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:
Remember that if your opponent has no direct knowledge of the science involved, and is merely claiming truth because "I read it somewhere", this constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. Point this out to him. One should always be able to explain the logic and science behind one's argument rather than simply making vague reference to an anonymous source.
Since these arguments are actually second hand arguments, demand to see the original source for his claim. When you see the source, check the credentials of the author. If they aren't fraudulent, check up on the university where the author got his degree. Odds are that the degree is either honorary, or it comes from a cheap diploma mill (or worse yet, one of the many church-run schools set up expressly for the purpose of handing out degrees to creationists). If you don't have the resources to check up on universities, try looking up the Talk.Origins website at www.talkorigins.org, which maintains a list of discredited creationist "experts" and their bogus credentials.
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. |
I've probably heard it before. But feel free to post a link.
Some will say that this analogy is true for art and engineering, but not for biological systems. Even though a fine painting or the Golden Gate Bridge obviously didn't just happen by chance, biological systems have ongoing processes that don't occur with paints or bridge components. I agree that this contention has some truth. However, as noted above, even in biological systems, undirected evolution of functional complexity still has theoretical problems (ie the math situation mentioned above). Therefore, I still contend that complexity, whether in biological or nonbiological systems, can give evidence for design.
One more comment. Some scientists simply say that an intelligent design hypothesis has no place in science. However, this assumption is generally made without scientific support as to why it is true. In fact, the search for intelligent design is used all the time in certain aspects of science. For instance, forensic science tries to discern if a possible crime was an accident or "designed." Similarly, archeological science looks for evidence of design and seeks the identity of the designers.
Some people counter this argument by saying that for archeology or crime cases, we know there could be an intelligent person behind the observation (ie we know that people commit crimes or make artifacts). On the other hand, in the case of living systems, we haven't ever seen one originated by a personal designer.
One flaw with this response is that the same criticism can apply to saying evolution produced very diverse creatures. We have never seen a new creature arise simply by random, natural processes. In making this statement, I am excluding small developments created by artificial breeding. This would include fruit fly "species" that cannot mate with each other, as well as some plant breeding phenomena. These developments involve very small effects compared to what must happen to start with slime molds and evolve biochemists and race car drivers.
There is another flaw with the "we never saw this" statement. Just because one has never seen a divine designer, doesn't automatically mean one does not exist. Unless there is reason to rule out the possibility of a designer for living species, then one is possible.
Robert DiSilvestro, Ph.D. Biochemistry
Because by definition every creature descended from some other creature by small variation. These transitional forms should fill the fossil record. Instead, all we see is morphological stasis.
One especially abrupt appearance of new forms occurred in the Cambrian explosion.
You: I've probably heard it before. But feel free to post a link.
Junior has all those links at his fingertips. Perhaps he'll take the time to give them to you. However, you really didn't answer the question, which I now repeat: "... if evolution had an explanation for those, would you then abandon ID?"
OK. I don't get it.
As far as I can tell, the "daughter species" gets isolated geographically from the "parent species." Over time, members of the daughter species mutate. Eventually the cumulative effect of the variations makes it impossible for members of the daughter species to mate with members of the parent species.
So far so good?
My problem is, somewhere along the line one member of the daughter species mutated enough to become reproductively isolated from the parent species. But at the same time that creature must necessarily be reproductively isolated from the other members of the daughter species, unless an opposite sex member of the daughter species mutated comparably simultaneously.
It would certainly affect my opinion. I don't know whether it would be decisive. Like everyone else, my judgement is based on my assessment of all of the evidence that I have seen. As in the case of the woodpecker, I usually find the ID or Creationist explanation to better conform to the evidence.
I am quoting my initial quote.
To answer your question, yes, a rock bridge can form by natural process.
Not only does that sort of thing not happen in nature, but they sat there for years trying to cause that to happen with fruit flies which produce new generations every few days and could not figue a way to. Kind of like saying that a time machine or a faster than light volkswagon is too complicated for man to build but, if you wait long enough, it'll just sort of come together naturally...
Don't picture a breeding population as a point along a spectrum, picture them as a cloud of dots, denser in the center and sparser on the fringes. When a daughter population is split from the group, picture that dense center splitting and gradually moving apart. For awhile the fringes are quite capable of intermixing, but as the dense centers move farther and farther apart the fringes become less and less interactive until there is nothing linking the two clouds any more.
We are about to embark into a circular argument that can go both ways. The question is Intelligent Design and I understand the natural design argument that you are about to pose
But your argument is that everything occurred naturally Life, the Universe, and everything. That being the case, I will stick with Douglas Adams answer of 42 it makes as much sense. It is meaningless.
If I understand the following reference correctly, the base pairs under discussion are in fact identical.
Secondly, that would be an example of devolution - making a species less fit. Mutations seem to do that.
True, most mutations are harmful. However, this particualr one did not decrease the fitness of the organism, as it preusmably ate fruit, like modern people and chimps do. It did decrease the fitness of 'limeys' many millenia later (that's how ascorbic acid was discovered)
one mutation made it unworkable in both man and chimp is not to be wondered at. It is a slim chance, but not an impossible coincidence.
Read the article I linked to, this isn't the only such 'coincidence'.
Lastly, the genes of different species are never the same even if they code for the same function
Not true. The genes I'm talking about are a counterexample.
Thanks for a civil reply.
A reply of the Dawkins school says, "Evolution is smarter than you are."
[picture of actual fossilized series follows]
Aquinasfan: The minor problem of the lack of fossil evidence, your example of the shell notwithstanding.
No! No! No weasely escapes. The state of the evidence, no matter how you lawyer it, cannot be a real-world barrier.
Darwin was puzzled by the fossil record, but he was only the first evolutionist. Real-deal scientists of today are not particularly baffled by the fossil record we see. For the most part, you just have to know where to dig.
The state of the evidence is not a barrier. What is the barrier?
Just an aside: what if the lurkers aren't as dumb as you're clearly hoping?
Strictly speaking, Darwin was only the first Darwinist.
It is a feature of creationist arguments that every puzzlement and every dispute that has ever taken place among evolutionists since 1859 lives on--in creationist arguments.
710 posted on 3/19/02 9:44 AM Hawaii-Aleutian by medved
Too funny---
"a time machine or a faster than light volkswagon is too complicated for man to build but, if you wait long enough, it'll just sort of come together naturally..."
Evolution is the millenium 3000 Brooklyn Bridge--hale bopp!
In 706, you told Junior:
My problem is, somewhere along the line one member of the daughter species mutated enough to become reproductively isolated from the parent species. But at the same time that creature must necessarily be reproductively isolated from the other members of the daughter species, unless an opposite sex member of the daughter species mutated comparably simultaneously.This shouldn't be happening. You don't refute. You just repeat, having ignored every correction of your absurdly bad strawman model of what punk-eek doesn't say.
You don't want to be like gore3000, do you? He's the poster boy for Holy Warriors who brazen too long and can't acknowledge error or even slink away. So now, like the flying Dutchman, he's condemned to twist in the breeze, pretending he can't see requests to explain his false claims.
Don't go there. Learn to read the other side, answer their questions, incorporate new information, correct errors, and be an intelligent participant in an intelligent dialogue.
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.