The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[js1138]

How can complexity be oblivious?

People can be oblivious. It's unlikely that complexity can be oblivious unless you attribute consciousness to complexity.

[js1138]

There is nothing to prove, only things to be discovered!

But in science, any meaningful statement must be stated in a form subject to disproof. What program of research does ID propose to test its hypotheses?

[Condorman]

You certainly did a good job of confirming Rachumlakenschlaff's insight about yourselves.

I beg to differ. Rachumlakenschlaff showed us around about here that he was deliberately avoiding insight.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

In you passion to defend evolution you have chosen to label me as incompetent and, in doing so, you don't even realize that you are attacking your own statement.

You said, "The theory of evolution rules out whole classes of obervations." You did not say that observations can rule out theories. You said that theories can and do rule out observations.

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

You responded, "Mercury's orbit deviates in a way not allowed by Newton's theory of gravity. This observation proved Newton wrong." Yes, observations can prove theories wrong. This is why I said that the opposite (what you said), that theories can prove observations wrong, is not science.

So we agree. Observations can prove theories wrong, but theories cannot prove observations wrong. It is you who made the error, but your deep bias against anyone who rejects evolutionary theory causes you to label them as incompetent. I pointed out your error but your bias blinded you so that you convinced yourself that is was me who made the error.

I submit that this is a common problem in discussions about creation and evolution. There is way too much passion and not enough careful, civil and objective debate of the facts. Once the name calling starts, we end up back at the school yard playground.

[unspun]

Looks to me like he was making points of logic, but then again I'm neither a professional scientist or chef.

[unspun]

I suppose Internet forums are notorious for being platforms for pratttling ad hominem argument. While that is counter to FR's guidelines, FR was born and begun to be raised in large part as not only a political forum but one in which people were encouraged to find whatever muck existed on Bill Clinton and throw it for all it was worth.

Since that afforded a huge, mudpile to play in, it can make for fun, but I'm concerned that it doesn't well train the playmates for successful discussion.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Support your statement to the effect that scientific theories do not attempt to rule out specific observations

You want it both ways. Just what do you believe? On separate posts you said,

"The theory of evolution rules out whole classes of obervations."

and

Yes, observations can prove theories wrong.

An observation is an observation. You simply make it. A theory cannot prove an observation wrong. Interpretations of what an observation means or the underlying causes of the thing observed are subject to scientific inquiry and debate. The observation itself, however, does not change. If I observe a ball to be red, then that is my observation. What causes the ball to be red (or what causes me to perceive that it is red) does not influence the fact that I observe the ball to be red.

[bondserv]

More and more biologists, chemists, physicists, mathematicians and information scientists involved are cogently describing the engineering complexity that was oblivious to Darwin.

Wow, this is what I am talking about. The application of a little common sense will enable a person to overcome the strict legalistic misinterpretation of the data.

My friend you continue to focus on the negative. I have clearly restated that Darwin was oblivious to the complexity we now see, in subsuquint posts. Step back from the data and consider the obvious.

1439 - Darwin was quite unaware of the sophisticated coding that is embedded in DNA. He was also unaware of the magnificance of the living cell, as our modern technology enables us to know.

1429 - There are so many of these types of these "fine-tuned developments" that when one considers the mathematical probabilities of all of the biological "just so happens" it becomes absurd.

1429 - But the intricacy of the design makes the atheists efforts countless. Therefore we are completely confident that any discoveries, by whoever feels compelled to do the research, can only further convince people that there is a God.

1370 - Biologists and chemists continue to marvel at the complexities of something seemingly as simple as the single living cell. I have heard a living cell described as more complicated than a space shuttle production facility.

Hope you are well!

[BSunday]

Dear Patrick;

Please see number 5, which is my conclusion, not number 2, which is not my conclusion, but a premise. If you disagree with that premise, please furnish me the name of said person who was born to non human parents. And test tube babies don't count, nor would human clones if there were any, being that the point of origin in either case would still be human vice non-human.

yeah, it is right

[js1138]

My friend you continue to focus on the negative. I have clearly restated that Darwin was oblivious to the complexity we now see, in subsuquint posts.

I'm quite certain that Darwin would have been thrilled to learn about the mechanisms of inheritance, and to learn that there is an observable process for generating the tiny changes in the bloodline that his theory required.

[PatrickHenry]

If you disagree with that premise [2. No human now living or who has ever lived, was ever born of non human parents.], please furnish me the name of said person who was born to non human parents.

Dear BS:
I shall attempt to clarify my earlier comments. Your last two statements (conclusions, really) were these:

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

Now please consider what it means to say that man didn't evolve. It means that man did not develop from pre-human ancestors, but instead, he miraculously appeared fully formed, with no non-human ancestry. We're clear on that, right? And it's what you claimed to prove, right?

Okay, moving along ... Earlier in your list of statements (which list purports to be a "syllogism," should you be interested), you claimed as a fact: "2. No human now living or who has ever lived, was ever born of non human parents."

But don't you see, my dear BS, that your statement #2, which you are using as a "fact" to help you prove your statements #4 and #5, is the very thing you are trying to prove. In other words, you are saying: "Man did not evolve because man did not evolve." An argument cast in such a form is logically invalid.

Your suggestion that I provide you with the name of the first human to evolve is, I assume, an attempt at humor. In any event, if you claim as fact that man had no pre-human ancestors, it is a genuinely uphill struggle that you have selected for yourself. You will need to explain away such readily verifiable evidence as this: Welcome to the Hall of Human Ancestors.

You may have been copying something you saw at a creationist website, without giving it all that much thought, so I am pleased to be able to help you see how unreliable such sources can be.

[f.Christian]

How does spontaneous -- morphing ... matter and lfe become science --- silly isn't it !

[Lurking Libertarian]

You said, "The theory of evolution rules out whole classes of obervations." You did not say that observations can rule out theories. You said that theories can and do rule out observations. I replied, "If you allow a theory to rule out observations then you most certainly are not practicing science." You responded, "Mercury's orbit deviates in a way not allowed by Newton's theory of gravity. This observation proved Newton wrong." Yes, observations can prove theories wrong. This is why I said that the opposite (what you said), that theories can prove observations wrong, is not science.

I think you are both misinterpreting each other. What Condorman meant (if I can be so bold as to put words into his mouth) is that the theory of evolution is testable, and thus scientific, even though it is not reproduceable in the laboratory, because it predicts that we will find certain things and not others.

In Darwin's time, there were no transitional fossils known, but his theory predicted that we would find fish-to-amphibian transitionals, amphibian-to-reptile transitionals, reptile-to-bird transitionals and reptile-to-mammal transitionals, but not, for example, fish-to-bird transitionals or mammal-to-amphibian transitionals.

These predictions have, IMHO, been borne out very well, which is why I accept evolution as the best description of the evidence so far.

There is, in contrast, little to no evidence of where the very first life form came from, which is why I am undecided on the abiogenesis hypothesis. In any event, neither proof nor disproof of that hypothesis would shake my faith that : (a) God is ultimately the author of all life, and (b) He has, aty least as far back as we can glimpse, used His natural laws to achieve His will.

[BSunday]

Dear Patrick;

I will thank you to note that I did not, as you put it "ask you for the name of the first person to evolve." Perhaps you only wish I did. What I asked was, to provide me the name of a person who was born to non-human parents. Even the noted atheist Dr Andrew G.N. Flew admitted those two premises in a debate with Dr. Thomas B. Warren.

[PatrickHenry]

Well, BS, I've tried to show the problems with your syllogism. If you don't get it by now, you probably never will. Peace.

[BSunday]

Thanks, Patrick, for trying to set me straight. I appreciate any help from higher intellects </sarcasm>

[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.

With the hope that an intellectual discussion is possible on this forum, I will attempt to get back to my original question, "How does the theory of evolution account for the creation of new information?"

Several people have asked me to define information and have suggested that I am confusing information with meaning. It has further been suggested that all of the information that now exists in the universe was present at the beginning and that it has simply changed in form, much like the 1st law of thermodynamics, although no basis has been given for this.

As far as the definition of information goes, I accept the American Heritage Dictionary's definition.

At one level (definition 3 from the dictionary), information is just a bunch of facts. By this narrow definition, the following statement:

Put the plate on the table.

has the same information content as

Qvu uif qmbuf po uif ubcmf..

Both have the same number of letters and spaces and in the same proportions. However, people who speak english know that there is additional information contained in the first collection of letters: information about an object (the plate), what to do with it (put), where it should be done (on the table). This is the type of information that definitions 1 & 2 refer to, i.e., knowledge derived from instruction.

Someone will say that this is meaning, not information. I disagree. This type of information has meaning to english-speaking people, but it is still information, it is not merely meaning. It is an instruction , i.e., imparted knowledge. Furthermore, this information is not able to be ascertained merely from the positions and frequency of the letters. It is in addition to it. This information is encoded into the letters in the code called the english language.

This is analagous to DNA. DNA consists of a series of nucleic acids (letters) arranged in a certain way so as to encode information (instructions; imparted knowledge) that various cellular mechanisms utilize to build proteins. This information cannot be ascertained simply from an examination of the positions and frequencies of the nucleic acids. It requires, in addition, something that understands the code.

Therefore, I stipulate that the DNA of a living organism contains more information then an equivalent quantity of DNA that consists of a random series of nucleic acids. This additional information is what is meant by the genetic code.

Evolutionary theory requires that the information (instructions) contained in the genetic code (knowledge imparted to the cell) are the product of purposeless natural forces. Therefore, by extrapolation, evolution proposes that all knowledge and instruction (and ultimately meaning) are the product of purposelessness. The whole of human experience with language, as well as computer algorithms and information theory, are in direct conflict with this requirement of evolutionary theory. It is not an argument from ignorance.

[Condorman]

You want it both ways. Just what do you believe? On separate posts you said,

1) "The theory of evolution rules out whole classes of obervations."
2) "Yes, observations can prove theories wrong."

Ah, I see your problem with the first statement, and I can understand the confusion. I was not as clear as I should have been, and I apologise. Allow me, if you would, to correct myself.

A theory makes specific predictions. Because of this, we can use the theory to rule out specific predictions. "If Theory A is correct, then Observation B is impossible." Scientists then direct their efforts towards creating Observation B. If they fail, Theory A has acquired a measure of support, if not, the theory is modified or rejected to account for the new evidence.

Dropping out of the abstract, Newton's Theory of Gravity ruled out burbles in planetary orbits. Mercury's orbit burbles. General Relativity sucessfully predicts the orbits of all planets in the Solar System, including the burbles in Mercury. It includes all the evidence Newton had, plus the new observations from Mercury.

That is what I meant when I said that theories rule out observations. Not that a theory ever takes precedence over a confirmed observation.

Does that help?

[Condorman]

the theory of evolution is testable, and thus scientific, even though it is not reproduceable in the laboratory, because it predicts that we will find certain things and not others.

I agree with this. I already posted another reply, but yours is perhaps more concise.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Meaningless, meaningless, all is meaningless!

This is off the point, but your tagline is actually a better translation of the Hebrew text of Ecclesiastes 1:1 than the usual "vanity."