The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[Sentis]

Your argument for a programmer is merely the watchmaker argument dressed up in other clothes. It is flawed in many ways.

Using you analogy We can equate the universe to a very large computer with a set of rules (program) which it must adhere to. These rules contain and process information which lay down a blueprint for planets, and stars (how matter and energy interact). These rules are far more complex than the interactions of the simple base four mathematical model of DNA. In fact these rules are so complex we have yet to decipher them completely. Does this mean the Universe must have a creator. Not at all the Laws (program) which governs the universe is a function of how the universe began not a process which was began. These rules formed out of matter/energy interactions at the first few moments of creation. No programmer was needed merely an interaction between matter/energy and what we now know know as space-time. DNA processing of information (and it isn't really processing information the way computers do it it is expressing information not processing there is a difference.

[Southack]

"But you're afraid to use this understanding when looking at the evolution of Man (whether by RM&NS or by successive tinkering by the Intelligent Designer). Does a design which has so obviously been tinkered with constantly throughout its history shout out "I was designed by a perfect designer!", or "I was designed by an imperfect designer!"?"

The limited evidence at hand would imply, however inconclusively, that the designer(s) per se improved designs over time due to improvements in knowlege (implying something that could improve and did improve but was NOT at full potential earlier on).

But there simply isn't enough evidence at hand to warrant making such a statement conclusively.

We have lower level questions that still remain to be resolved before we can even tackle such questions as you brought up earlier, and getting ahead of ourselves will only serve to use incomplete, inconclusive higher-level assumptions erroneously into factoring our lower-level conclusions.

In other words, "going there" prematurely is detrimental to our scientific understanding and process.

[Southack]

"Your argument for a programmer is merely the watchmaker argument dressed up in other clothes. It is flawed in many ways."

No, you've misunderstood the debate. Sorry.

[Southack]

"I dont see how your argument proves the existence of God?"

Did I claim that it did prove the existence of God?

Please, show me where I made that claim.

[unspun]

Copy of my "abuse" note:

Regarding #223

ad hominem, about a large share of FReepers

[Sentis]

Actually its you who misunderstand the debate. Sorry, you are so caught up in logical disconnects you can't even see what you are arguing. There is no difference between the programmer argument and the watchmaker argument both are flawed and both presuppose a creator that creates a product that nature cannot form on its own. This is you logical disconnect. Creationists failed with the watchmaker analogy and now try to revamp it into this programmer analogy.

It is the only recourse of the creationist to reuse and rehash the tired worn out debates they lost a hundred years ago. The reason is they haven't got any place else to stand. Their mountain of Illogical mythology and creation fantasies are crumbling into the mud that it was built from and they must reuse, rehash, and revisit what little arguments that gave them solace in the past. This is the form of mental masturbation that creationists so relish as it gives them what they think is a intellectual stance when all it does is reveal how little they understand of the natural world.

[captain11]

Actually that wasn't meant to be amusing. I just wanted to point out that "south of the south pole" doesn't make sense just like "before the big bang". But somehow you didn't seem to get that.

I got it. Huge problem, though. "South of the south pole" and "before the big bang" aren't remotely the same thing. Aside from the fact that you can't prove there was a "big bang" (only accept the incumbent theoretical framework of a subset of astrophysicists), there is more. Even if you accept the "big bang" premise, you can't prove that there haven't been other "big bang" events, perhaps separated by hundreds of billions of years, and by regions of emptiness many times the size of our universe.

For all you know, God squeezes out universes on a semi-regular basis, like dough from a cookie gun. Perhaps "big bangs" are simply how God sets a hard limit on mortal comprehension, shows prima facie evidence of the futility of scientific arrogance, and a provides a window on the transcendant spiritual dimension.

[BMCDA]

We just agreed that successive improvements to earlier designs is a sign that an object was designed by an imperfect designer (otherwise they wouldn't have to improve the design in the first place). But you're afraid to use this understanding when looking at the evolution of Man (whether by RM&NS or by successive tinkering by the Intelligent Designer).

Does a design which has so obviously been tinkered with constantly throughout its history shout out "I was designed by a perfect designer!", or "I was designed by an imperfect designer!"?

Ohh, that's no problem y'know. There is already an answer to your objections:

If a living system looks well designed, it's evidence for ID. If it looks poorly designed, that's just because we have no way of knowing what constitutes good and bad design.
Afterall, we can't tell that it's bad design because we have no way of knowing what the Designer really intends. But we do know that ID will revolutionize culture, society, and law, according to what the Designer intends.

[Sentis]

You claim there is a programmer. You may not say God but it is implied in the programmer moniker. Sorry to unmask you for the Creationist you are.

[Southack]

"There is no difference between the programmer argument and the watchmaker argument both are flawed and both presuppose a creator that creates a product that nature cannot form on its own."

That's incorrect. Had you been paying attention, you might have noticed that I left OPEN, in multiple posts, the question of whether the program in question was formed by natural processes or by intelligent intervention.

[unspun]

There are many interesting hypotheses and theories about how the universe got just where it is today.

There are also many kinds of bigots.

I just posted this in a thread debunking the false claims that the Vatican and Hitler were buddies. But fans of Asimov's writing here may actually find comraderie with Hitler's sources (well, aside maybe from the occultists) so I'll post it here, too:

Hitler and the occult:
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/books/annual3/chap09.html
http://www.dropbears.com/b/broughsbooks/military/occult_nazism.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7069/hitler.html
http://logosresourcepages.org/hitler.html

Hitler and Social Darwinism (socialism combined with eugenics and racism):
http://www.toolan.com/hitler/fuhrer.html
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm
http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~wmills/course203/8Racism.html
http://www.gennet.org/metro15.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/4871/Darwin.html

Hitler and Nietzsche:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/Nietzsche.html
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/nietzsche.html
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/nietzsche/nietzsche.html
http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/Reinventing_Nietzsche.htm
http://www.needham.k12.ma.us/high_school/cur/Baker_00/baker_1800_soc/baker_jw_gg_p3/friedrich.htm

Finally, I suggest this book/documentary, about how such evils grow in cultures....
http://www.rationalpi.com/theshelter/live.html
http://www.freemedia.org/videos/howshouldwe.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0891072926/ref=ase_rationalpi/002-0567108-0640019

[gitmo]

And the creationists haven't changed a word of their "science."

As opposed to evolutionists, who rebuild our theories from scratch every decade or so.

When we first began to document the embryonic development of various species, we observed that they follow the same basic patterns that evolution took. Obviously, developing embryos went through their respective evolutionary histories as they matured. The Ontogenic Law was required learning for all budding biologists: Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny. (i.e. Embryonic development reflects the evolutionary pathways of the respective species) Of course, over the years the evidence disproved the Law, and it soon fell out of favour. Quoting the Ontogenic Law is great fun at cocktail parties ... a great way to impress the ladies.

We used to predict that we would be able to observe the evolution of new species, based on a derived rate of evolution (using the number of species observed at current state and over time from the fossil record). When we failed to find such evidence, we revised our theories to introduce periods of extremely rapid evolution followed by long periods of evolutionary inactivity. The fossil record seems to support this view, but realistically the record is so sketchy that this could easily be an artifact of missing fossil evidence during the periods of evolutionary inactivity.

With the advent of gene mapping, we predicted we could demostrate the phylogenic pathways by tracing genes and tracking them through the phylogenic tree. This was excellent proof of evolutionary development, until we discovered that humans, rutebagas, and starfish share genes. So we came up with the concept of jumping genes that could transverse species.

And the creation of the universe has long been held to be a gradual process starting at various points in space. Eventually, this theory fell out of favour, and the Big Bang theory became in vogue. Big Bang advocates had been ridiculed for over a hundred years. Suddenly, physicists found themselves doing a 180 and joining the theologins in their Big Bang camp.

Then there was the paper introduced in the late 70's where a researcher used the largest published rate of evolution, the largest published rates of mutations, the longest published estimates of the ages of the universe and of the earth, and the smallest estimates of the number of species present on the earth at current state and at differing times in geological history. Based on those numbers, the odds of chance creating evolution were so inifinitesimal that it was ludicrous to consider. (I've not followed this particular argument since the 80's. I would be interested in hearing what has happened in this arena in the ensuing 20 years.)

Now anyone familiar with the scientific process isn't surprised by this evolution of the evolutionary theory. But the disconcerting aspect is that so often, the process leads the scientific community into the camp of the theologians who have scarecely moved in a couple of millenia.

[Southack]

"You claim there is a programmer. You may not say God but it is implied in the programmer moniker. Sorry to unmask you for the Creationist you are."

Now you are backpedaling.

You said above that I was claiming that God's existence had been proven. I asked for you to show the specific post in which I said that it had been proven.

Now you are saying that it is implied, a serious backdown from your earlier claim.

Yes, a programmer's existence is implied at some level by the evidence at hand (at least in my opinion), but you've still got to either support your earlier accusation of "proof" or else admit that you attacked me with unsubstantiated hyperbole.

[unspun]

Sorry to unmask you for the Creationist you are.

No bigotry at all, there.

/sarc

[BMCDA]

I got it. Huge problem, though. "South of the south pole" and "before the big bang" aren't remotely the same thing.

Well, in some sort they are. Time is just an other dimension of the universe.

Aside from the fact that you can't prove there was a "big bang" (only accept the incumbent theoretical framework of a subset of astrophysicists), there is more.

Ohh, but there is plenty of evidence that there was a big bang: the red shift of galaxies or the cosmic background radiation.

Even if you accept the "big bang" premise, you can't prove that there haven't been other "big bang" events, perhaps separated by hundreds of billions of years, and by regions of emptiness many times the size of our universe.

I don't know whether there are other universes besides this one or not but if there are any terms like "separated by hundreds of billions of years, and by regions of emptiness many times the size of our universe" just don't make sense.
I suggest you contact Physicist if you want to know more about this or you may read some of his older posts where he debunks this "before the big bang" idea.

[Sentis]

Your funny just because your trying to prove that God exists I'm wrong for unmasking your deception . My goodness what a ego you guys have. You imply there is a creator therefore you are trying to prove his existence and you claim that DNA is the proof. My goodness you creationists are adept at double speak did you take your lessons from the Clinton's. I also have every right to attack you as your trying to "fool" people on this board into believing your something your not.


Of course you are no longer trying to defend your proof as I have unmasked it for the logical fallacy that it is. The shame is you'll just move on to some other thread and try to pull off this deception on some other poor souls.

[Sentis]

Is it bigotry to call a spade a spade? Or a creationist a creationist or even a Liar a Liar. You sound so liberal in your biogtry accusation. I guess i should have call the Creationist a rational human being but then i would have been lying.

[captain11]

both presuppose a creator that creates a product that nature cannot form on its own

Leading, inevitably, to the ultimate evolutionist absurdity, namely that "nature" could and does exist independent of any causality, "just is", and leapt into being with the full capacity to spawn the immense complexity of the universe, from a speck of nothing. Right, that's likely.

Somewhat baffling is the shortsighted and unnecessary either/or debate, as if a strictly interpreted biblical creation account and Darwinian evolution are the only possibilities. They aren't, and they aren't completely incompatible. There is much we don't know.

[Sentis]

"to spawn the immense complexity of the universe, from a speck of nothing. Right, that's likely."

Actually I never said it came from nothing. However where did God come from? NOTHING? I will claim that the big bang occurred as it is pretty well proven (with empirical evidence) that the event occurred. The physical properties (rules) of this universe were formed in that big bang. Before that I don't know what was going on but my guess is as good as yours and I don't make up fairy stories to explain what I don't know.