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 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 1,761-1,776 next last
To: unspun
From my limited knowledge, I could refer to the 2nd Law of Termodynamics

I suggest that you re-evaluate your limited knowledge of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and its application to this case. Jennyp is correct.

481 posted on 02/17/2003 5:54:37 PM PST by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: c0rbin
A scientific theory is an observation made about a collection of observable, testable facts.

Yes it is. However, evolutionists often use bits and pieces of 'scientific theories' and/or 'scientific facts' to piece together their speciation/evolution/mutation "models": models that are more like puzzles; puzzles with gaping holes. (*missing pieces*)

482 posted on 02/17/2003 5:59:05 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Of course Webster's definition in part is the same as the use of the term in philosophy. But Webster's doesn't specify the distinction between creation in the loose sense and creation ex nihilo.

Yes, and as Dire Straits sang, "money for nothin' and the chicks for free: jennyp's interesting article"

Why be humble? This is the internet.

And to be just a bit ostentatious, you do realize that even an ontological argument will get dismissed, if one cannot find common ground in epistemology. It's a tough chore, when folks like a certain loud minority in FR try to censor such things as revelation, inference, and even propositional reason.

483 posted on 02/17/2003 6:04:30 PM PST by unspun (Christ-informed, American constitutional republic: Yes. Libertarian & objectivist revisionism: No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
Thank you, Tribune Terp.
484 posted on 02/17/2003 6:05:43 PM PST by unspun (Christ-informed, American constitutional republic: Yes. Libertarian & objectivist revisionism: No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
Therefore, most fervent supporters of evolution, lacking any real understanding of what current evolutionary theory is, are accepting the theory on a basis that resembles faith rather than a true understanding of science. Why, then, are they so disdainful of those who accept creationism based on faith?

Probably because they're at least listening to scientists on a scientific subject.

485 posted on 02/17/2003 6:09:17 PM PST by MattAMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Creationists aren't seeking to keep people from either doing research or from teaching.

Most Creationists can see evolution as God's method of Creation. However, (let me quote from a post YOU had pulled)...

... there's kind of a Darwinian filtering system at work -- the most dedicated creationists are the survivors, and they're the ones who give us our impression of all the rest.

1. I openly stated why I rose the flag on that post. It referred to many/most FReepers as... "wacko's" I believe was the word. Prompts me to wonder why the writer wishes to be in FR. Begins to smell like mouse trying to lead pipers.

2. As per, "the most dedicated creationists are the survivors, and they're the ones who give us our impression of all the rest." --- Let me change the object of this statement and you can find out how you feel about it: --- "the most dedicated conspiring Jews are the survivors, and they're the one's who give us the impression of all the rest."

Thought police give impressions of themselves, all by themselves.

486 posted on 02/17/2003 6:16:54 PM PST by unspun (Christ-informed, American constitutional republic: Yes. Libertarian & objectivist revisionism: No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
OK. I concede I should have been using the phrase "finite age of the universe" rather than "Big Bang". I was using the term to refer to a specific event creating the Universe.

I suspected as much. Thanks for the clarification.

487 posted on 02/17/2003 6:33:07 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; Dataman; Southack; Captain Kirk
If creationism is such a "threat" to science why did we even bother to send any creationists up in the space shuttle?

Good heavens, their presuppositions had to be a detriment to "real" science. Sheez. At least we could have sent people up there who only deal in "scientific facts" completely apart from and religion and/or philosophy. What a waste of taxpayer monies. /sarcasm

Creationism is no more a "threat" to science than an accordion is a "threat" to deer.

488 posted on 02/17/2003 6:48:15 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew (I hate NASCAR. It's so . . . .racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sentis; Southack; jennyp
There seems to be a lot of confusion, so let me clear some definitions up. Right now, it doesn't seem that any of you are actually correct.

First, there is no distinction whatsoever between data, programs, and the computer itself. The distinction used for conventional purposes is purely an artifact of the way we design computers on silicon and is not a universal property of computers. If you do research on the various models for universal computation, you'll find that there are in fact designs for real computers where distinctions between all these aspects are eliminated.

Second, all computers that we have to worry about for the purpose of this discussion (such as DNA) are Turing machines. As such, all manner of programs, no matter how complex (within the complexity limits of the overall system) can be implemented on any Turing machine. All manner of machine of the type I was referring to in my first point can be implemented on a Turing machine and vice versa.

Third, and this one will probable generate some (misguided) disagreement, everything is a universal computer. Or at least, anything with a non-zero Kolmogorov complexity is, which includes everything for all intents and purposes. DNA is fairly efficient one, but there are literally millions of other chemical systems that are equally efficient. There are also some astronomical number of chemical systems that are far less efficient. But they are all interchangeable by definition because they are all Turing machines; the only mathematical point of comparison between two systems with respect to their computational capacity is the intrinsic Kolmogorov complexity of the system. A silicon computer with a Kolmogorov complexity identical to a DNA computer is functionally and mathematically identical for all intents and purposes (one can argue whether a silicon computer exists that has the KC of the human DNA computational system). No computer is special, as they all can be implemented on any other "computer", even if that other computer is qualitatively very different. This isn't always intuitive, but if you study it you find out that it always works out that way (and is proven mathematically anyway, in case you don't feel like testing it out yourself).

The biggest problem is in assuming that the way humans design computers for the sake of engineering expedience is qualitatively different from any other kind of computer or that this difference is theoretically necessary. Most of the arguments seem to be based on fundamental misunderstandings or insufficient understandings of the concepts being discussed. Best Regards!

489 posted on 02/17/2003 6:53:38 PM PST by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: unspun
object => subject

Where's my editor? He's fired.
490 posted on 02/17/2003 6:53:56 PM PST by unspun (Christ-informed, American constitutional republic: Yes. Libertarian & objectivist revisionism: No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
FYI,

Kolmogorov complexity is a modern notion of randomness dealing with the quantity of information in individual objects; that is, pointwise randomness rather than average randomness as produced by a random source. It was proposed by A.N. Kolmogorov in 1965 to quantify the randomness of individual objects in an objective and absolute manner. This is impossible by classical probability theory (a branch of measure theory satisfying the so-called Kolmogorov axioms formulated in 1933).

491 posted on 02/17/2003 6:59:12 PM PST by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Reflective of the objectivists in FR. Ever play Dungeons and Dragons? They would be "chaotic neutral."
492 posted on 02/17/2003 7:07:28 PM PST by unspun (Christ-informed, American constitutional republic: Yes. Libertarian & objectivist revisionism: No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Like I said, a physicist I ain't. My education is in zoology, systems ecology and I am a member of the Institute of Ecology and Evolutionary Science.
493 posted on 02/17/2003 7:07:43 PM PST by gitmo ("The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain." GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
If creationism is such a "threat" to science ...

Creationism as a science is a joke, not a threat. It's no more a threat to evolution than astrology is to astonomy. The threat that creationism presents is not to science, but to the education system. The threat comes from misguided people who want to insert creationism into the schools, pretending that it's an alternative scientific theory that deserves to be presented to students along with evolution.

494 posted on 02/17/2003 7:11:44 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"The threat that creationism presents is not to science, but to the education system."

Well then I guess we're all pretty dang stupid for sending creationists up into space in front of all those kids who really need to be "educated."

495 posted on 02/17/2003 7:16:41 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew (I hate NASCAR. It's so . . . .racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Or, put another way, creationism is no more a "threat" to the education system than an accordion is a "threat" to deer.
496 posted on 02/17/2003 7:22:17 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew (Felix the Cat had a bag of tricks. So does the evolutionist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"The threat comes from misguided people who want to insert creationism into the schools, pretending that it's an alternative scientific theory that deserves to be presented to students along with evolution."

Evolution was a pretty decent theory back in its day, but history won't be kind to it.

Looking back at how much DNA evidence (e.g. Base 2 mathematical instructions, processing data and commands, etc.) was ignored or denied in order to prop up the last days of Darwinism, I would suspect that most historians will be very unkind to those of its last defenders...

497 posted on 02/17/2003 7:25:17 PM PST by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Creationism as a science is a joke."

Very well then. What kind of wisdom would send adherents to a "joke" into outer space on taxpayer funds?

498 posted on 02/17/2003 7:33:20 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew (Felix the Cat had a bag of tricks. So does the evolutionist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Thank you so much for your post!

Creationism is no more a "threat" to science than an accordion is a "threat" to deer.

It troubles me when there is resistance to questions raised from any quarter. My motto:

Truth is not threatened by inquiry; therefore, resistance to inquiry is prima facie cause for such inquiry.

499 posted on 02/17/2003 8:02:23 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
First, there is no distinction whatsoever between data, programs, and the computer itself. The distinction used for conventional purposes is purely an artifact of the way we design computers on silicon and is not a universal property of computers.

Well, I won't argue mathematics with a mathematician. :-)

Second, all computers that we have to worry about for the purpose of this discussion (such as DNA) are Turing machines.
Hmmm... but the DNA system has both digital and analog components. (Ex.: the genes' sequences and the amounts which they get expressed.) Can analog components be part of Turing machines too?
500 posted on 02/17/2003 9:55:22 PM PST by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 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