ID science. There is no content. You can't beat something with nothing.

[VadeRetro]

See it unfolding here!

What story does that oxymoron "creation science" tell us?

1. Goddidit.
2. It couldn't have evolved.
3. When you get to a mystery, stop. You're done.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Condorman wrote:
Because a cake doesn't bake itself, and recipes usually won't spontaneously replicate. Maybe it would be a better analogy to envision me with the original recipe for chocolate cake and I fax it to you. Except the paper jams for a quick second and a line gets repeated. You do understand that these changes occur between generations, right?

Yes, I understand it and have no problem with it.


Rachumlakenschlaff wrote:
So, we start with a similarity between two genes and it is proclaimed that one evolved from the other without giving any evidence (after all, we all know that evolution is true).

Condorman wrote:
No evidence? None whatsoever? They reproduced the path. Change the gene, you change the protein.

But they didn't change the gene. They changed the protein that the gene coded for. This is very clearly stated, they made "... nine amino acid changes that separate the duplicate from the original". Amino acids make up proteins, not genes. Furthermore, they seem to have confused themselves because they refer to both gene duplication (the focus of the research) and end up talking about protein duplication. I would suggest you read the article carefully.

Condorman wrote:
The statistical analysis you waved away concerned whether this type of change is driven by selection forces or random drift. That you were unable to pick up on this demonstrates the rigor of your examination.

The statistical analysis was not described. The conclusions the researchers drew from it were simply stated. It's very difficult to examine something you don't have access to.

Rachumlakenschlaff wrote:
it's the genes that carry the code!

Condorman wrote:
More precisely, the genes ARE the code.

That's like saying the information conveyed in a book is not contained in words but in the physical paper and ink. The paper and ink are the medium that carries the information but they are not the information itself. The information in a book can be encoded and carried in several ways: paper and ink, electronically (e.g., a PDF document), verbally, etc.


Condorman wrote:
The fossil record clearly demonstrates that the inhabitants of this planet changed and diversified through time. That much is not in dispute, and is commonly known as the fact of evolution. The Theory of Evolution proposes the mechanisms by which these changes took place. This theory is undergoing constant revision and tweaking as new evidence filters in and gets incorporated, but there has yet to be a verifed discovery which collapses the whole structure, and none yet which require the invocation of the supernatural.

Well, the fossil record is disupted. Not only by creationists, but also by evolutionists themselves. However, some evolutionists immediately classify all who dispute the fossil record as ignorant, unscientific idiots. Let's remember that the fact of the existence of fossils is different then the interpretation put upon them. But we're diverging again from the original topic of the creation of information.

[unspun]

Truckloads of evidence need to fit into a conclusive form, in order to be considered scientific fact, don't they?

About your view of people who uphold creation by Creator: open your eyes to those Creationists who are true scientists; open your eyes, the existence of everything is a miracle.

Scientists look for how their theories (even pet theories) may be disproven, as well as proven.

[BSunday]

Evolution Disproved By Logic:

1. Either Creationism or Evolution is true.

2. No human now living or who has ever lived, was ever born of non human parents.

3. No human now living or who has ever lived, was transformed into a human after being born human.

4. Therefore, man did not evolve and evolution is not true.

5. Therefore, Creationism is true.

An explanatory note: There are two kinds of differences: a difference in kind or type, and a difference in degree. A change from non-human to human is NOT a difference in degree, as some would claim. It is cleary rather a change in type, thus my argument in paragraphs 2 and 3.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

VadeRetro wrote:
Already in our scenario what most human minds perceive as order and complexity have greatly increased in the universe over that almost-uniform gas cloud.

 I have no problem with that. But we differ in that I do not equate mere order and complexity with information. If you drop a thousand ball bearings into a container, there will be a high degree of order in their resultant positions. However, their orderly positions will contain no more information then before they were dropped. Similarly, there is a nice demonstration of bell curves in the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. Steel balls are dropped through an array of pegs and collected in bins at the bottom. They nicely fall into a classic bell curve which is clearly more orderly then the pile they started from. But what information is stored in them by virtue of their shape? None at all.

I maintain that order and complexity are not the same as information.

[PatrickHenry]

Your #3 is true. The rest needs work.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Doctor Stochastic wrote:
Could you please post the reference in the refereed scientific literature you found that?

The Earth has been known to be roughly spherical since before Eratosthenes. Aristotle had several demonstrations.


But, surely you don't mean to imply that the majority scientific community has always been right and never changed it's mind?

[PatrickHenry]

My dear BS, I will deal with your syllogism ["Evolution Disproved By Logic"] in greater detail than my last post:

1. Either Creationism or Evolution is true.

Fundamentally flawed. Both could be false. Evolution could be falsified, but that certainly doesn't mean that creationism automatically becomes true. Creationism must stand on its own.

2. No human now living or who has ever lived, was ever born of non human parents.

That's the conclusion you're trying to reach. No fair smuggling it in as a premise.

3. No human now living or who has ever lived, was transformed into a human after being born human.

Obviously true, and no one claims otherwise.

4. Therefore, man did not evolve and evolution is not true.

Totally unproven.

5. Therefore, Creationism is true.

Yeah, right.

[VadeRetro]

Truckloads of evidence need to fit into a conclusive form, in order to be considered scientific fact, don't they?

A piece of evidence is a fact. The question is how you tie facts together and how long you wait before trying to do so. (The correct answer to the latter question being "forever" if it looks like you're going to use evolution.)

About your view of people who uphold creation by Creator: open your eyes to those Creationists who are true scientists; open your eyes, the existence of everything is a miracle.

Simple question-begging. I never wonder if there's a creationist who is a scientist. When I ponder the question of motives at all I can't get past wondering if there is a creationist who is both sane and honest.

I am aware of no anti-evolution story by Young-Earth Gish, Old-Earth-But-No-Evolution Hugh Ross, Old-Earth-With-No-Evolution-But-Just-Call-It-"Design" Johnson/Wells/Meyer, Old-Earth-And-Common-Descent-With-Non-Darwinian-Evolution-But-Still-Call-It-Design Behe that holds any water at all or offers much intellectual content.

Scientists look for how their theories (even pet theories) may be disproven, as well as proven.

When you deal with the real world, the only thing you can test is whether a theory survives a given potential disproof or not. Why do creationists never get this right? Why are they always closing their eyes and screaming for absolute ironclad Geometry-class proof?

They either aren't scientists, aren't honest, or aren't sane.

[VadeRetro]

I maintain that order and complexity are not the same as information.

I've told you what I'm telling you. Please provide the basis for claiming a miracle. Don't even think about equivocating on the semantics of complexity, order, or information.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Condorman wrote:
Scientists collect a bunch of observations, wrap an explanation around them, and the try to find more observations to confirm or deny their hypothesis.

You forgot the crucial steps of predictions and experimentation. It is the latter which is almost totally lacking in evolutionary "science". That's not to say experiments aren't done, it's just that they generally don't prove anything. One example: The famous experiement where methane, ammonia, etc. were put into a flask and bombarded with electiricty. It was hailed as demonstrating just how natural and easy it is for life to appear. Well, what is left out are things like the amino acids formed were both right- and left-handed and that left-handed amino acids are the only ones used in proteins in living organisms. Also, the equilibrium for the reactions to produce the amino acids lies way over towards the starting ingredients, not the end products, and that the only way significant yield was obtained was by the removal of the amino acids as they were being formed. These experiments are hardly convincing experimental evidence of the abiogenesis of life.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Non responsive reply.

You made a wildly-elliptical claim which you failed to back up.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

PatrickHenry wrote:
Ever notice how there's at least one creationist who is willing to believe and post at least one goofy creationist argument? Has it ever occured to you that there seems to be precisely enough creationists to advance each and every goofy creationist argument? Ever think about the cosmological implications of that ? Huh, HUHHHH?

Ever notice how all evolutionists are careful thinking, totally objective, humble persuers of whatever truth may be out there, have never had a preconceived notion and don't have biased bone in their bodies? Ever notice how all creatinists are ignorant religious fanatics who tenanciously hold on to childhood myths, twist all scientific evidence into their warped world view, and have an underlying evil desire to force everybody to agree with them?

Ever notice that all arguments advanced that call into question the "truths" of evolution are goofy? Ever notice that arguments advanced that support evolution are logical, methodical, step-by-step, based on an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence and total devoid of any subjective world view?