Evolution and creationism

Great Debates
141

[quote=There exists, even if you aren’t aware of what they are specifically, apparent contradictions within geology as it relates to evolution.[/quote]

I don’t know how I missed this but it’s bullshit. No such geological “contradictions” exist with regard to evolution. Sometimes creationists use spurious, very superficial and misleading arguments which depend on the audience’s complete ignorance of geology, but it does not take more than a few minutes of research to debunk.

The fact that the OP believes that creationists have raised any valid objections or “contradictions” or anything which requires any difficulty to refute makes me dubious that he has really done much reading on the subject.

Moreover, the OP seems to be under the impression that confirming evolution is in some way dependant on refuting creationism. It isn’t. We can know (not have “faith”) that all creationist arguments will be bunk, not because we have a catalogue of responses to every objection they might raise, but bcause we have already proven that evolution is true.

I know I have a green car. It is not necessary for me to have “faith” in order to know that anyone who tells me my car is red will be wrong.

142

What is my point? There is a parallel in the way in which an evolutionist and a creationist processes new information.

A creationist viewpoint is wrong, but at least it is internally consistent ON SOME LEVEL. Until I had my little “aha” moment, I kept thinking creationists must be completely deluded to not see the basis for evolution. While I long ago assumed creationists ignore the stuff that doesn’t fit, and shape the other stuff to fit, it hadn’t occurred to me that I do it, too. Maybe not to the same degree, but I do. All of us do.

Why does it matter? It doesn’t. I put it in MPOINTLESSSIMS.

It is easy to look at creationism and say, “complete bunk” once you’ve invested time and energy understanding bombardier beetles, He in the atmosphere, Grand Canyon canards, fossils at the top of mountains, irreducibly complex, etc. But before you’ve invested that time and energy, maybe, must maybe, those things aren’t so easy to discard.

Let’s look at the bombardier beetle for a moment. From talkorgins, the first step in the evolution of the beetle is thus:

Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]

That one sentence is loaded in hours of research to verify. If any part of that sentence can be shown to be false, the entire rest of the argument falls apart.

To an evolutionist, we might take this sentence at face value, assuming the validity of it, comfortable in the knowledge that talkorigins has provided a cite that we can verify if we so choose. A creationist might provide their own cite which contradicts some portion of this first sentence. So now the argument over the cites begins. And down and down it goes. This is the spiral I referred to in the OP. Soon, hopefully, we reach a point where we can look at the creationist cite and say, “wrong!” and move back up a level. But now I’m only back to the first line in the first argument about the first animal.

An evolutionist hears about the beetle and it sounds complex, and there isn’t a clear path in their mind on how this might evolve naturally. I certainly don’t know enough about arthropods and their development to pull that 15 step development out of the air. It is about at this level that I “blindly accept” the path offered is viable. I haven’t verified it and should a creationist put forth any arguments against it, I’d dismiss them because I’m certain that eventually the arguments would be shown to be false.

A creationist, hearing a bombardier beetle has such complexity, stops right there. It is about this level they “blindly accept” the argument it is irreducibly complex. They haven’t verified it and should an evolutionist put forth any arguments against it, they would dismiss them because they would be certain the arguments would be shown to be false.

If I’ve argued this too passionately, that is my own failing. I never dreamed the concept I laid out would be met with such… vehemence. I put it in MPSIMS in the hopes people would realize there was never an argument against evolution to be had. It was a point about the biases we all have and which drive our understanding of the world in which we live. This internal bias is common to all us, no matter who you are. And it is this bias which allows us to look at something and say, “hogwash” or “hey, another fact to fit my understanding”.

143

I think you’re just wrong that evolution relies on any internal bias. Even if the bombadier beetle biology seems daunting, the fact still remains that you have the ability to verify if you want to. You don’t HAVE to take the talkorigins article at face value. For “Goddidit” arguments, you do have to take it at face value. There is no data, not even esoteric or complex data, to review for yourself.

144

Yes, you are fortunate to have the “aha” moment. I call it breakthough thinking, if you can consider the “why” of your opponents thinking, your own “why” becomes apparent also. This is real knowledge and understanding. Wish you many more “aha” moments in your life.

145

A strawman argument is one you set up only to tear down.

From wiki: As a rhetorical term, “straw man” describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a “straw man” argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous.

146

Yes, I know what it is.

147

I need to clarify this, as I realize it doesn’t make sense as it is being interpreted.

I know there are not any contradictions within geology today. I’m sorry I made it appear that is what I’m claiming.

Instead, I meant to say that to the uneducated, there can appear to be contradictions. Much like the old 1=2 proof that ultimately relies on a false operation, there are probably things within geology that with a little knowledge can appear to be contradictory. Those contradictions clear up as you dig deeper (pun intended), but they can appear to be there.

Evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. Confirming evolution does require you to disprove creationism. But you certainly make a good point that since evolution is proved creationism must be disproved. However, and I don’t mean to brush this off, it really isn’t a part of the point I was trying to make.

148

For example?

No it doesn’t.

149

I have done best to follow this thread, though I must admit that at times it reminds me of back in my college days when we would blaze up a fatty and then sit around and say things like “have you ever really looked at your hand, man?” and think that we were being deep. Never the less, I will offer the following:

While it is true that there are many things that science tells me that I believe without verifying it experimentally or personally doing the math, it is false to say that this is an act of faith on my part. It would be far more accurate to say that this is based on earned trust. Science is an open book. Should one be so inclined, one can verify any of the things that science tells us. Moreover, as a discipline, science is concerned only with the truth and with further understanding how the world works.

You just can’t say the same about religion. Religion, as far as I can tell, is based on believing in things that cannot be verified experimentally by anyone. Now personally, I think that this does more harm than good to a society, and it leads to some pretty muddy thinking surrounding things that we can prove, but that is a matter for a different debate.

My point is that I do not believe in evolution out of faith, even though I have not personally devoted years of my life to understanding it. I believe in evolution because I have at least a basic understanding of how the scientific method works and because all of the findings of this discipline are there for me to see, should I be so inclined.

150

You know, I really, REALLY wish you would read what I write.

I did not say evolution relies on internal bias. I said we all view the world based on our internal biases. Evolution stands wonderfully on its own facts. There is no bias necessary for evolution to be viable.

But there is data, Diogones. If there were no data, talkorigins wouldn’t exist. Sure, in the end, all the data ends up pointing back to evolution as the answer, but on some level some if it can certainly appear to point to a creator.

Accumulation of dust on the Moon.

Not requiring the disproving of creationism would mean the two are not mutually exclusive. Is that what you’re claiming?

151

I dunno, the logic being presented looks to me something like this:

A flashlight produces a bright light. (true)
An atomic bomb produces a bright light. (true)
A bright light can permanently blind a person. (true)
Therefore, a flashlight and an atomic bomb are equally blinding. (huh?)
The first three statements are individually true, but the definition (or at least the degree) of “bright” varies between them. Possibly the point of the thread continue to elude me.

152

Yeah, but have you ever really looked at your hand? I mean, dude, it’s like, like, really amazing the way all those ligments and…mola…molie…mmmmm…chemicals and stuff do their…um…you know, it’s like, really deep.

Hey, have you ever really looked at your foot? It’s like…like…

Stranger

whose closest approach to “blazing up a fatty” was watching The Big Lebowski and wondering what is supposed to be so great about White Russians.

153

If you’re not a closet creationist, you do a mighty fine impression of one. What “data” did you have in mind?

What about it? Is somebody claiming the astronauts should’ve sunk much deeper into the loose lunar dust? That person needs to take a walk on a beach, where he’ll observe that though the loose sand runs pretty deep, a person only sinks an inch of so. If this is an example of an apparent contradiction, it’s only remains so if you choose not to put even the slightest mental effort into puzzling it out.

154

My car is white. This is mutually exclusive with the position that my car is black. I am not required to disprove the black statement to insist my car is white - I can examine its whiteness on its own merits.

155

If you are intellectually honest, then no, you are not entitled to dismiss an argument about which you know little. You may certainly parrot the notion that Behe is a crackpot, based on what other, more learned, individuals say, but that becomes something of an “argument from authority” fallacy.

But they don’t need to be. No creationist knows the whole of evolutionary theory and cosmology and geology and chemistry and physics and so on, so why do you feel that you need to? An important aspect to knowing a topic, especially one that is firmly rooted in logic, as is evolution, is understanding which arguments actually represent fatal ones - ones that, if true, can actually kill a theory. Nonsense about the Grand Canyon is not a fatal blow to evolutionary theory, whether or not you understand the actual argument put forth by a creationist, or even the rebuttal. Any curiousness about isochron dating only undermines the possibility of an old Earth, but as I mentioned before, that does not mean that the actual mechanisms which drive evolution have been shown to be flawed, only that the available time in which they could operate is more limited. And that could, in turn, mean any number of things, if true.

One need not be well-versed in every science to be able to refute creationist arguments. After all, many creationists are barely versed in science as it is. One need only realize that any potential flaws that are pointed out must be general flaws, not specific instances. Pointing out that a snail’s shell was carbon dated at so many thousands of years old once even though the snail within was alive, or some such thing, only demonstrates that there may have been something peculiar about that instance, not with all radiometric dating, ever.

No, it doesn’t. Creationism can’t be disproven, or even falsified. A failure to falsify evolutionary theories only demonstrates that, whether God exists or not, the process can occur. But it still cannot be verfied that God wasn’t still pulling all the strings, and just made it look like the Earth was old, etc. This is the point I have made at least a couple times in this thread alone: falsifying one explanation does not mean another wins by default - all explanations put forth must stand or fall on their own merits. Confirming evolution only requires that one can consistently explain and predict observed phenomena within the context of evolutionary theories, and nothing more. Confirming creationism, on the other hand, requires the unenviable task of demonstrating that God exists, and not in finding supposed flaws in theories about evolution.

156

They certainly aren’t a disjunctive syllogism. A disjunctive syllogism looks like this:

A v B
~A
therefore, B.

Instead, we have proposition A and we have proposition B. We might be able to say, with confidence (at least in the way most people think of creationism)

~(A & B)

This isn’t the same at all. You might prove ~B by proving A, but it isn’t necessary or useful or possible to prove ~B, since ~B doesn’t have any logical bearing on proposition A. You may just set out proving A, and let the B people do their own work. The B people, lacking any evidence for B, may set out to prove ~A, but even if they do (and they don’t), they don’t prove B. Do you see why?

Suppose I say, “The capital of North Dakota is either Fargo or Minot.” It is true that the capital cannot be both Fargo and Minot, but do you see why proving its not Minot doesn’t prove it is Fargo? Do you see why it isn’t necessary to prove it’s not Minot if you’ve shown it to be Bismarck?

157

My personal experience tells me that the earth is stationary, and the Sun goes around it. The Sun is a ball of fire about 100 miles away and maybe a couple of miles across. The stars are points of light, probably–I’d guess–little glowing jewels attached to the underside of a great hollow sphere.

I am absolutely convinced this is wrong. But I only know that because other people have told me. I trust those other people because I know how science is done; I have enough of a rudimentary layman’s knowledge of science to be able to understand the main arguments for heliocentrism, although I could not reproduce them myself; and I know that I could learn the necessary things to prove Heliocentrism, if I really wanted to–DtC’s point.

I can say the same thing about any other scientific theory, from plate tectonics to the germ theory of disease. I am convinced of the truth of quantum mechanics, even though I can barely understand Schroedinger’s wave equation in it’s simplest form.

I believe that you too, g_under_p believe in Heliocentrism and germs. So I have to ask, why is evolution being singled out for this “you must be able to prove every last aspect of the theory yourself or you are buying it on faith” argument?

158

To Darwin’s Finch -
I don’t necessarily feel the need to know all aspects of all sciences. But I do feel a need to be intellectually honest with myself. If I never looked under the surface of evolutionary science, how would I know it was true? By the same token, if I never listened to the counter arguments by creationists, how would I know they are false? Somehow, having this curiosity has branded me a closet creationist.

Your point about general vs. specific flaws is well taken.

Please understand I fully understand that falsifying evolution does not validate creationism. However, it is also true that since they are mutually exclusive that creationism cannot be true if evolution is true. I’m pretty sure this is the basis for many claims made by creationists against evolution.

You and cricetus have made the same point about ~(A&B). Falsifying A does not make B true. Got it. Got it long ago. Now, in order to prove ~A, you can do one of two things. You can attack A directly, and prove ~A, or you can prove B is true.

Evolutionists long ago showed 1=1. Call that A. Now, creationists want to show this just isn’t true, and in order to do this, they set out to show 1=2 (call it B), knowing that ~(1=1&1=2). They can’t prove 1=1 is false, so instead the pull out the old chestnut or proving 1=2 in the following way:

Let x be any integer positive integer greater than 0.

x+x+x+x+… +x (x times) = x*x

differentiate both side with respect to x:
d(x+x+x+x+… +x (x times))/dx = d(x*x)/dx

d(x)/dx + d(x)/dx + d(x)/dx +… + d(x)/dx (x times) = 2x

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +… + 1 (x times) = 2x

x = 2x

If x = 1, 1 = 2.

Aha! The creationists claim. We don’t need to disprove your 1=1, we just proved our 1=2. Since ~(A&B) and we’ve proven B, that must mean ~A.

To anyone who wasn’t paying attention in calculus class and looks cursory at this will ponder it for a good long time. You and I, being the educated fellows that we are, realize that the sum of the differential is not the same as the differentiation of the sum. Of course there is a fatal flaw in their argument. But to the uneducated, it looks like there may be a fatal flaw in OUR argument because it looks like they proved 1=2.

So, in order for us to keep our original premise, 1=1, we must now show the flaw in the proof that 1=2. Sure, many of these “proofs” are silly, usually relying on a division by 0. But there are other, more subtle, more complex proofs that are out there. Disproving those requires more than just a wave of the hand. They may even be more complex than we understand, involving set theory or graph theory or even complex multivariate calculus. I don’t know about you, but I don’t really want to revisit all that math I have long since forgotten. But yet many of us will still stand on the notion that 1=1 MUST be true. We know there is a fatal flaw, but we don’t know where, even if the 1=2 proof was posited by a distinguished professor from a well regarded university.

We stand by our notion that 1=1, even in the face of something which we cannot refute. You can argue that your 1=1 is true all day and all night. It won’t matter. Someone else showed 1=2, and that automatically falsifies your 1=1. From your perspective, 1=1 must be true because you showed it to be. Others have showed it to be. The proofs you have seem flawless, for as far as you’ve explored them. From their perspective, 1=2 must be true because THEY showed it to be. They can’t find your fatal flaw and you can’t find theirs. There is a conflict here, and the resolution of this conflict requires a much deeper probing of the proofs involved. So when you are faced with the 1=2 proof, you can either find the flaw, ignore it because you have already proven your own premise of 1=1, or you can find your own flaw.

Try to think about this from the 1=2 perspective for a moment. They have a clear, seemingly well founded proof. Any fatal flaws are not apparent AT ALL. Sure, the 1=1 crowd is spouting some nonsense about differention of sums not being the same as the same as the sum of the differential, but so what? The 1=1 proof MUST have a flaw (the 1=2 crowd know that because 1=2 is known to be true), so ignoring their spurious claims is easily done. Which side looks like the idiot depends entirely on which proof you’ve taken to be the truth.

In the end, if they dig deep enough, the 1=2 crowd can be shown the flaw in this proof. And therein lies the problem. It requires digging. If disproving 1=2 involves a graduate course in mathematics, I know I wouldn’t take the time to go (re)learn all that math to show something I’m certain is wrong. Am I being intellectually dishonest for doing that? You say no, because we have a proof that 1=1. From the flip side, we claim the 1=2 crowd is intellectually dishonest because they aren’t looking at our proof of 1=1.

If you don’t like using evolution and creation for the premises, instead try these:
1=1 is “second hand smoke kills”
1=2 is “second hand smoke is harmless”
(this one, admittedly, may not be great because aren’t mutually exclusive).

1=1 is “the moon was created as a separate entity than the Earth”
1=2 is “the moon was created through a collision of the Earth with a huge asteroid”

1=1 is “the sun will rise tomorrow”
1=2 is “the sun won’t rise tomorrow”

1=1 is “the Earth revolves around the Sun”
1=2 is “the Sun revolves around the Earth”
(this, too may be flawed since they actually revolve around their center of gravity… But that is well within the radius of the Sun, so this might be okay.)

And on and on and on. Once again, this has squat to do with evolution and creationism per se.

Larry Borgia -
In a previous post I said I singled out evolution and creationism because it was while reading about evolution and creation that this thought occurred to me. Nothing more, and nothing less. Hopefully the above paragraphs will show that my argument isn’t really tied to evolution and creation.

Unassailable tho it may be, there are arguments (against evolution, the lethality of second hand smoke, the origin of the moon, birds descended from dinosaurs, whatever) out there that are complex and not so easily refuted. Starting with their own premise and reaching the conclusion 1=2, creationists can easily deny evolution with the same peace of mind I deny creation. There is no difference in the logic they use vs. the logic I use in denying many of the claims of the other side. Namely, the logic that says, “I know my premise is right, so their premise must be wrong.” I don’t spend my time debunking every creationist claim because I know I’m standing on the correct conclusion. They don’t spend time debunking every evolution claims because they know they are standing on the right conclusion. You cannot call denying creationist claims intellectually honest and then call creationists intellectually dishonest when they do the exact same thing.

I really hope this now makes a little more sense.

So, go ahead, have at it. Is there a debate here? Nope. There never was. As I said, I put this in MPSIMS. After reading this, go back and read my OP and see if it makes any more sense. If not, I’ll do my best to clear up any more confusion as to what I was trying to convey. If anyone even cares anymore. I’ve a feeling that removing the “evolution and creation” piece from it really will make it mundane and pointless. I’m okay with that.

159

How do you get 2x out of d(xx)/dx? d(xx)/dx = x.

160

x*x = x^2

d(x^2)/dx = 2x

Or, if you want to use the chain rule:

d(x*x)/dx = d(x)/dx * x + x * d(x)/dx (the derivative of the first times the second, plus the derivative of the second times the first).

= 1x + 1x = 2x.