Warning, long winded entry

   Raven has posted an article about evolution in her blog, and, once again, my attempt to comment has got completely out of hand, and turned into a whole new blog post. Reproduced below are portions of Raven's post (in italics) followed by my comments. Note that Raven didn't actually write any of this, She has just copied and pasted it from elsewhere.

I found this article along time ago. I saved it in Word but the hyperlinks don't work so I cant track back to where I found this article. Anyway, I cracked up reading this because it really paints a picture about how silly some science can be.

   Or does it...?

The Fossil Record

Where are the failures in the fossil record? As far as I am aware, every fossil discovered has been a perfect example of its species. If this were the model of evolution, there ought to be 99 bad specimens for every perfect specimen, shouldn't there?

   This statement does nothing more than reveal the writer's colossal ignorance of the fossil record, and archaeology in general. There are 99 bad specimens for every perfect specimen. More, in fact. The vast majority of all fossils found are fragmentary. Why don't we hear about them? Well, because it's boring, that's why. Can you imagine reading a news report that said, "scientists today discovered 37 new fossils at a dig in Colombia. 13 are thought to be partial leg bones from some, as yet unidentified, four legged creature, 7 appear to be fragments of some kind of ribs, and seventeen are so small as to be unclassifiable." Now, can you imagine reading a news report that sounds just like that every day? The fact is, the finding of perfect, complete examples of fossilized skeletons is so exceedingly rare, that when it happens, it creates such a buzz that it gets reported widely, even outside of the dry world of scientific journals. That's when people like you, and me, and the guy who wrote the above, hear about it.
   Consider this: does your local TV station report on every single fender bender that occurs every single day? Of course not, but you better believe they have pictures at eleven of the thirty car pile-up on the interstate over the weekend.

What about Cross-Breeding?

There is only one animal I know of produced by cross-breeding two different species. Mules are the product of a union between a horse and a donkey. If this is an improvement, why are there still horses and donkeys? Hmm... As a matter of fact, is it not true that mules are sterile, and the only way to produce another mule is to cross another horse with another donkey?

   I have to admit that I don't understand this question. Yes, mules are the product of a union between an ass and a horse. So? Yes, mules are sterile. So? Why do you think this has anything to do with evolution? Why wouldn't there still be horses and donkeys? This is a smoke screen of a point. It neither refutes nor supports evolution. It is a complete non-sequitur.

What about the Eye Ball?

If you want me to believe that the Theory of Evolution explains how we started from some primal soup in which nothing living existed, you have to deal with the eye ball. So the story goes that in this soup, there were no creatures with eyes, and today many creatures have eyes. So somewhere in the billions of years of evolution, there was a day when the first eye ball existed, and yesterday there was none. I could just about squeeze out a moment of credulity where I can imagine some chemical accident that would cause an eye ball to exist for the first time. But the question is how that eye ball by itself could possibly improve the survivability of the creature to which it happened to be attached.

Let's face it, to be useful, that eye ball has to be connected by way of an optic nerve to the input receptors of a brain that is able to interpret the signals from that nerve and translate what is sees in that first generation of seeing creatures into motion commands for its extremities... Sorry, but I can't believe that a serious scientist or engineer could claim with any conscience at all that this scenario has even the remotest possibility of occurring.
 
   Before I talk about the likelihood of a sensory organ like the eye evolving, I'd like to point out one sentence from the above block of text. The writer says: "But the question is how that eye ball by itself could possibly improve the survivability of thecreature to which it happened to be attached." I had to read that three times before I could believe the person had actually written it. He fails to see how the possession of eyes could possibly improve the survivability of a species? I fail to see how it couldn't. Seriously, can you honestly say that you don't see how one creature, with an improved ability to sense its environment, would have an advantage over its competitors in both finding food, and avoiding danger? To me, that's elementary reasoning.
   Ah, the eye ball; the holy grail of Michael Behe and his cronies at the Discovery Institute. They like to crow about their concept of irreducible complexity, and hold up the eye as an example. But, as usual, they simply don't understand the topic. The fact is, the eyeball didn't come first, and then afterwards develop into an organ of sight. The organ of sight came first, and slowly evolved into an eye ball, because the was the most successful adaptation nature found. Think about the basic science experiments we did back in grade school. Plant some bean seeds. Put them in the window sill. They grow toward the light. Turn the pot so that they are facing away from the light. In short order they will move back towards the light. Every golf caddie worth his salt understands this.
   The sensing of light and dark is present in virtually all organisms on the planet. Is it so much of a leap to think that those creatures who developed the ability to sense it in a more detailed manner would have an evolutionary advantage? One of the problems with the discussion of evolution at a lay person level, as I mentioned several months ago in my essay, A defence of evolution, is that it is so darned...scientific. Send someone to a link that explains some of the evolutionary forces behind the development of the eye, like this one: rhabdomeric and ciliary eyes, and their head begins to spin. The evidence supporting the theory of evolution isn't all that easy for those of us without a comprehensive science education to understand. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

The Bottom Line on Evolution

Secular Humanists cling to the Theory of Evolution like the Luddites of the Industrial Revolution. The only reason the theory is not in complete ridicule is that they can't tolerate the notion that a Supreme Being could exist with the intelligence to create the universe and all it contains. n apart  by the ever-increasing expansion in a so-called Big Rip
 
  The above paragraph seems to be a fragment of the original (hmm, like many fossils - sorry, I couldn't resist). (edit- the sentence fragment that begins after "all it contains" does not appear in the original article. I suspect Raven accidentally pasted it in there from elsewhere. I think it is safe to ignore it) The sentiment it expresses about evolution, however, is simply untrue. The basic premise of it doesn't even stand up under examination. Recent polls in the United States show that an overwhelming majority of the general public believe in a god of some kind, and for over 70% that is the Christian god. If the theory of evolution was that easy to bring into ridicule, couldn't that strong a majority of people do so? The fact is, the theory of evolution is more strongly supported by direct physical evidence than any other theory in the history of science. Sure, there are some fuzzy areas, some parts that are questioned, but is there anything in the world for which that cannot be said to be true? Stop. Before you say, "The Bible," let me warn you. I will laugh out loud at you. Toddlers in Sunday Schools are capable of bringing up questions about the Christian god and The Bible that stymie even the most confident of theistic scholars. So a certain fuzziness and questionability lives everywhere. 
   But the test of any scientific theory is in its predictiveness. Here's a fun science story for you. Evolution says that land animals originally evolved from fish. There is a certain species of prehistoric crocodile-like reptile that scientists believe was only very recently (in its time) evolved out of the water. If, in fact, this animal did evolve out of a fish, scientists expect that there should be intermediate forms to be found; creatures that show some characteristics of lizards, and some characteristics of fish. As a thought exercise, imagine what kind of environment might lead to the development of such a creature. Probably a large delta area where water levels might vary from swimming depth to wading depth todry land on a regular basis. Examining the geologic record, scientists believe that the Canadian Arctic, at about the time period they believe such an intermediate form would be found, fulfilled those environmental conditions. So, they predicted, if such a "transitional fossil" was to be found, that is where they might find it. They went, and looked, and guess what they found? Tiktaalik.
   That's a pretty accurate prediction for a theory deserving of "ridicule" I think.


   This next section is so full of fallacies and misdirections that I'm going to have to take it a few sentences at a time.

Intelligent Design
 
Before reviewing the claims of the traditional creationist (of which I am one), let's look at Intelligent Design (ID). This concept has received (with some justification) a bad name in the media. After all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to infer from the claims of ID who the designer is. However, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some serious scientists view ID as another set of arguments that lead an open-minded reader inexorably to the view that Evolution is a terrible theory, and a biblical view of creation demands far less faith.

   "Some" is an interesting word. It is, perhaps, the most vague, the least specific quantifying word in the English language. By "some scientists," what does the writer mean? He could mean several percent of all scientists, which would run into the tens of thousands, I am sure. He could mean three. I don't know what he means.
   I do know that there are several petitions out there purporting to be signed by scientists who support Intelligent Design, or at least have expressed doubt about evolution (note that those two things are not necessarily the same). In response to those petitions, The national Center for Science Education started Project Steve, a petition to be signed by scientists who support evolution, but only those who are named "Steve" (or some variation thereof, such as Stefan, or Esteban). Apparently, the name Steve represents only about 1% of the general population of the world, yet with that restriction in place, Project Steve's petition has more names on it - 764 to date - than any of the creationist (or IDist if you will) petitions out there, despite the fact that they are open to 100% of the population of the scientific world. (The Discovery Institute's Dissent From Darwin petition, for example, has approximately 600 names on it).
   Does that mean that the statement that "some scientists" doubt some facets of evolutionary theory is inaccurate? No, but it does indicate that those scientists represent fewer than 1% of all scientific opinions out there. Another thing to consider is the wording of the statement. The writer of this article has said that some scientists think that "evolution is a terrible theory." The Dissent From Darwin petition, circulated by The Discovery Institute is somewhat more mildly worded: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Again, not the same thing at all. How many of those 600 would have signed that petition if it had used the former language?

Just one example from the boundless ID examples available. If you take the evolutionist's view of creation, you begin with a bunch of random sub-atomic particles floating in space and over the course of a long time, these particles happen to align themselves in such a way as to assemble this earth and all its living creatures. Remember, either this is a vast collection of random events, or there must be some intelligent design assembling stuff...

   This is a wonderful argument to look at, because the writer has managed to combine two different logical fallacies into one statement! The first is called a false dichotomy. He has tried to get us to accept that the two options he presents - a collection of random events, or God-diddit - are the only two options available for consideration. The truth is that there are many different possible explanations we could throw around. For example, maybe God did some of it, and the rest was random. Or, maybe the entire universe exists just as it is, has always existed just as it is, and will always exist just as it is, and our memories of the past are simply hallucinations.
   Another possibility leads us to the second fallacy, our old friend the straw man. The writer would have us believe that the scientist's position is that everything happens randomly. That is not the case at all. Yes, the scientist would agree that we started with "a bunch of random sub-atomic particles floating in space and over the course of a long time, these particles happen to align themselves in such a way as to assemble this earth and all its living creatures." However, he would maintain that the process was far from random. It has been governed by the laws of physics that rule the universe. Laws like the conservation of matter and energy, the principles of thermodynamics, gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. These forces guide the way every single piece of matter and energy in our universe interact in very non-random and predictable ways.
   So the statement made above has no meaning as it is expressed. It certainly provides no logical support for Intelligent Design, or creationism.

...So you vote for random? OK, consider this. I want to build a house the Evolutionist's way. Since no design is permitted, I load up a truck with all the materials necessary to build the house, back it up to the job site and tip them into a pile. Did it make a house? No? OK, fetch another load. Or, I suppose you could just stir up the pile you have ... a few times ...!!!

   Ah, yes, the old hurricane in a junk yard argument, gussied up in a sharp new outfit. Let's compare the natural world to something that is, by definition, unnatural, and see if we can fool the readers into thinking our point is valid. See, no one, anywhere, claims that houses can build themselves, or slowly come together over a long period of time due to evolutionary forces. It's a bad argument. No more needs be said about it.

You say that you have a lot of time available? OK, check this link for an argument that shuts down that idea really quickly.
 
   Clearly, this link has gone missing from the original article. Luckily I have mad Google skillz, and have tracked it down. This link goes to a pdf document that appears to me to have originally been a PowerPoint slide show meant to accompanya lecture about Intelligent Design. You can go and check it out if you want,but it doesn't say anything new or interesting, and it certainly doesn't shut anything down really quickly.
   It's part of the Discovery Institute's propaganda about "Inferring Design." It goes on and on about how one goes about inferring design in things, but in the end it comes to the same old conclusion. One can conclude that things are designed because they seem that way. Another wonderful logical fallacy to kick around called the argument from ignorance, or the argument from personal incredulity. It is the platform the entire ID movement is based upon: "I can't conceive of a way that a world this complex could come about without the intervention of a higher power."
   And finally we come around to some truth in the discussion. Creationists believe in what they believe, because they believe it. It doesn't matter where one begins in this discussion, the endpoint is always exactly the same. When asked why they believe in evolution, a scientist can quote a hundred and fifty years of real world, practical, hard evidence to support their claims. When asked why they believe in divine creation, a creationist can only say, "because it is what I have decided to believe."
   In fact, if you visit the web site where the original article appears, you will see that this writer has decided to believe in a number of interesting things, including his very own interpretation of the book of Genesis, and a pre-Garden of Eden bible story that he has completely invented all by himself. This is certainly a source to which it is worth paying attention (sorry, a little bit of sarcasm leaked in there).

EVOLUTION - A word with so many meanings. This web page <www.creationism.org> for example, is evolving in content and breadth. This is to say that it is undergoing change and directed (non-random) improvement...

   I have snipped this part of the entry because it is nothing more than more building of straw men. You can read it in Raven's blog, or in context at its original web site here: http://www.creationism.org/topbar/evolution.htm. I wouldn't waste too much time on it, though, as it is nothing more than another misrepresentation of the scientific concepts involved in the study of our natural world.

OK, here's the last bit.
 
I found this on the Internet. Again, I dont have the link for it.
 
I attended a lecture by Dr. Stephen W. Hawking on November 7, 2005 in San Jose. His spiritual presence seemed to surround and captivate the audience as his eyes pierced through eyelids that gently flickered to the sound of his computerized voice announcing, "God chose, for reasons we cannot know, the moment of creation, but it began 15 billion years ago when all galaxies were clustered."

As I sat in row seven, seat thirty-seven, I soon realized that the wheel chair carrying Hawking’s frail, listless body contained one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th and 21st century, a soul’s lifetime journey into the origin of the Universe. Stephen Hawking's heartfelt proclamation to us, "We are quantum fluctions in the universe." And, he briefly mentioned that ‘extra dimensions are curled up like a donut’!

After his lecture, a very young girl appeared in the audience carrying a fresh bouquet of red roses with sprigs of baby breath. She proceeded to walk-up the stairs onto the stage then placed the flowers onto the lap of Stephen Hawking. It was a moving experience which he immediately responded to her gesture by saying, "God bless you." Everyone stood up and applauded!

   I don't get it. What is that supposed to mean? Is it supposed to demonstrate that Steven Hawking believes in God? He might. That wouldn't change in any way the value of the work he has done in the scientific community. Still, I don't think the story really does demonstrate that at all.
   See, here's the thing. When I am with my family, and my wife, or my son sneeze, I say, "God bless you." Does that mean I believe in God? Clearly not, because there is no secret about the fact that I do not. That's just what you say when someone sneezes. I've thought about it quite a bit, and I can't even put into words exactly what the sentiment is we are expressing with that statement. Originally, it was to prevent evil spirits from invading one's body while one's defenses were down. Today we know how silly that is, but we still say it. Even when a Christian says it after a sneeze, it is still meaningless. It's just what you say.
   In the same way, Dr. Hawking may simply have been being polite to the young lady who gave him flowers. Whether or not Stephen Hawking believes in God is, at best, uncertain. He has made different statements at different times some of which have been ambiguous, and some of which have been contradictory. One Christian writer expounding on the topic said that Hawking's beliefs would most likely be described as agnostic, or deist at best. Arguing that science is wrong because Stephen Hawking might believe in a god is a silly thing to do anyway. It's like arguing that cooking with butter is bad because Julia Child once mentioned the word margarine.

   It was my intention to respond to the comments Raven made here following my A poor argument entry of last week. I copied and pasted all of them (there were six) into a text document, and spent some time poring over them, but really couldn't make much sense out of what they seemed to say. I'm really not sure why she contends that, in order to believe there was a "big bang" it is necessary to believe that there was "nothing" prior to it; that the universe came into being at that time and that there was nothing extant before that. I understand the argument she is trying to make, but I don't accept her basic opening premise, so I don't think her argument is valid.
   In essence, Raven's argument is exactly the same as what I have talked about above. She believes what she believes because that is what she believes. It is not possible to equate an acceptance of a scientific theory that is very strongly supported by hard evidence with a belief in the existence of a supreme being for which there is no evidence of any kind.
   You are welcome to try again, Raven, but don't try and tell me what I "must" believe again, OK?

tags: Skepticism,