The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[whattajoke]

DIP,

Is it your contention that we get together every week, gather 'round a fire, beat some drums, incant some chants, and worship Charles Darwin? The tone of your posts gives me the impression that you do. I assure you, there is no "church of Charlie." Darwin went on a few trips, took meticulous notes, and posited some brilliant ideas. He came up with these ideas with a very limited sample, suggested some things that should become more known about, and that was pretty much that. It just turns out that a lot of what he suggested should be, IS. (As I'm sure you know, Alfred Russell Wallace came up with the same ideas Darwin did at the same time, not that that matters much.)

[Diamond]

Seeing as how it's you, general, how could I resist?'^)

A couple of provisos, though.

First, I need to know the rules of the 'game'. Here are my proposals:

a)Whenever design is inferred three things must be established:

1. Contingency (an event is one of several possiblities, ensuring that the object is not the result of of a natural law, or an automatic, and hence unintelligent processes.
2. Complexity (the object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance)
3. Specification (a match between an event and an independently given pattern)

It must be stipulated that specified complexity is a reliable criterion for DETECTING design, not a reliable criterion for ELIMINATING design, because design has the ability to mimic unintelligent causes. Consequently, things that are designed will occasionally slip past the net. But whenever the above criterion attribute design, design actually is present.

No probability amplifiers or attenuators; ie, algorithms that skew probabilties with teleological target sequences that can give the appearance of complexity, but which in actuality cannot generate it.

The above being stipulated, I would also like to have an EVOLUTIONARY INFERENCE TEST in which I posit pictures of irreducibly complex biological machines and you have to deduce and defend how such a thing could have come about without a designer - and the big rule here is that you have to explain how the irreducibly complex machine was helpful to the creature before it became what it is now. (WHY play your 'game' if you won't play mine?;^)

In all honesty, though, I don't regard any of this as a game. What we are involved in eternal life and eternal death - and that my fundamental purpose is to defend the faith I have in a Creator not only who designed things well in the beginning when they were fresh from His creative mind, but also the notion that what things are is not what they once were ("devolution", if you will) especially regarding human nature being a rebel nature against the very DESIGNER Whose work we are discussing. Thus you should know that Scripture regards us in our natural condition as rebels without a cause except our own egoistic rebellion against the Creator. My goal is to show you that your arguments against design are not just unscientific, but at heart an effort to avoid responsibility to the One who designed you.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

As a start, see the first three criterion in #1142, which I have proposed for general_re's test.

Cordially,

[VadeRetro]

Alfred Russell Wallace

I've been saying "Russell" for the last two days. My late Uncle Wallace would not approve.

[Doctor Stochastic]

2. Complexity (the object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance)

One problem with this criterion is that randomly generated objects are far more complex than designed objects which tend to be rather simple.

[longshadow]

"square root of time" placemarker

[Right Wing Professor]

None of your three criteria is useful as an algorithm for distingishing between the Old Man of the Mountain and Mount Rushmore.

Both the Old Man of the Mountain and Mount Rushmore are elements from the set of all rock faces, and therefore pass 'contingency'.

I have no idea how you decide a priori how an event is determined by chance; for example, here are seven 20 digit numbers

33588436280199230657
02617758870469338514
10567955361381575760
60446034969299744510
29423394179949485805
61585390589368582681
57283648575787347867

Six were generated using a random-number generator. One is decidedly non-random. Which is it?

As for specification; all look like faces, and having seen them all, coming up with an independent pattern will not be possible.

Want to try again?

BTW, anyone want to try the randomness challenge? In order to rule out random guessing, you need to tell me what the non-random number is.

[Right Wing Professor]

None of your three criteria is useful as an algorithm for distingishing between the Old Man of the Mountain and Mount Rushmore.

Both the Old Man of the Mountain and Mount Rushmore are elements from the set of all rock faces, and therefore pass 'contingency'.

I have no idea how you decide a priori how an event is determined by chance; for example, here are seven 20 digit numbers

33588436280199230657
02617758870469338514
10567955361381575760
60446034969299744510
29423394179949485805
61585390589368582681
57283648575787347867

Six were generated using a random-number generator. One is decidedly non-random. Which is it?

As for specification; all look like faces, and having seen them all, coming up with an independent pattern will not be possible.

Want to try again?

BTW, anyone want to try the randomness challenge? In order to rule out random guessing, you need to tell me what the non-random number is.

[Right Wing Professor]

None of your three criteria is useful as an algorithm for distingishing between the Old Man of the Mountain and Mount Rushmore.

Both the Old Man of the Mountain and Mount Rushmore are elements from the set of all rock faces, and therefore pass 'contingency'.

I have no idea how you decide a priori how an event is determined by chance; for example, here are seven 20 digit numbers

33588436280199230657

02617758870469338514

10567955361381575760

60446034969299744510

29423394179949485805

61585390589368582681

57283648575787347867

Six were generated using a random-number generator. One is decidedly non-random. Which is it?

As for specification; all look like faces, and having seen them all, coming up with an independent pattern will not be possible.

Want to try again?

BTW, anyone want to try the randomness challenge? In order to rule out random guessing, you need to tell me what the non-random number is.

[Aracelis]

You might consider basing your scientific beliefs on something better than the 'Hot Zone' in the future.

Thanks for the book recommendation, but I'll get my information from the CDC:

"Ebola-Reston appeared in a primate research facility in Virginia, where it may have been transmitted from monkey to monkey through the air. While all Ebola virus species have displayed the ability to be spread through airborne particles (aerosols) under research conditions, this type of spread has not been documented among humans in a real-world setting, such as a hospital or household."CDC Ebola Information Page

Prove to me that Zaire isn't capable of airborne transmission.

I think the above quote covers this issue very nicely. Of course Zaire can be transmitted as an aerosol...any body fluid from an infected individual is loaded with the virus. Reston was different, because simians in rooms only connected by a ventilation system were also affected.

I'd be terribly interested to hear this from you considering that this is my exact field of research.

I think you've already given us a number of reasons to doubt your "credentials".

[js1138]

Some of the best spellers come from Bible colleges and home schooling. This looks like government work.

[Nebullis]

Six were generated using a random-number generator. One is decidedly non-random. Which is it?

The third number.

[Right Wing Professor]

:-)

I was sure, when I saw it had been posted 3 times, that someone would claim none of them are random; they're exactly identical to the first two posts.

Sorry, folks. A little too impatient here.

[Roughneck]

It does not matter if one believes evolution as Asimov presents it; or in creationism as all christians believe. What matters is neither concept should be taught in schools - it serves no purpose other than to cause derision.

When schools teach evolution, they are denying religious freedom to the children of christian families. (Americans have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion)

Evolution is not hard science - no "missing link" has been found, therfore it should not be taught as fact in public schools either.

Maybe someone should remind Asimov fans that he is a SCIENCE FICTION/FANTASY WRITER. So, who wants to trust their soul to what some fantasy writer believes?

[Aracelis]

Maybe my arrogant paleontologist friends PatrickHenry, balrog66, Piltdown_Woman, or RadioAstronomer can offer one that I just haven't been made aware of yet?

Darwin_is_passe signed up 2003-02-25.

Been a FReeper for 3 days, and already calling other posters "arrogant". Not an auspicious beginning.

[Aracelis]

I was pointing out some of you fallacies, such as the Earth is 20 BILLION years old. If as you say, you make mistakes like this one by posting in haste, you might want to slow down a tad and double check before hitting that post key.

It would be interesting to know if such haste is carried by the above-referenced poster into the lab, too.

[f.Christian]

rn ...

Evolution is not hard science - no "missing link" has been found, therfore it should not be taught as fact in public schools either.

Maybe someone should remind Asimov fans that he is a SCIENCE FICTION/FANTASY WRITER. So, who wants to trust their soul to what some fantasy writer believes?


1154 posted on 02/28/2003 11:42 AM PST by Roughneck (Saddam: I Laugh upon your shirt, HA!)


fC ...

vape retroll writes scifi too !

[f.Christian]

Parlor science !

Main Entry: sé·ance
Pronunciation: 'sA-"än(t)s, -"äns, sA-'
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from seoir to sit, from Latin sedEre -- more at SIT
Date: 1803
1 : SESSION, SITTING
2 : a spiritualist meeting to receive spirit communications

[gomaaa]

"You've totally missed the point. I'm not offering an alternative theory to Darwin. I'm saying that the current theory is passe, and not worth the paper it's written on. Darwins theory has so many holes in it, it can barely be considered science anymore. "

You seem to say that a theoretical framework must be PERFECT before you will give it any credence whatsoever. While I, and most people who actually study evolution, will gladly admit that it is not perfect, that doesn't mean it is without merit. One of the critical features of a good theory is that you can make predictions based on it, some of which will hold up when new discoveries are made, some of which will not. When a theory is challenged by experiment, or other real world evidence, it forces scientists to rethink old ideas and fill up holes in the theory based on the new information. It doesn't make the old theory wrong or bad science. Newton's law of gravity was good science, but proved to be incomplete. Einstein was able, using ideas based on new information that was unknown and really unknowable in Newton's time, to fill in the holes with general relativity. Einstein never called Newton's work "passe", in fact he considered his work to be the most important advances in physics. The theory of evolution isn't perfect, but it does give us the ability to make predictions about speciation which can be tested. Our lack of knowledge has more to do with the difficulty of performing these tests! In the absence of a time machine the best we can do is look at the fossil record for large scale evidence, and do experiments on smaller organisms such as bacteria and fruit flies that have short reproductive cycles and thus allow us to study evolution in real time. Unfortunately, those results, while valid, don't grab headlines the way a sudden evolution of, say, a mammal species might. (Badgers suddenly evolve to Uber-Badgers. Darwin is Vindicated!)


"Your example of competition in natural selection is too elementary. Give an example of it. Name one instance when a species evolved into another species. You can't. It's never been recorded. There is no fossil evidence for it. So how then is there so much diversity in the world? "

I think the others answered this far better than I could, but I don't think you accepted their answer, because you want to see a truly intermediary creature. No matter what two species I trot out, you will automatically ask for what came between, even if the two species are almost identical.


"I propose that evolution as it really exists is quite a bit different than what Darwin proposed. "

This is entirely possible. I, for one, doubt it, but that doesn't mean you won't be vindicated by research fifty years from now, or even next year for that matter. The critical thing is, you can't completely discount the current ideas because something better will come along eventually. You shouldn't just accept the party line, either, and truly salute you for standing up to the rather withering critcism you've faced on this thread! A good scientist strikes a balance between skepticism and the need to have some framework to start from, however rickety it may be.

I contend that evolution is well constructed, well supported, and while it may not be PERFECT, is a great place to base further research on.