Star Children for Darwin

CEH ^ | February 28, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Star Children for Darwin

Feb 28, 2009 — Why should we be looking for alien intelligence around other stars when it is right behind your eyeballs?  You may not have known that you are a star child, but that’s what a leading astronomer called you.  As a good star child, you need to pay tribute to Charles Darwin.    

In New Scientist, Lawrence Krauss called on children of spaceship Earth to “Celebrate evolution as only star children can.”  In this, he tied together the International Year of Astronomy 2009, the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s first use of the telescope on the night sky, with Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday.  He recounted the epochal discoveries in astronomy and biology that he feels neatly combine in modern evolutionary theory, the theory of everything:

Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the science of genetics which followed, demonstrate that humans and the rest of life on Earth share not just a common heritage, but virtually everything else.  At a molecular level, the distinction between humans and bacteria seems almost superficial.  All forms of life on Earth share a common genetic method of replication and energy storage.  Yet it is truly remarkable that from so simple a set of molecular building blocks such diversity can arise.

Krauss did not seem to consider the theistic alternative at all that explains the same evidence: the same God who created stars also created mankind from the dust of the ground.  Both worldviews produce the same observations.  Stars and humans are made of atoms and molecules.  Actually, he did quote Darwin’s ending sentence in The Origin about “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,” but he had just described cosmic evolution leading seamlessly into biological and human evolution.  Somehow global politics emerged in his conclusion:

Accordingly, the two discoveries we herald this year carry an important message for our future: the intimate connections between humanity and the entire cosmos, as illustrated by both evolution and astronomy, suggest that the only sensible perspective of humanity is a global one.  The need for a global perspective is of vital importance now, as we are the first generation in history that must seriously confront global limits to our future on Earth, from energy to climate change.

Christians might call this a non-sequitur or a half-truth.  They do not deny our connectedness, but explain it in terms of all creation (stars and humans) being the handiwork of a single Creator.  And instead of seeing a global perspective as the only sensible option for humanity, they might take the very same observations and point out the duty of each individual to its Maker.

The same mythology gets repeated over and over in the media.  Carl Sagan was talking this starstuff lingo back in the 1980s.  It’s all glittering generalities and logical fallacies.

Darwinism and the U.N. are not the only perspectives that explain the observations.  Krauss begs the question.  What does the connectedness imply?  If there are at least two competing explanations for that connectedness (i.e., that stars and humans are both made of atoms), he cannot simply assume that his worldview is the only sensible perspective.  In what other contest does a contender declare himself the winner before competing in the race?    

Don’t follow his bluff like a lemming toward socialism and global politics.  Thinking is done by individuals.  If you follow the global crowd after the Darwin bandwagon, and it falls into a sinkhole, you will not be able to shift responsibility to them; you took the steps.  Think for yourself.    

You might even think a profound thought: that thought cannot emerge from stars, or else it wouldn’t be thought at all.  It would be a hodgepodge of contingency and determinism.  The essence of thought is to purposely order one’s conceptual resources, independently of the material substrate that conveys them, toward principles that obey the laws of logic.  Our theories and explanations of stars employ logic, but stars don’t.  Do stars take philosophy and hold debates?  Of course not.  Then what kind of twisted logic can believe that logic is an emergent phenomenon of matter in motion?  If that were so, how could any human brain have any confidence that its reasonings were true?  It leads to that “horrid thought” that plagued Darwin: “whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.  Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” he said.  If a monkey doesn’t have a mind or convictions, you can be sure that stars don’t.  Stop thinking horrid thoughts.  Think wise thoughts.  Daniel the statesman wrote, “Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever” Daniel 12:3).

Next headline on:  Astronomy • SETI • Evolution • Dumb Ideas

[whattajoke]

I suppose the inability to see the ramifications and conflicts engendered by two mutually opposing belief systems would be a problem.

Millions disagree. Including me. Since when is science a "belief system?" Is physics a "belief system?" Astronomy? Chemistry? When you go to your doctor, do you accept the science he uses to treat you or do you A) thank him for his "belief system" or B) avoid the doctor at all costs because you'll just pray that broken leg away?

[wolf78]

because information can't appear from nowhere.

In the case of DNA segments can be copied more than once (AGCT ->AGCTAGCT) and copies can mutate (AGCT -> AGCTAGCT -> AGCTAGAT). Creatio ex nihilo? No. But additional information? Yes.

2nd law of thermodynamics.

ROFL. Only applies to isolated systems. Which organisms are not. You do eat, don't you?

there are extremely good arguments against inter-special , or "macro" evolution.

There are more examples to the contrary. Hint: mules.

under that theory, each "mutation" would have to be superior.

No. It must only once have proven an advantage under certain historical conditions (climate, environment, competition for resources etc.). "Superiority" is a subjective human observation.

Strawmen, strawmen everywhere.

[whattajoke]

because information can't appear from nowhere. 2nd law of thermodynamics.

See: star. Commonly referred to as "The Sun."

Re: little changes over vast amounts of time resulting in "big" changes.

See relevant comparison: Seconds, resulting in minutes ("microevolution") resulting in years, centuries, eons and epochs ("macroevolution").

how would a thing evolve a blowhole?

See: the hundreds of articles about just that. Is this the latest creationist "argument from incredulity?" Now that y'all are done with the eye nonsense?

evolutionists claim that dolphins "evolved" from some kind of COW, which "crawled back INTO the sea"

Sort of, yeah. I'm unclear as to why that's so hard to believe. See: the mountains of fossil evidence.

it's the only way evolutionists can explain sea creatures having mammal-like features

"Mammal-like features?" Are you suggesting dolphins, whales, and porpoises are somehow not mammals? That's curious. See: Definition of mammal.

You can't have half a blow hole, or you're dead!

Not even close to being remotely true, but whatever.

There are hundreds of impossible faults with the whole theory. The eye is another one...

LOL. I thought we were past this one. I'd link enough evidence regarding the evolution of the eye to occupy you for a week - if I actually believed you'd read 2 words of it. (FYI, MUCH research has gone into this supposed "downfall" and I think even you would be amazed at what's been discovered/published.

The argument of "I find that impossible to believe!" will get you nowhere. I'm sure people didn't think we could fly airplanes or have cell phones or land on the moon at points in the last 150 years. But we did. You'll have to come up with something better. Like some research showing how nothing can survive with "half a blowhole." If you do, it'll get published and would even be cover material.

Hint: All a blowhole is is a migrated nostril. There was never "half a blow-hole." Ironically, there were two "blow-holes" that became one, so your argument would be, "I can't believe two nostrils became one and migrated up the skull!" I would think this wouldn't be hard to imagine even for a "micro-evolution accepting creationist." After all, if my nostrils migrated to my cheek, I'd still be a human, right? You'd perhaps gain more audience with a better question about cetacean echo-location evolution. To me, that sounds crazier. Just trying to help.

[oldmanreedy]

"The disease didn’t “evolve”. It mutated. Big difference. Evolve implies improvemnt. "

No, evolution does not imply improvement. Have you ever bothered to read a single book about evolutionary theory?

"The disease didn’t improve, it’s still a virus, it didn’t grow arms and legs, a brain or otherwise improve'."

Your understanding of evolutionary theory is flat-out retarded. Nothing in the theory implies, requires, or suggests that viruses need to change in this way.

"It just mutated into different strains. Adaptation is not evolution."

Wrong again. Adaptation is evolution, as long as the adaptation has a heritable basis. If you don't like this fact, then go cry in a corner.

Executive Summary: Virtually every sentence of your post contained gross errors of fact or logic. You have no knowledge of the basic definitions of evolutionary theory, no understanding of the fundamental reasoning and data that comprises the theory, and lack either the self-reflective capacity or the mental health to recognize your own ignorance. Your presence in even this informal debate is as incongruous as a Democrat at the Business Roundtable, and your contribution similarly valuable.

[whattajoke]

"It just mutated into different strains. Adaptation is not evolution."

You know what's funny about creationists? Over a very short period of time (about 10 years, max), they've gone from:

YEC only
to
OEC
to
IR
to
ID
to
"micro-evolution happens"
to
adaptation happens but isn't evolution.

Pssst, creationists! So-called "micro-evolution" with adaptations over time is, um... shhhhhh... evolution.

[oldmanreedy]

It really is a remarkable irony that the positions of evolution-deniers have themselves undergone such rapid evolution.

I've idly wondered if it would be possible to construct a cladistics-style taxonomy of creationist nuttery. I mean, consider this:

• Setterfield Clade: Defined by the presence of gibberish relating to the historical speed of light. Ancestor Barry Setterfield.
• Humphries Clade: Defined by the presence of bizarre cosmologies attempting explain away the apparent age of the universe. Ancestor Russell Humphries.
• Man + Dinosaur Clade: Defined by the belief that fossils of concurrent human and dinosaur footprints have been found. Ancestor Carl Baugh (arguable, may be polyphyletic)
• Intelligent Design Clade: Defined by the belief that the apparent harmony of biological mechanisms points to a Designer. Ancestor William Paley
• Irreducible Complexity Clade: Defined by the belief that molecular machinery is too complex to be explained by evolution. Ancestor Michael Behe
• Specified Complexity Clade: Defined by the presence of mathematics purporting to show evolution is impossible. Ancestor William Dembski
• etc...

So the Behe and Dembski clades are clearly nested within the Intelligent Design clade, while the Humphries/Setterfield/Dinosaur Clades are all nested within some YEC clade. But I guess since they're creationists, they'd insist that this nested pattern is just coincidence, and all varieties of creationist were created by God in one swoop exactly 150 years ago.

[LeGrande]

Could this whole anti evolution movement be paranoia? I was reading Dr. Sanity’s explanation of the Muslim’s hatred of Israel and its underlying causes.

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

And it is remarkably similar to fundamentalist Christians hatred of Evolution. Evolution is the cause of all the problems, just like Jews are the cause of all the problems the Muslims have.

[Oztrich Boy]

"Mammal-like features?" Are you suggesting dolphins, whales, and porpoises are somehow not mammals?

Chuck has read a book that declares them to be "fish". Book wouldn't lie.

Pakicetus > > > Rodhocetus > > > modern gray whale

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Buck W.]

Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

[shibumi]

"Millions disagree. Including me. Since when is science a "belief system?" Is physics a "belief system?" Astronomy? Chemistry? When you go to your doctor, do you accept the science he uses to treat you or do you A) thank him for his "belief system" or B) avoid the doctor at all costs because you'll just pray that broken leg away?"

Thanks for making my point.

Darwinian Evolutionary "Theory" is not science. It is a belief system searching (vainly) for scientific validation, which is yet to be forthcoming.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

gee look, it’s another pretty drawing.

[shibumi]

Oh, by the way, while I fully understand the gist of your statement quoted above, I think it might be a good idea if you used something other than the chicanery that passes for modern medicine when trying to make your point.

Symptomatic suppression is hardly science.

[dmz]

The music festival that was Woodstock was in 1969. The song - penned by Joni Mitchell - was a hit for CSN&Y.

[dmz]

It’s a religion, and it must not be tax funded.
_______

Are you in favor of all religions losing their tax incentives, or just the ones you don’t like?

[chuck_the_tv_out]

“Are you in favor of all religions losing their tax incentives, or just the ones you don’t like?”

I would love for churches to come off 501C3. Churches have no constitutional requirement to pay taxes anyway. But you can’t compare brainwashing the children of America, with that pathetic tax break, which is mainly to keep the churches under the governments thumb, to keep them from speaking about important political issues.

But if it meant getting the Humanist religion and its evolution doctrine out of the schools I’d happily say churches should pay income tax, ALONG WITH every Humanist charity of course.

It’s a false comparison, but if it’s a concern for you, then fine

[whattajoke]

I've idly wondered if it would be possible to construct a cladistics-style taxonomy of creationist nuttery...

Excellent. I'm going to print this and think about it some more to perhaps tweak it a bit.

[whattajoke]

Darwinian Evolutionary "Theory" is not science.

No need for the quotation marks unless you do the same with the germ "theory" of disease and quantum "theory." Which I doubt you do. As for it not being science, I can't wrap my head around why you'd have that opinion other than you are so wrapped up in your particular brand of Christianity (or Islam) that you can't think clearly anymore.

[whattajoke]

gee look, it’s another pretty drawing.

I'm curious what you'd say if you held those skulls in your hand. Or, better yet, if you went on a dig and dug up one of them. What would you say then?

Going back to your disbelief in "cow like mammals" evolving into modern day whales (which you apparently don't believe are mammals), I was wondering, what do you think about hippos? What about manatees? Why do those mammals spend the majority (hippos) and all (manatees) of their lives in the water? Do they have blowholes?

[whattajoke]

Symptomatic suppression is hardly science.

Well, we probably agree about it's moral implications and "big picture" ineffectiveness, but it's still science. Just, perhaps, misplaced science.

I just read your profile and I must tell you, I rather enjoyed it. I think we'd get along perfectly fine (I'd even like to give an assist in creating the new Scientology - I'd only ask for 20%) as long as we avoided the evolution stuff. Take care.