Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov
Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

Posted on 02/15/2003 4:18:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry

Scientists thought it was settled. The universe, they had decided, is about 20 billion years old, and Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. Simple forms of life came into being more than three billion years ago, having formed spontaneously from nonliving matter. They grew more complex through slow evolutionary processes and the first hominid ancestors of humanity appeared more than four million years ago. Homo sapians itself—the present human species, people like you and me—has walked the earth for at least 50,000 years.

But apparently it isn't settled. There are Americans who believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old; that human beings and all other species were brought into existence by a divine Creator as eternally separate variations of beings; and that there has been no evolutionary process.

They are creationists—they call themselves "scientific" creationists—and they are a growing power in the land, demanding that schools be forced to teach their views. State legislatures, mindful of the votes, are beginning to succumb to the pressure. In perhaps 15 states, bills have been introduced, putting forth the creationist point of view, and in others, strong movements are gaining momentum. In Arkansas, a law requiring that the teaching of creationism receive equal time was passed this spring and is scheduled to go into effect in September 1982, though the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit on behalf of a group of clergymen, teachers, and parents to overturn it. And a California father named Kelly Segraves, the director of the Creation-Science Research Center, sued to have public-school science classes taught that there are other theories of creation besides evolution, and that one of them was the Biblical version. The suit came to trial in March, and the judge ruled that educators must distribute a policy statement to schools and textbook publishers explaining that the theory of evolution should not be seen as "the ultimate cause of origins." Even in New York, the Board of Education has delayed since January in making a final decision, expected this month [June 1981], on whether schools will be required to include the teaching of creationism in their curriculums.

The Rev. Jerry Fallwell, the head of the Moral Majority, who supports the creationist view from his television pulpit, claims that he has 17 million to 25 million viewers (though Arbitron places the figure at a much more modest 1.6 million). But there are 66 electronic ministries which have a total audience of about 20 million. And in parts of the country where the Fundamentalists predominate—the so called Bible Belt— creationists are in the majority.

They make up a fervid and dedicated group, convinced beyond argument of both their rightness and their righteousness. Faced with an apathetic and falsely secure majority, smaller groups have used intense pressure and forceful campaigning—as the creationists do—and have succeeded in disrupting and taking over whole societies.

Yet, though creationists seem to accept the literal truth of the Biblical story of creation, this does not mean that all religious people are creationists. There are millions of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews who think of the Bible as a source of spiritual truth and accept much of it as symbolically rather than literally true. They do not consider the Bible to be a textbook of science, even in intent, and have no problem teaching evolution in their secular institutions.

To those who are trained in science, creationism seems like a bad dream, a sudden reveling of a nightmare, a renewed march of an army of the night risen to challenge free thought and enlightenment.

The scientific evidence for the age of the earth and for the evolutionary development of life seems overwhelming to scientists. How can anyone question it? What are the arguments the creationists use? What is the "science" that makes their views "scientific"? Here are some of them:

• The argument from analogy.

A watch implies a watchmaker, say the creationists. If you were to find a beautifully intricate watch in the desert, from habitation, you would be sure that it had been fashioned by human hands and somehow left it there. It would pass the bounds of credibility that it had simply formed, spontaneously, from the sands of the desert.

By analogy, then, if you consider humanity, life, Earth, and the universe, all infinitely more intricate than a watch, you can believe far less easily that it "just happened." It, too, like the watch, must have been fashioned, but by more-than-human hands—in short by a divine Creator.

This argument seems unanswerable, and it has been used (even though not often explicitly expressed) ever since the dawn of consciousness. To have explained to prescientific human beings that the wind and the rain and the sun follow the laws of nature and do so blindly and without a guiding would have been utterly unconvincing to them. In fact, it might have well gotten you stoned to death as a blasphemer.

There are many aspects of the universe that still cannot be explained satisfactorily by science; but ignorance only implies ignorance that may someday be conquered. To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.

In short, the complexity of the universe—and one's inability to explain it in full—is not in itself an argument for a Creator.

• The argument from general consent.

Some creationists point at that belief in a Creator is general among all peoples and all cultures. Surly this unanimous craving hints at a greater truth. There would be no unanimous belief in a lie.

General belief, however, is not really surprising. Nearly every people on earth that considers the existence of the world assumes it to have been created by a god or gods. And each group invents full details for the story. No two creation tales are alike. The Greeks, the Norsemen, the Japanese, the Hindus, the American Indians, and so on and so on all have their own creation myths, and all of these are recognized by Americans of Judeo-Christian heritage as "just myths."

The ancient Hebrews also had a creation tale—two of them, in fact. There is a primitive Adam-and-Eve-in-Paradise story, with man created first, then animals, then women. There is also a poetic tale of God fashioning the universe in six days, with animals preceding man, and man and woman created together.

These Hebrew myths are not inherently more credible than any of the others, but they are our myths. General consent, of course, proves nothing: There can be a unanimous belief in something that isn't so. The universal opinion over thousands of years that the earth was flat never flattened its spherical shape by one inch.

• The argument of belittlement.

Creationists frequently stress the fact that evolution is "only a theory," giving the impression that a theory is an idle guess. A scientist, one gathers, arising one morning with nothing particular to do, decided that perhaps the moon is made of Roquefort cheese and instantly advances the Roquefort-cheese theory.

A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the universe's workings that is based on long observation and, where possible, experiment. It is the result of careful reasoning from these observations and experiments that has survived the critical study of scientists generally.

For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the "cell theory"); of objects attracting each other according to fixed rule (the "theory of gravitation"); of energy behaving in discrete bits (the "quantum theory"); of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the "theory of relativity"), and so on.

All are theories; all are firmly founded; all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are neither guesses nor speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued and more thoroughly accepted, than the theory of evolution. If it is "only" a theory, that is all it has to be.

Creationism, on the other hand, is not a theory. There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that supports it. Creationism, or at least the particular variety accepted by many Americans, is an expression of early Middle Eastern legend. It is fairly described as "only a myth."

• The argument of imperfection.

Creationists, in recent years, have stressed the "scientific" background of their beliefs. They point out that there are scientists who base their creationists beliefs on a careful study of geology, paleontology, and biology and produce "textbooks" that embody those beliefs.

Virtually the whole scientific corpus of creationism, however, consists of the pointing out of imperfections in the evolutionary view. The creationists insists, for example, that evolutionists cannot true transition states between species in the fossil evidence; that age determinations through radioactive breakdown are uncertain; that alternative interpretations of this or that piece of evidence are possible and so on.

Because the evolutionary view is not perfect and is not agreed upon by all scientists, creationists argue that evolution is false and that scientists, in supporting evolution, are basing their views on blind faith and dogmatism.

To an extent, the creationists are right here: The details of evolution are not perfectly known. Scientists have been adjusting and modifying Charles Darwin's suggestions since he advanced his theory of the origin of species through natural selection back in 1859. After all, much has been learned about the fossil record and physiology, microbiology, biochemistry, ethology, and various other branches of life science in the last 125 years, and it was to be expected that we can improve on Darwin. In fact, we have improved on him. Nor is the process finished. it can never be, as long as human beings continue to question and to strive for better answers.

The details of evolutionary theory are in dispute precisely because scientists are not devotees of blind faith and dogmatism. They do not accept even as great thinker as Darwin without question, nor do they accept any idea, new or old, without thorough argument. Even after accepting an idea, they stand ready to overrule it, if appropriate new evidence arrives. If, however, we grant that a theory is imperfect and details remain in dispute, does that disprove the theory as a whole?

Consider. I drive a car, and you drive a car. I do not know exactly how an engine works. Perhaps you do not either. And it may be that our hazy and approximate ideas of the workings of an automobile are in conflict. Must we then conclude from this disagreement that an automobile does not run, or that it does not exist? Or, if our senses force us to conclude that an automobile does exist and run, does that mean it is pulled by an invisible horses, since our engine theory is imperfect?

However much scientists argue their differing beliefs in details of evolutionary theory, or in the interpretation of the necessarily imperfect fossil record, they firmly accept the evolutionary process itself.

• The argument from distorted science.

Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts to disprove evolution. They do this in numerous ways, but the most common example, at least in the mail I receive is the repeated assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the evolutionary process to be impossible.

In kindergarten terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that all spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder—that is, in a "downhill" direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving "uphill." According to the creationists argument, since, by the evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.

Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the second law through sheer perversity. Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable only for kindergartens.

To lift the argument a notch above the kindergarten level, the second law of thermodynamics applies to a "closed system"—that is, to a system that does not gain energy from without, or lose energy to the outside. The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole.

Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity spontaneously, provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another interlocking subsystem. The overall change then is a complexity loss in a line with the dictates of the second law.

Evolution can proceed and build up the complex from the simple, thus moving uphill, without violating the second law, as long as another interlocking part of the system — the sun, which delivers energy to the earth continually — moves downhill (as it does) at a much faster rate than evolution moves uphill. If the sun were to cease shining, evolution would stop and so, eventually, would life.

Unfortunately, the second law is a subtle concept which most people are not accustomed to dealing with, and it is not easy to see the fallacy in the creationists distortion.

There are many other "scientific" arguments used by creationists, some taking quite cleaver advantage of present areas of dispute in evolutionary theory, but every one of then is as disingenuous as the second-law argument.

The "scientific" arguments are organized into special creationist textbooks, which have all the surface appearance of the real thing, and which school systems are being heavily pressured to accept. They are written by people who have not made any mark as scientists, and, while they discuss geology, paleontology and biology with correct scientific terminology, they are devoted almost entirely to raising doubts over the legitimacy of the evidence and reasoning underlying evolutionary thinking on the assumption that this leaves creationism as the only possible alternative.

Evidence actually in favor of creationism is not presented, of course, because none exist other than the word of the Bible, which it is current creationist strategy not to use.

• The argument from irrelevance.

Some creationists putt all matters of scientific evidence to one side and consider all such things irrelevant. The Creator, they say, brought life and the earth and the entire universe into being 6,000 years ago or so, complete with all the evidence for eons-long evolutionary development. The fossil record, the decaying radio activity, the receding galaxies were all created as they are, and the evidence they present is an illusion.

Of course, this argument is itself irrelevant, for it can be neither proved nor disproved. it is not an argument, actually, but a statement. I can say that the entire universe was created two minutes age, complete with all its history books describing a nonexistent past in detail, and with every living person equipped with a full memory; you, for instance, in the process of reading this article in midstream with a memory of what you had read in the beginning—which you had not really read.

What kind of Creator would produce a universe containing so intricate an illusion? It would mean that the Creator formed a universe that contained human beings whom He had endowed with the faculty of curiosity and the ability to reason. He supplied those human beings with an enormous amount of subtle and cleverly consistent evidence designed to mislead them and cause them to be convinced that the universe was created 20 billion years ago and developed by evolutionary processes that include the creation and the development of life on Earth. Why?

Does the Creator take pleasure in fooling us? Does it amuse Him to watch us go wrong? Is it part of a test to see if human beings will deny their senses and their reason in order to cling to myth? Can it be that the Creator is a cruel and malicious prankster, with a vicious and adolescent sense of humor?

• The argument from authority.

The Bible says that God created the world in six days, and the Bible is the inspired word of God. To the average creationist this is all that counts. All other arguments are merely a tedious way of countering the propaganda of all those wicked humanists, agnostics, an atheists who are not satisfied with the clear word of the Lord.

The creationist leaders do not actually use that argument because that would make their argument a religious one, and they would not be able to use it in fighting a secular school system. They have to borrow the clothing of science, no matter how badly it fits, and call themselves "scientific" creationists. They also speak only of the "Creator," and never mentioned that this Creator is the God of the Bible.

We cannot, however, take this sheep's clothing seriously. However much the creationist leaders might hammer away at in their "scientific" and "philosophical" points, they would be helpless and a laughing-stock if that were all they had.

It is religion that recruits their squadrons. Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments for or even against evolution, march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.

Even if I am right and the evolutionists' case is very strong, have not creationists, whatever the emptiness of their case, a right to be heard? if their case is empty, isn't it perfectly safe to discuss it since the emptiness would then be apparent? Why, then are evolutionists so reluctant to have creationism taught in the public schools on an equal basis with evolutionary theory? can it be that the evolutionists are not as confident of their case as they pretend. Are they afraid to allow youngsters a clear choice?

First, the creationists are somewhat less than honest in their demand for equal time. It is not their views that are repressed: schools are by no means the only place in which the dispute between creationism and evolutionary theory is played out. There are churches, for instance, which are a much more serious influence on most Americans than the schools are. To be sure, many churches are quite liberal, have made their peace with science and find it easy to live with scientific advance — even with evolution. But many of the less modish and citified churches are bastions of creationism.

The influence of the church is naturally felt in the home, in the newspapers, and in all of surrounding society. It makes itself felt in the nation as a whole, even in religiously liberal areas, in thousands of subtle ways: in the nature of holiday observance, in expressions of patriotic fervor, even in total irrelevancies. In 1968, for example, a team of astronomers circling the moon were instructed to read the first few verses of Genesis as though NASA felt it had to placate the public lest they rage against the violation of the firmament. At the present time, even the current President of the United States has expressed his creationist sympathies.

It is only in school that American youngsters in general are ever likely to hear any reasoned exposition of the evolutionary viewpiont. They might find such a viewpoint in books, magazines, newspapers, or even, on occasion, on television. But church and family can easily censor printed matter or television. Only the school is beyond their control.

But only just barely beyond. Even though schools are now allowed to teach evolution, teachers are beginning to be apologetic about it, knowing full well their jobs are at the mercy of school boards upon which creationists are a stronger and stronger influence.

Then, too, in schools, students are not required to believe what they learn about evolution—merely to parrot it back on test. If they fail to do so, their punishment is nothing more than the loss of a few points on a test or two.

In the creationist churches, however, the congregation is required to believe. Impressionable youngsters, taught that they will go to hell if they listen to the evolutionary doctrine, are not likely to listen in comfort or to believe if they do. Therefore, creationists, who control the church and the society they live in and to face the public-school as the only place where evolution is even briefly mentioned in a possible favorable way, find they cannot stand even so minuscule a competition and demand "equal time."

Do you suppose their devotion to "fairness" is such that they will give equal time to evolution in their churches?

Second, the real danger is the manner in which creationists want threir "equal time." In the scientific world, there is free and open competition of ideas, and even a scientist whose suggestions are not accepted is nevertheless free to continue to argue his case. In this free and open competition of ideas, creationism has clearly lost. It has been losing, in fact, since the time of Copernicus four and a half centuries ago. But creationism, placing myth above reason, refused to accept the decision and are now calling on the government to force their views on the schools in lieu of the free expression of ideas. Teachers must be forced to present creationism as though it had equal intellectual respectability with evolutionary doctrine.

What a precedent this sets.

If the government can mobilize its policemen and its prisons to make certain that teachers give creationism equal time, they can next use force to make sure that teachers declare creationism the victor so that evolution will be evicted from the classroom altogether. We will have established ground work, in other words, for legally enforced ignorance and for totalitarian thought control. And what if the creationists win? They might, you know, for there are millions who, faced with a choice between science and their interpretation of the Bible, will choose the Bible and reject science, regardless of the evidence.

This is not entirely because of the traditional and unthinking reverence for the literal words of the Bible; there is also a pervasive uneasiness—even an actual fear—of science that will drive even those who care little for fundamentalism into the arms of the creationists. For one thing, science is uncertain. Theories are subject to revision; observations are open to a variety of interpretations, and scientists quarrel among themselves. This is disillusioning for those untrained in the scientific method, who thus turn to the rigid certainty of the Bible instead. There is something comfortable about a view that allows for no deviation and that spares you the painful necessity of having to think.

Second, science is complex and chilling. The mathematical language of science is understood by very few. The vistas it presents are scary—an enormous universe ruled by chance and impersonal rules, empty and uncaring, ungraspable and vertiginous. How comfortable to turn instead to a small world, only a few thousand years old, and under God's personal and immediate care; a world in which you are his particular concern and where He will not consign you to hell if you are careful to follow every word of the Bible as interpreted for you by your television preacher.

Third, science is dangerous. There is no question but that poison gas, genetic engineering, and nuclear weapons and power stations are terrifying. It may be that civilization is falling apart and the world we know is coming to an end. In that case, why not turn to religion and look forward to the Day of Judgment, in which you and your fellow believers will be lifted into eternal bliss and have the added joy of watching the scoffers and disbelievers writhe forever in torment.

So why might they not win?

There are numerous cases of societies in which the armies of the night have ridden triumphantly over minorities in order to establish a powerful orthodoxy which dictates official thought. Invariably, the triumphant ride is toward long-range disaster. Spain dominated Europe and the world in the 16th century, but in Spain orthodoxy came first, and all divergence of opinion was ruthlessly suppressed. The result was that Spain settled back into blankness and did not share in the scientific, technological and commercial ferment that bubbled up in other nations of Western Europe. Spain remained an intellectual backwater for centuries. In the late 17th century, France in the name of orthodoxy revoked the Edict of Nantes and drove out many thousands of Huguenots, who added their intellectual vigor to lands of refuge such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Prussia, while France was permanently weakened.

In more recent times, Germany hounded out the Jewish scientists of Europe. They arrived in the United States and contributed immeasurably to scientific advancement here, while Germany lost so heavily that there is no telling how long it will take it to regain its former scientific eminence. The Soviet Union, in its fascination with Lysenko, destroyed its geneticists, and set back its biological sciences for decades. China, during the Cultural Revolution, turned against Western science and is still laboring to overcome the devastation that resulted.

As we now, with all these examples before us, to ride backward into the past under the same tattered banner of orthodoxy? With creationism in the saddle, American science will wither. We will raise a generation of ignoramuses ill-equipped to run the industry of tomorrow, much less to generate the new advances of the days after tomorrow.

We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization, and those nations that retain opened scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simpleminded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish.

( Isaac Asimov, "The 'Threat' of Creationism," New York Times Magazine, June 14, 1981; from Science and Creationism, Ashley Montagu, ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 182-193. )


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; creationism; crevolist; darwin; evolution; evolutionism; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,381-1,4001,401-1,4201,421-1,440 ... 1,761-1,776 next last
To: BMCDA
Rachumlakenschlaff wrote:
just like the words of a book contain more information than is embodied by an arbitrary collection of the same number of letters.

BMCDA wrote:
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.


Ummmm. Neither the compression algorithm nor its output are arbitrary.
1,401 posted on 03/06/2003 9:01:00 AM PST by Rachumlakenschlaff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1382 | View Replies]

To: Rachumlakenschlaff
That's not to say experiments aren't done, it's just that they generally don't prove anything.

Any experiment can only provide another fact. At the pure convenience of creation science, any theory which tries to tie one fact to another is just "conjecture."

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.

Or, you could just say, "It didn't make a horseshoe crab." That would be shorter.

These experiments are hardly convincing experimental evidence of the abiogenesis of life.

But what step is supposed to be impossible? 400K years after the Big Bang we had mostly hydrogen, some helium, and a little lithium in a very even gas. We've gone from there to a rocky planet with some amino acids in water solution. Is an amino acid more complex than a helium atom? Is it impossible that anything more complicated will ever form now? If so, why? If not, is it impossible to form some simple self-replicator molecule? If so, why? If not, where is the barrier?

1,402 posted on 03/06/2003 9:01:23 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1398 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
VadeRetro wrote:
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.


Another calm, logical, objective, carefully considered response totally devoid of personal attacks. I will have to consider this more carfully. This argument almost convinces me that the theory of evolution is correct after all.
1,403 posted on 03/06/2003 9:11:38 AM PST by Rachumlakenschlaff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1385 | View Replies]

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

But just think how much easier it is to "prove" things if you're allowed to beg the question in such a fashion...

1,404 posted on 03/06/2003 9:14:06 AM PST by general_re (Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1395 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
VadeRetro wrote:
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."


Maybe you need a new pair of glasses. But, first you would have to admit the possibility that your vision is not perfect.

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


There is no evolution science. There is no abiogenesis science. There is no content. You can't beat something with nothing.
1,405 posted on 03/06/2003 9:16:55 AM PST by Rachumlakenschlaff (I'm right and you're wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1387 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
PatrickHenry wrote: Your #3 is true. The rest needs work

Your rejection of #1 is the problem. First you have to admit the possibilites before you can choose between them.
1,406 posted on 03/06/2003 9:22:16 AM PST by Rachumlakenschlaff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1393 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Rachumlakenschlaff wrote:
I maintain that order and complexity are not the same as information.


VadeRetro wrote:
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.

What would be the point? You have demonstrated your unwillingness to debate my proposition in favor of attempting to demean all those who disagree with you.
1,407 posted on 03/06/2003 9:29:54 AM PST by Rachumlakenschlaff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1397 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Doctor Stochastic wrote:
Non responsive reply.

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


Sorry, but I don't know which reply you're referring to.
1,408 posted on 03/06/2003 9:31:56 AM PST by Rachumlakenschlaff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1399 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
When you get to a mystery, stop. You're done

Well said...lol

1,409 posted on 03/06/2003 9:32:12 AM PST by Scully
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1388 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
But what step is supposed to be impossible? 400K years after the Big Bang we had mostly hydrogen, some helium, and a little lithium in a very even gas. We've gone from there to a rocky planet with some amino acids in water solution. Is an amino acid more complex than a helium atom? Is it impossible that anything more complicated will ever form now? If so, why? If not, is it impossible to form some simple self-replicator molecule? If so, why? If not, where is the barrier?


Your argument seems to be, "The fact that we exist proves evolution". Or, "We started with simple things, now we have complex things. Evolution is therefore proven." Why are creationists obliged to prove the impossibility of something happening and you are not obliged to prove that it did happen or show that it can happen? Can you prove that God doesn't exist?
1,410 posted on 03/06/2003 9:39:21 AM PST by Rachumlakenschlaff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1402 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
anthropic placemarker
1,411 posted on 03/06/2003 9:47:22 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1395 | View Replies]

To: Rachumlakenschlaff
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.

How do you think they changed the protein?

1,412 posted on 03/06/2003 9:53:45 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1389 | View Replies]

To: Rachumlakenschlaff
You forgot the crucial steps of predictions and experimentation.

No I didn't. I short-handed it by saying "then [edited- CM] try to find more observations to confirm or deny their hypothesis."

The theory of evolution rules out whole classes of obervations. Among other things, it describes and explains the observed pattern to the emergence of animal species. Based on that one can predict that a simian fossil will never be found in Jurassic-era rock, for example. An out-of-order fossil will pose serious problems for the theory.

Abiogenesis is separate from evolution. The experiment you describe demonstrates only that organic compounds can arise naturally. It has apparently escaped your notice that the Creation Hypothesis must be supported by more than a list of problems with evolution. This is known as a False Dichotomy, and is a frequent visitor in these-here parts.

Assume, IOW, that theory of evolution has been disproven, debunked, and discarded. Now make your case.

1,413 posted on 03/06/2003 10:15:11 AM PST by Condorman (Even a fool knows you can't touch the stars, but it doesn't stop a wise man from trying - H.T. Stone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1398 | View Replies]

To: Rachumlakenschlaff
Well, every message can be hidden in white noise. If you have the decryption key you can access it if not it's just white noise.
In the first case you can decode the message so it has meaning to you but in the latter case you can't "read" it so it has no meaning from your point of view.

So make sure you keep 'information' and 'meaning' appart.

1,414 posted on 03/06/2003 10:24:57 AM PST by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1401 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA
So make sure you keep 'information' and 'meaning' apart.

Why would he start now? He might learn something and have to quit posting such blatent idiocy.

1,415 posted on 03/06/2003 10:30:21 AM PST by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1414 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Thank you so much for your post! Indeed, I’m quite interested in the subject!

For a long time now I’ve suggested that scientists are too quick to throw up their hands and assign fine tuning anomalies to the anthropic principle. The complaint about creationism, after all, is that saying “God did it” would keep scientists from looking. Neither is acceptable to me. IMHO, we should always be exploring.

My efforts to unravel these mysteries were documented last July on this thread where we are collecting all the various points of views on origins.

There is much to be discovered. My sense is that harmonics lie at the inception of the physical realm, that m-theory will explain dark energy and dark mass (to arrive at omega of one.) I believe the BOOMERANG study reinforces that view and the Scriptures:

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. – Psalms 33:6


1,416 posted on 03/06/2003 10:36:48 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1374 | View Replies]

To: Rachumlakenschlaff
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.

What about the fossil record is disputed? Fossils exist. They can be arranged by age and location and organized by appearance. Definite patterns can be identified but we're supposed to pretend they don't mean anything?

But we're diverging again from the original topic of the creation of information.

You have yet to define "information" in a meaningful way. You are invited to do so.

1,417 posted on 03/06/2003 10:40:47 AM PST by Condorman ("We control the disease by controlling the information." -- C.S.M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1389 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
Rachumlakenschlaff wrote:
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.

Nebullis wrote:
How do you think they changed the protein?

 I don't know. I don't have access to the original paper and the synopsis doesn't say. In reality, it doesn't matter anyway. Let's stipulate that they changed the gene. Naturally, they got what the changed gene coded for. What does it prove? They made changes to a gene (the action of intelligent agents), got different proteins (completely predictable), and those proteins did not perform as well as the original. So far I'm not impressed. They then do some sort of statistical analysis (presumably along the lines of determining how fast the presumed duplicated gene evolved into a useful form - but who knows?) which the synopsis doesn't specify but the claim is made that the analysis is evidence of positive selection. And I am expected to accept this as incontrovertible proof of duplicated genes in action. The standard for proof in the field of evolution is incredibly low compared to real science.
1,418 posted on 03/06/2003 10:55:14 AM PST by Rachumlakenschlaff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1412 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
Rachumlakenschlaff wrote:
You forgot the crucial steps of predictions and experimentation.

Condorman wrote:
No I didn't. I short-handed it by saying "then [edited- CM] try to find more observations to confirm or deny their hypothesis."

The theory of evolution rules out whole classes of obervations.

If you allow a theory to rule out observations then you most certainly are not practicing science.

Among other things, it describes and explains the observed pattern to the emergence of animal species. Based on that one can predict that a simian fossil will never be found in Jurassic-era rock, for example. An out-of-order fossil will pose serious problems for the theory.

Abiogenesis is separate from evolution. The experiment you describe demonstrates only that organic compounds can arise naturally. It has apparently escaped your notice that the Creation Hypothesis must be supported by more than a list of problems with evolution. This is known as a False Dichotomy, and is a frequent visitor in these-here parts.

Assume, IOW, that theory of evolution has been disproven, debunked, and discarded. Now make your case.



The statement is often made that evolution is flawed but it is the best (only) scientific theory we have. Therefore, we accept it until and unless something better comes along. That is a choice but it is not required by the study of science. It is quite rational to reject an obviously flawed scientific theory, embrace no scientific theory at all, and entertain the possibility that science may not be capable of answering all questions.

However, I have been trying to make the argument from information theory, which was developed quite independently from evolutionary theory. If I propose a theory of perpetual motion and present evidence that, while not proving my theory, prove sub elements of it, would you accept it? I doubt it. It clearly is at odds with another, well-established theory, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The argument from information theory is not based on simply finding flaws with evolution, but on demonstrating that evolution is inconsistent with information theory.

It is also possible to prove a theory incorrect by contraindicating experimental evidence. In fact, it is generally accepted that this is a requirement of any theory: falsifiability. This is one of the major valid criticisms of evolution. You cannot prove a theory without supporting experimental evidence. It is not sufficient to simply observe.
1,419 posted on 03/06/2003 11:25:34 AM PST by Rachumlakenschlaff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1413 | View Replies]

To: Rachumlakenschlaff
I don't know. I don't have access to the original paper and the synopsis doesn't say. In reality, it doesn't matter anyway.

The proteins were changed by changes in the gene. Also, determination of selection is based on the ratio between neutral changes and changes that result in effective differences.

I suspect it matters to you because you spent several posts deriding the study. It matters to us because the effort you invest in dismissing evolution, a foundational theory of science, needs to be based on scientific principles and genuine research. Your argument against the study in the article makes it obvious that you are ignorant of the elementary correspondence between a gene and a protein. The rest of your posts make it clear that you don't have a clue about much of science in general.

1,420 posted on 03/06/2003 11:57:31 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1418 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,381-1,4001,401-1,4201,421-1,440 ... 1,761-1,776 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson