Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Pseudoscience is a scientific-sounding argument which in fact has no scientific validity whatsoever. This type of argument is based on the fact that the average layperson knows so little about science that he or she is liable to judge a scientific argument solely on its style and presentation (eg- "does it sound scientific?", or "does it incorporate scientific-sounding terms?") for lack of any other method of judging its validity.
Suggested Tactics
This type of creationist argument is difficult for most people to defend against, unless they are fairly knowledgeable about science (that's why it's so popular with creationists- they may not know anything about science, but they're gambling that you don't either). In my case, I simply call upon my knowledge of certain basic scientific principles that I learned in university, but I can't instruct everyone to do this, since not everyone has a technical background.
Therefore, it's difficult for me to recommand tactics for laypeople to counteract this sort of argument, but we should keep in mind that creationist pseudoscience arguments are almost never generated out of the mind of the creationist himself. They all tend to come from the same widely distributed pool of creationist literature, which is one of the reasons that creationists all over the world tend to spout the same pseudoscience arguments. I can offer the following suggestions:
Examples follow:
"Occam's Razor is a scientific principle which says that when faced with two theories, we should always choose the simplest theory. Evolution theory requires billions of years of chemical reactions, environmental effects, and genetic mutations. Creation theory simply says "God did it". Creation theory is obviously simpler, therefore Occam's Razor demands that we must select Creation theory on scientific grounds."
This is perhaps the single most moronic creationist idea I've ever heard (it's also been used to "prove" the existence of God, by arguing that the concept of God is much simpler than the study of science). It's a classic example of creationist pseudoscience. They learn the term "Occam's Razor" and they learn just enough about its definition to abuse it, but they make no effort whatsoever to learn its true meaning.
"Choose the simplest theory" is an oversimplification of the concept of Occam's Razor. The term is named after the 14th century philosopher and theologian William of Occam. It might strike some as strange that a scientific principle might have come from a theologian, but good scientists do not practice appeals to authority or ad hominem attacks. If an idea makes sense, it doesn't matter who it came from, and the universal acceptance of Occam's Razor is a perfect example of that philosophy.
In any case, he argued that we should never "multiply entities unnecessarily". In other words, cut out extraneous terms from an equation. He used that principle (which is really just an argument against redundancy) to show that it was impossible to deduce God's existence through reason alone, so one would have to take it purely on faith. The irony is that a theologian realized that there was no logical basis for God's existence more than 600 years ago but modern fundamentalists still can't figure it out, and actually use his name to "prove" the exact opposite of what he himself argued!
For those who cannot appreciate the simplicity of Occam's Razor in its original form, Isaac Newton restated it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." In plain English, when faced with two scientific theories which make the same predictions, choose the simpler theory. Or, as Stephen Hawking put it: "Cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed." (taken from A Brief History of Time).
Like all scientific principles, Occam's Razor is accepted not because William of Occam said it, but because it makes sense. You don't need to appeal to authority or take its validity on faith. If you are faced with two competing theories between which you have no other method of deciding, is it not obvious that the theory containing extra or unverifiable terms must therefore contain redundancies? The fact that the simpler theory can accomplish the same descriptive and predictive feats while utilizing fewer terms and not relying on unverifiable or unobservable phenomena is evidence of superiority.
Consider the analogy of two mechanical devices for making widgets. Both perform exactly the same function. In repeated, exhaustive tests, both are shown to produce exactly the same quality of widget, at the same rate, with the same raw materials. Both produce the same amount of waste. Both consume the same amount of electrical power. They cost the same. In other words, their performance is identical in every measurable way. The only noticeable difference is that device #1 is much simpler than device #2. It contains fewer components and mechanisms, and its operating principle is therefore simpler. Which one would you choose?
Suppose the salesman for device #2 is quite upset that you are leaning toward device #1, and he promises to do better. The next day, he returns with a new device (we'll call it device #3) which is completely sealed in black plastic (the classic "black box"). He says it's the latest, most advanced widget-making machine in the world. You feed it electricity and raw materials, and it spits out widgets. Its performance is no different from device #1 and device #2, but it is not user servicable. You can't see inside to figure out how it works, and the salesman refuses to let you see diagrams or schematics, ostensibly because the operation of the machine is beyond both your intellectual capacity and his. The salesman argues that device #3 is actually simpler than both device #1 and #2 because it has just one component: the black box. Does this make sense to you? Again, which device would you choose?
Occam's Razor is merely a name given to a logical and intuitively obvious thought process of eliminating redundancies. It cannot be used to choose between competing theories whose predictions are vastly different, any more than the simplicity of a drill press can be used to prove that it's superior to a fighter plane. Now that we are equipped with an understanding of the reasoning behind Occam's Razor, we can list some of the reasons that it cannot be used to support either creationism or the existence of God:
The use of Occam's Razor to "prove" the existence of God or the validity of Biblical literalism is a classic example of creationist pseudoscience, because it is so emblematic of their method: take a real principle and grossly misinterpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it truly means.
"The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. It states that complexity cannot be spontaneously created, so it is impossible for natural processes to create a complex organism from a simple organism!"
This is one of the oldest, and most popular creationist pseudoscience arguments. It's been kicking around for more than a century, thanks to general public ignorance of thermodynamics. In fact, it's wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start! Perhaps we should start at the beginning, with the definition of the second law of thermodynamics. According to my engineering thermodynamics textbook, the second law of thermodynamics has two basic postulates:
That's a lot different from "complexity cannot be spontaneously created", isn't it? Big surprise- creationists don't know anything about thermodynamics. Now that we've established their bizarre misconception about the second law of thermodynamics, we should try to understand what strange mental contortions were necessary to go from "the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" to "complexity cannot be spontaneously created."
Upon further questioning, creationists invariably reveal the following beliefs about the second law:
These three beliefs are all completely wrong, and they all indicate a frightening ignorance of scientific principles. Let us examine each belief separately:
This argument has been so thoroughly disproven, so many times in so many ways, that it's almost comical when people keep bringing it up. They might as well just tattoo their foreheads with the words "scientific ignoramus."
"By taking a random mixture of elements and analysing the probability of elements randomly forming into the correct combinations and orientations to make a simple amino acid, I can show that it is probabilistically impossible for the simplest amino acid to form, never mind the first living cell. Therefore, a Creator must have formed the first organisms, if not all of them."
This argument is invalid for the following reasons:
I should also note that this argument is generally coupled with the fallacious reasoning that "anything we don't understand is proof of divine intervention." Poorly understood phenomena are not invalidations of science- they are opportunities for scientific investigation. If we treat every gap in our understanding as proof of divine intervention, we would be no better than the tribal primitives who attributed divine intervention to everything from solar eclipses to rain. Visit the Probability page if you want to know more.
"Some older species fossils can be found on top of newer fossils. This inconsistency in your so-called 'progressionism' proves that creation theory is correct, since it means that all species were created at the same time."
More bad science, since this only occurs with animal remains that are on the surface. What happens is that severe erosion or a geological upheaval can occasionally expose strata bearing fossils, and of course, when Skippy the Dog runs away and dies near these old fossils, the "Young Earth Creationist" crowd immediately interprets this as disproof of the entire fossil record, the entire field of geology, the age of the Earth, etc.
As usual, their argument is based on ignorance of proper scientific method. This evidence would be disproof of the fossil record if it was impossible to rationalize its existence with that record. However, that is simply not the case. Geologists can examine patterns in the rock to determine whether a region is old or new, cross-cut, the result of upheaval, etc. It is the creationists who will look at a region, assume its age without using proper methodology, and then use fossil findings in that region to "disprove" geology and evolution theory.
"Evolution can explain changes in a species, but where does a whole new species come from? Speciation is the downfall of Evolution Theory!"
This is another case of creationists projecting their own pseudoscientific attitudes onto evolution theory. In this case, they are predisposed to believe that the creation of a species is a sudden, dramatic event at some fixed moment in time. One moment there's species A, and then the next moment there's species B. Much as God created Man from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib, they imagine that "evolutionists" describe evolution creating a man directly from an ape. But evolution theory does not work that way.
Speciation is not a sudden, miraculous transformation from one species to another. The way creationists envision evolution theory, a pregnant female ape went into labour one day and a human being popped out! It is a gross understatement to say that this is a misrepresentation of the truth. In reality, evolution theory merely proposes that a great many small changes eventually caused an animal population to become intersterile with its ancestors.
Of course, this would mean that there should be fossil evidence of various intermediate stages between successful species, and there is. Naturally, creationists explain all of the evidence away by pointing the finger at their favourite whipping boy: the global conspiracy of evil scientists, who work tirelessly to cover up the truth and fabricate false evidence. These people watch "X-Files" too damned much.
"I know we've observed micro-evolution, but what about macro-evolution? There is no evidence for macro-evolution!"
The creationist invention of the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is a good example of how they try to mutilate the terms of science to their own advantage. Biologists do not differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, any more than mathematicians differentiate between micro-addition and macro-addition.
Their argument that there is no evidence for "macroevolution" is ridiculous because "macroevolution" is simply the result of adding a lot of "microevolution" together, and "microevolution" is, by their own admission, completely supported by various forms of evidence.
The other problem for this argument is that there actually is evidence to directly support what they describe as "macroevolution", and it's called "the fossil record". It's evidence because it is consistent with prediction. Of course, that's not enough for the creationists- they demand direct observation of massive evolutionary change in living animals, even though they know that we would have to observe living animals for millions of years in order to obtain the evidence they seek. Can you see the problem with this demand? It's pretty obvious- they are deliberately asking for a form of evidence which is impossible to obtain (millions of years of direct observation), and ignoring a form of evidence (the fossil record) which is relatively easy to obtain.
The universe operates on tiny processes, affecting tiny particles, which add up in tremendous numbers to cause large changes. If someone is going to claim that a slow, steady process cannot create large-scale changes given sufficient time, he had better provide some evidence and reasoning, rather than simply stating it as a fact and demanding impossible forms of evidence to disprove it. Are we to assume that all gradual processes eventually hit "brick walls" and stop, for mysterious and unknown reasons?
Do we question tectonic plate theory on the basis that we've observed small-scale tectonic plate movement but not large-scale tectonic plate movement? Do we insist that no one should believe in tectonic plate theory until we've been able to observe it for millions of years, so we can see long-distance movements firsthand? Do we deny the possibility of large-scale rock erosion because we've only seen small scale rock erosion? Why would a gradual process like tectonic plate movement, rock erosion, or evolution suddenly stop after an arbitrary length of time? What would make it stop? Why make this ridiculous distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution?" Where is the line drawn between the two? What causes the barrier? These are questions that the creationists don't attempt to ask or answer, because like O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers, they're not serious about uncovering the truth. They just want to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of a gullible audience.
The "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument is an example of creationists projecting their own mentality onto evolution, and then attacking the resulting strawman, ironically, for the very aspects that come from creationism. Creationism describes separate and distinct species: "each according to its kind". Creationists therefore make the same assumption: species are separate, indivisible, and disconnected. When they project this mentality onto evolution, they run into an obvious problem: there is no way for the process of evolution to "jump" over the invisible "barrier" between species. The problem is that they are assuming that this barrier exists! The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are not found in biology; they are creationist inventions. Gradual changes eventually add up, and can turn one species into two, or they can cause a species to change so much that it becomes a distinct species from its predecessors.
As a thought experiment, consider human beings. It is generally assumed that any male/female pair of healthy human beings can produce children. But biological reproduction is a complex process, and it requires great genetic commonality. We know that two modern human beings can produce children, but what about a modern woman and a man from ten thousand years ago? What about a modern woman and a man from fifty thousand years ago? Is there still enough genetic commonality? Species are not delineated by distinct, clear boundaries. Rather, they are defined by intersterility and overt physical characteristics, and there is no "barrier" between species for the process of evolution to hurdle. |
Now I know you're getting the Duane Gish version. "One day a lizard gave birth to a bird. But where was another bird for that one to mate with?"
The whole population drifts along together. At any given time, all the males are compatible with all the females, outside a few bad matches.
Also, the change is more gradualistic even with punk-eek than what Duane told you. For instance, Note that there was many a step from dino to bird.
It is full of transitional fossils. Heck, every animal that ever lived is a transitional form. You are a transitional form if the human race doesn't suddenly become extinct. Even transitional fossils will be fully functional, integrated organisms because they were well adapted for the environment they found themselves in. Their daughter species adapted to the environment as it changed or they ceased to exist. It's not like one day area X was tropical and the next day it was arctic, or that sea levels rose or fell dozens of feet overnight -- even the "abrupt" changes in the environment are only abrupt on a geological scale and actually take dozens of generations, allowing plenty of time for species to adapt or not. Below are several links on such things as "macroevolution," speciation and transitional fossils (hint: they do exist).
Macroevolution, Speciation and Transitional Species
29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Thread The Next (2001-04-02)
African Elephants Are Now One of Two Kinds [Elephant Evolution] (2001-08-24)
All About Archaeopteryx {Chris Nedin, Talk Origins, January 15, 1999}
Archaeopteryx FAQs, The {Chris Nedin, Talk Origins, 1995-1997}
Archaeopteryx's Relationship With Modern Birds {Thomas Holtz, Jr., 1995}
Biologists Uncover Darwin's Missing Evidence for Divergence of Species in a Warbler's Song (2001-01-19)
DNA and Darwin: Research Shows that Evolution Repeats Itself in Caribbean Lizards (2001-04-07)
Evidence for Dinosaur-Bird Transition, The (A Sidebar Thread) (2001-07-09)
Macroevolution {John Wilkins, Talk Origins, 1997}
Macro-Evolution versus Moses (Several Parts) (1999-12-14)
Magic of Evolutionary Speciation, The [Part II] (2000-04-02)
Magic of Evolutionary Speciation, The [Part III] (2000-04-11)
Observed Instances of Speciation {Joseph Boxhorn, Talk Origins, September 1, 1995}
Process of Speciation, The {University of Michigan, 1996}
Speciation {Kimball's Biology Pages, December 1, 2001}
Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium {Don Lindsay}
Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists (2000-05-18)
Study Hints at How Genetic Mutations Led to Macroevolutionary Change (2002-02-07)
Ted Holden's "Intermediate Fossil" Quotes from Walter ReMine's "Biotic Message" {Andrew MacRae}
Transitional Fossils -- Age and Descent {Wesley R. Elsberry}
Transitional Fossils Leading to Orbulina {April 26, 1998}
Transitional Fossils FAQ {Kathleen Hunt}
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ {Kathleen Hunt, Talk Origins, March 17, 1997}
Water Lily Study Sheds Light on Evolution of Flowering Plants {Scientific American}
2) The only other materialistic explanation for the development of new species is punctuated equilibria, which requires spectacular, massive, beneficial mutations simultaneously in two creatures, one male and one female. Both creatures must then find each other and mate. This ludicrous impossibility must happen many times within a "species" and then innumerable times in history to create all existing species. The theory is simply laughable.
No it doesn't require mutations in two individuals. The speciation in punctuated equilibrium does not happen overnight. It still takes dozens of generations during which beneficial genes spread throughout a population. It only looks like it happens abruptly on a GEOLOGICAL SCALE.
Where have you picked up such strange ideas in regards to evolution? It wasn't out of any text book or scientific treatise on the subject, unless you simply misunderstood what was being presented. Hell, my last biology class was as a college sophomore 17 years ago, and I understand the basics of the theory.
The fossil record is indeed full of transitionals-- previous posts have linked to threads showing the transitional fossils between fish and amphibians, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, between ruminants and whales, between primates and humans, and on and on. Of course, each fossil is a "fully functional, integrated organism"; that's exactly what evolution predicts. It has to be to stay alive and pass on its genes to the next generation. It just is a fully functional, integrated organism that happens to have, in the case of transitional whales, both hip bones and flippers.
2) The only other materialistic explanation for the development of new species is punctuated equilibria, which requires spectacular, massive, beneficial mutations simultaneously in two creatures, one male and one female. Both creatures must then find each other and mate. This ludicrous impossibility must happen many times within a "species" and then innumerable times in history to create all existing species. The theory is simply laughable.
Punctuated equilibrium requires no such thing. Punk-eek speaks of evolution as happening relatively quickly, in geologic time-- e.g., over tens of thousands of years rather than the hundreds of thousands predicted by classical darwinism-- not all in one generation. And a mutation doesn't have to occur in both a male and a female; if one of them has it, half their offspring will have it, and if it confers a reproductive advantage, more of the next generation will have it, and so on.
Dig in the right place and you will find those elusive transitionals. = They haven't found the right place yet. No evidence.
..we had no fossil record of really early man until we looked in East Africa. There, we collected tidbits from diverse areas, glued them together, called it "evidence" and got grants for more research.
Imbedded in this response is the Sagan-esque tact that says "If you can't observe facts that support your theory - just add more time to the theory! Eventually, you will have a model that permits the possibily that anything could have happened."
These explainations contain so many twists that I have to ask that age old question: How do you have enough faith to believe that?
This has been fun, hasn't it?
Russ
If you get a counterfeit bill from the bank and get caught passing it---you are stuck with it?
I was surprised to find out when I was in college...even the post office wouldn't let me return damaged stamps!
Even the mother of theology is philosophy--it all--science begins and ends in your mind--soul--self!
You shouldn't pass bogus bills--thoughts.
If you want to be in science--reality...you have to know the difference between possibility and probability!
That would be a good start!
Where are the duds? The transitional forms with half-developed eyes? Half-developed nervous systems, etc.?
Punk-eek speaks of evolution as happening relatively quickly, in geologic time-- e.g., over tens of thousands of years rather than the hundreds of thousands predicted by classical darwinism-- not all in one generation.
And how is this is different from differentiation by small mutation?
And a mutation doesn't have to occur in both a male and a female; if one of them has it, half their offspring will have it, and if it confers a reproductive advantage, more of the next generation will have it, and so on.
Not if it's a giant step. Either you have variation by small mutation which would result in a fossil record full of transitional duds, or you have variation by large mutation which necessitates the simultaneous, spontaneous, miraculous appearance of both a male and female of the same new species.
For what? Bats?
There, we collected tidbits from diverse areas, glued them together, called it "evidence" and got grants for more research.
You've proven something here. You've proven that there's no making you see.
The Hominid Fossils. Please identify which one you're critiquing here.
This has been fun, hasn't it?
Well, it certainly must have been easy to toss off. But then, you didn't really do a thing, did you?
This is getting pathetic. Every degree of visual sensor and nervous system are present in existing species today.
You're an example what happens when someone gets all his science from pamphlets.
What is a half-developed eye? Your skin is a half-developed eye in that it can sense light but does not resolve an image. Some single-celled critters can detect light, and simple invertebrates such as brine shrimp have eye spots that also just detect light. Farther up the scale are the arthropod eyes that can detect shades of light and movement. Then you've got eyes that can resolve only black and white, or some colors. But then again, you've got insect eyes which can resolve colors well into the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. What do you consider a half-developed eye?
As for half-developed nervous systems, what would you consider that to be? Would it be the stimulus-response receptors found on jelly-fish, the non-centralized nervous system of the starfish, the ganglia-controlled stimulus-response system of insects? You need to be a little clearer.
It isn't, and that's the point.
I don't think you are quite getting this. There is no giant, spontaneous leap from one species to the next. It is a gradual movement of the entire population over many, many generations. Any really badly adapted critters die off and the well-adapted critters pass their improved genes on to the next generation.
Or the fledgling chordate nervous system of Amphioxus?
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.