Response to OEC webpage (long)
- From: "Giant Sloth" <nospammers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Aug 2006 16:49:08 -0700
A creationist requested a response from me to the following webpage. I
put something together after checking some things out here. Comments,
corrections welcome:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html
Let's start with the first sentence: "...ID is a statistical study in
which the product is unlikely to occur by naturalistic process alone."
Down below he is going to declare that the Christian God is the
Intelligent Designer. Since God created everything, the question
becomes, what is not intelligently designed? Apparently there are
three acts that would be considered ID: (1)The creation of
matter/energy out of nothing, (2) the creation of the natural laws of
the universe, and (3) a special act of God's power that violates the
natural laws He set up. Therefore, once God sets the universe in
motion, whatever processes take place in accordance with the natural
laws are not ID.
Down below he says: "The claim has been made that ID has no place in
science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In
fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the
major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a
supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in
studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of
supernatural ID."
Here he has introduced the term "supernatural ID". Apparently, the ID
above is supernatural ID, but there is another ID, the acts of
intelligent agents such as humans. The common ground is that both IDs
have intelligence behind them. However, the human cannot do any of the
three acts above that are supernatural ID. Furthermore, the human acts
have a much greater limitation in terms of intelligence and power.
Nevertheless, Deem thinks that human acts of design will help us
understand God's ID. This, of course, is very doubtful. For
example, perhaps God designed the Moon to be exactly the way it is;
perhaps he had a purpose in mind for the placement of every rock. Does
that mean that we can discern that intelligence? The answer is
obviously no.
Nevertheless, Deem launches into several areas in which we can discern
intelligent activity of humans. He says we can do it in archaeology
and anthropology, and yes, we can pick out an arrowhead from a pointed
rock usually. Sometimes we can tell because there are a lot of other
human artifacts around, and because we know what humans make and why
they do it. Sometimes there can be doubt. We have to weigh our
knowledge of natural forces and our knowledge of what ancient humans
did. But neither is involved in supernatural ID.
In forensics for example, they might have to determine whether someone
fell down the stairs and/or was hit by a blunt instrument. One thing
is clear, however: No supernatural explanations allowed! Otherwise a
murderer could say that the Devil made me do it, or the witch next
door. The bullet flew out of the gun by supernatural powers!
Forensics seems a particularly poor example for supernatural ID.
Deem says the best example is SETI. He says that scientists examine
extraterrestrial signals to determine if they seem to be intelligently
designed. Let's see what the people at SETI actually say:
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html
Perhaps Deem developed his understanding of SETI procedures using other
creationists as sources.
Lower, Deem says: "Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical
model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are
descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different
blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that
males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes,
compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on
exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this
biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the
y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA (see Evolutionary
Descent of Mankind Theory- Disproved by Molecular Biology)."
What Deem says about the last common ancestor dates for the
y-chromosome tending to be later than that for mitochondrial DNA is
true. But does the Bible really predict this? Deem is implying that
Eve is the "mitochondrial Eve" of science, and Noah is the
"Y-chromosomal Adam". The mitochondrial Eve is defined to be the woman
who is the most recent common ancestor of all women alive today. There
are many ways that the biblical Eve, or any other female ancestors of
the daughters of Noah might not be the mitochondrial Eve. One way a
woman might be eliminated from being the mitochondrial Eve is for her
not to have a continuous line of female descendants to the present day.
It is possible that that could have happened for two of the daughters
and the third is the mitochondrial Eve. Or there could be a later
descendent fitting the definition. There is no way to know for sure,
and Deem cannot say that the Bible predicts Eve to be the mitochondrial
Eve. Similarly, one cannot assert that the Bible says that Noah is the
Y-chromosomal Adam.
Even worse, Deem does not mention that it is estimated that
mitochondrial Eve lived 150,000 years ago. This falsifies his model
that Adam and Eve, the first of a new species of humans, lived between
50,000 and 25,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam is thought to have
lived at least 60,000 years ago. It is curious that Deem mentions only
the partial confirmation and omits mention of the direct falsification.
Next we come to a chart that sets naturalism vs. supernaturalism. Deem
wants to extend the scientific theory that time began with the big bang
to a "supernatural" theory, and extend the scientific theories that it
is meaningful to talk about events prior to the big bang to
"anti-supernatural" theories. One problem is that the metaphysical
implications of scientific theories are always a matter of contention,
including the idea that scientific theories have metaphysical
implications at all. There are those, both religious and not, that do
not find it necessary or useful to seek metaphysical implications in
scientific theory at all. And there are those that find metaphysical
implications in direct opposition to what Deem finds. For example,
there are atheists that argue that the single beginning theory is
incompatible with the idea of God. There are Christians who believe
Deem's so-called supernatural big bang theory to be an atheist lie.
Also there are Christians who have no problem with the so-called
"anti-supernatural" theories.
Science would be a complete mess if it got bogged down in metaphysics.
There are already enough religious conflicts around the world over
religion; science would not gain by becoming a part of that. As it is,
a Christian scientist in Europe has no trouble collaborating with a
Buddhist scientist in the Far East, who communicates well with the
atheist in the US, and so on. The ultimate arbiter is empirical
evidence, not articles of faith. Thus the results of science are so
powerful; they can be universally agreed upon and universally
demonstrated. It is a testament to the success and authority of
science that fundamentalists want confirmation of their faith from
science and the scientific community. They will never get it; they will
have to depend on old-fashioned faith.
The first two items in the chart are discussed below, with regard to
the second chart. The third item contends that the anti side says that
physical laws "break down" at 10^-43 secs after the big bang. Of
course, no theory says that. The fact is, general relativity has been
successful in describing the world of the very large and massive, and
quantum mechanics very successful in describing the world of the very
small. The trouble is the two theories are incompatible! At the very
beginning of the big bang, the visible universe was both very massive
and very small, very dense. But when equations from both theories are
applied, nonsense results. The only theory presently that reconciles
the two, and might give us some hope of understanding the moment of the
big bang is string theory, which is highly speculative and untested.
But if string theory does hold up, it avoids the singularity at the
moment of the big bang and makes it possible to talk about moments
prior to the big bang. Only one thing is certain: It is premature to
make any definite conclusions. Over time, the theories we have now may
be replaced by quite different descriptions.
When Deem predicts that the present laws of physics will remain fixed,
he apparently means that the predictions of general relativity will
hold, and modifications to it, such as string theory, will not be
necessary. Perhaps he is unaware that the present theories are
incompatible. At any rate, how this comes out of biblical creationism
is mysterious.
The fourth item on his chart is about fine tuning. The fine tuning
idea points out that there are many physical constants and laws that
make it possible for life to exist. In fact, if these constants
deviated the slightest amount, life on earth would be impossible. From
that it is concluded that Someone must have "fine tuned" the universe
to meet the exacting specifications for life, just as one would
carefully fine tune an instrument to play perfectly. For Deem, that
Someone is the Christian God, the Intelligent Designer.
My contention is that fine tuning does not present a problem that needs
scientific explanation. There are plenty of metaphysical problems with
fine tuning. One problem is an omnipotent Designer. God did not have
to make life need such exacting requirements that would require fine
tuning. It would have been possible for God to create life so that it
would exist under a broad range of conditions, no fine tuning
necessary. The idea of fine tuning makes sense if there was a limited
god that could only create life as we know it. That god would have to
work hard to create life, and would have to fine tune the universe.
Or, a limited god that was forced to use the conditions of the
universe, might have to work hard to make living creatures that could
exist in it. But Deem is not positing a limited god, rather, an
omnipotent God Who can do as He pleases, and has no need for fine
tuning.
Note also that there could be living creatures of entirely different
forms elsewhere in the universe that do not need, and maybe do not use,
the conditions we use.
Another problem is that fine tuning suggests that God worked to make
the universe sufficient for life. He put everything together in the
perfect fashion so life could be sustained, and not need divine
intervention to survive. But Deem's model says that God had to
continually intervene, every time he wanted to create a species.
Evidently the universe is insufficient for life after all? What was
the point of all that fine tuning if God has to continually intervene?
In this sense, the theory of evolution is more consistent with fine
tuning than Deem's model. If God used evolution to create new species,
he did indeed make it sufficient for life.
Yet another problem for fine-tuning is the size of the universe. There
are billions of galaxies in the visible universe, perhaps an infinite
number beyond that. Each galaxy has millions sometimes billions of
stars. Deem would have us believe that God created this
incomprehensibly large universe and fine-tuned it for life on one
planet. Why? This made sense for the ancients, for whom heaven was
above and the earth below; both were finite and complementary. It
doesn't make sense now. In conclusion, the idea of fine tuning has
philosophical problems and presents no problem for science.
The last item on the chart states that the anti-supernaturalists
predict that only likely events will occur. Nobody says that. Here's
an obvious counterexample. Take 10 decks of cards and shuffle them
thoroughly. Now lay them out one by one on a table. They will be laid
out in a particular order. What are the chances of that occurring? 1
in 1.76 * 10^1188. This is an incredibly small probability that that
particular order would appear. On the other hand, something had to
appear. Thus something incredibly unlikely will happen every time.
On the supernatural side of his chart, he says that miracles will be
necessary to explain creation. This prediction is central to what
Deem's website is all about. There is a desire to "prove" the
supernatural, to make it tangible. For the ancients, the supernatural
was a part of everyday life. If someone started foaming at the mouth
in Jesus' time, there would be an attempt to cast out a demon. In
modern times the person is treated for rabies. Where then, can someone
who longs for proof of the supernatural, in particular tangible
evidence for God, turn? Evidently one place is 13 billion years in the
past. It may seem pathetic, but that's what Deem is reduced to. The
hope is to find something that science cannot explain, and then insert
God as an explanation.
Obviously, it is not a scientific explanation. Saying that something
happened because an Unpredictable Infinite Power Source suddenly
operated is not satisfactory. It raises more questions than it
answers. But for Deem, it is a comforting explanation. He apparently
is not able to see miracles in every day events that do have a
scientific explanation or he is not satisfied by them.
Next Deem has a chart in which he once again divides the good guys and
the "correct" theories from the bad guys with their "incorrect"
theories. But he has similar problems with this chart as he had with
the first. Anti-supernatural predictions 1-4 are figments of Deem's
imagination; no one makes these predictions. Some of them seem to
confuse science fiction with science. Down below he has a scorecard,
which records his victories. The scorecard for 1 says there is no
evidence that there was more than one creation event. Actually, in
truth there is no evidence (nor could there be) of one "creation"
event, that is, creation out of nothing. Furthermore, as related
above, there are theories that extend time before the big bang, and the
evidence for them has yet to be tested. Also all present theories
regarding the origin of the big bang are highly speculative.
Scorecard for 2 says that examples of fine tuning continue to increase.
Does this mean that scientists are discovering new constants all the
time that cannot be changed much if life is to exist? No, it means
that creationists are making bigger lists of already known constants,
some of which are dependent on each other. At any rate, none of that
is proof of anything, as shown above.
(3) Deem says there are no rocky planets found. Do we have the
capability of finding rocky planets at this time? No. We only are
barely able to detect gas giants. Once again we have a meaningless
statement.
(4) "No other life found. SETI has been completely unsuccessful." So
does that mean Deem thinks that SETI should just pack it up and go
home? How has he determined that SETI has searched enough? Does he
think that SETI has thoroughly scoured the whole universe, even the
visible universe? No one can be that stupid, can they?
Prediction number 5 is the aim of all science, to find natural causes
for phenomena. The scorecard says, "It is impossible to chemically
produce many basic molecules required for any living system." Which
molecules? It is true that scientists do not attempt to synthetically
produce every molecule that might be in a living system, it is less
expensive and easier to use those from a living system. However, there
aren't any known obstacles to doing so and many molecules such as
synthetic DNA have been produced.
Prediction #6 is two predictions. The first is that the
"anti-supernatural" theory predicts life would occur late; his own
theory predicts that life will occur early. Perhaps this is a
misprint, or he is simply confused. His own timeline has life
appearing first as plant life some 900 million years ago. And yet
there prokaryotic fossils in rocks 3.5 billion years old. Don't ask me
to explain it! The second prediction is that life began as simple
pre-bacterial organisms; his prediction is that life was always
complex. For Deem, seed bearing plants were created on land by God as
related in Genesis. Yet fossils of plants on land don't appear until
400 million years ago. Once again it appears his predictions are at
odds with the evidence. Scorecard for 6 says, "Neither the biochemical
nor replicative pathways have been described. In fact, many scientists
think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means."
That's right, this is a subject of study. Why does Deem assume that
something has been disproved when either the evidence is not in yet, or
it is yet a subject of study?
(7) Here the prediction on the anti side is the actual scientific view:
"Complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly whereas simple
transitions would be common."
His own prediction, that there are no restrictions on designs with the
possibility that new designs would be created "overnight", is curious
in light of the fossil evidence. Time and again, we see changes in
fossils in which one structure is modified and used for a different
purpose by later creatures. Nature is conservative, and does not tend
create many new designs.
Creationists often say that macroevolution has never been observed. On
the other hand, they don't seem to have any trouble with the fact
that new species appearing overnight has never been observed. Indeed,
if we ever see a whole new species appearing overnight, it would be a
fantastic occasion. Somehow Deem doesn't make that prediction, all
this "overnight appearing" occurred in the distant past. Of
course, we do directly observe new species appearing, but only in the
more boring, expected way. For various reasons depending on the
situation, two population sets of one species no longer intermix, end
up with subtle changes and no longer interbreed. And we end up with
new species.
Deems scorecard statement for 7 is: "Contrary to the expectations of
evolutionary theory, the fossil record is replete with complex
transitions and new designs whereas simple transitions (intermediates)
are rare. Evolutionary theory would expect the opposite to be true and
to be reflected in the fossil record." One thing all creationists
have in common, it seems, is a unique understanding of the fossil
record. They seem to believe that every 20,000 years or so, all the
critters say to themselves, "Oh, it's been a long time since my
ancestors made a fossil. I better find a place to die so my carcass
with be fossilized and there will be a thoroughly complete fossil
record for humans in the future to find." Unfortunately, nature
doesn't work that way. Consider the passenger pigeon. At one time,
billions of birds in flight blackened the sky from horizon to horizon;
today they are extinct. And we have not found the preserved remains of
even one bird. Who knows how many other species have gone extinct
without leaving behind a trace? How many times have fossils been
eroded away or crushed under shifting earth?
(8)He says that the anti theory predicts that there would be slow
recovery from mass extinctions, whereas his own prediction is: "No
restrictions on "recovery" period as new species are created." On
the scorecard he says, " Evolution predicts slow recovery following
extinctions and that those recoveries will be filled by the species
surviving the extinction event. However, the fossil record indicates
rapid recovery with completely different designs and species appearing
within a period of tens of thousands of years or less. This is simply
not true. The fossil record indicates recovery from widespread mass
extinctions to take about 10 million years, and yes the new population
is made up of the extinction survivors. The classic example is the
mammals, which were mostly dominated by the larger dinosaurs. However,
when the dinosaurs became extinct, the mammals survived and evolved
into a variety of creatures, large and small.
Deem's efforts are typical of creationist arguments. There are basic
errors that a little research reveals, there are straw men arguments
that no one is proposing, there is slopping thinking, all motivated by
a desperate attempt to acquire the authority of science to confirm
religious beliefs.
GS
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Response to OEC webpage (long)
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Response to OEC webpage (long)
- Prev by Date: Re: I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!have TWO WORD-DOCUMENT!that I!!!!!!!!!!!!!Would like to E-MAIL to YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Next by Date: Re: Ping: Lenny Flank (OT herp care)
- Previous by thread: CC202: Transitional fossils do not show direct ancestry.
- Next by thread: Re: Response to OEC webpage (long)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
