The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[hocndoc]

Very good idea development.
Hard to teach the joists and beams about the ways of the Architect.

[Southack]

"And we made levers before we cracked open bodies to see how joints work, but it is still on the same principle. You intentionally missed the point."

Still on the same principle?! The same principle as the reverse engineering of nature that you claimed?!

Nonsense! Levers were not reverse engineered from nature.

Moreover, levers have nothing to do with either math, creationalism, or even evolution.

You've gotten yourself off-topic.

[LogicWings]

Still on the same principle?! The same principle as the reverse engineering of nature that you claimed?!

I did not say it was reversed engineered, although I can see why you took it this way. Anymore than repeater stations are intention reproductions of synapses, but clearly imitate the principle.

Moreover, levers have nothing to do with either math, creationalism, or even evolution.

Your Assertion that Base 4 and Base 2 use in computer software created the analogy that I debunked. Takes tying together a few logic chains to see this though, not something I expect a creationist to be capable of.

You've gotten yourself off-topic.

The Topic is that creationism is irrational, illogical, and ultimately damaging to science. Demonstrating how your analogy was faulty was strictly on topic.

[balrog666]

God is not dead. Neitzche is, and so is Isaac Asimov. Get over it.

Yes, but we have indisputable evidence that both Isaac Asimov and Neitzche were here and made a contribution to the world.

[Southack]

"The error is you are reifying math."

Nonsense. Even if I was treating abstract math as material (i.e. reifying), there would still be no error in the logic postulated above (reifying per se is never sufficient evidence of a logical fallacy), and it's rather arguable that even treating mathematical instruction sets as material would be incorrect even on its face, to boot.

The programming code exists, after all (hence, you have actual A, C, G, and T bases in real strands of physical DNA).

[Southack]

"Your Assertion that Base 4 and Base 2 use in computer software created the analogy that I debunked. Takes tying together a few logic chains to see this though, not something I expect a creationist to be capable of."

Debunked where, exactly? Certainly not yet on this thread...

[jlogajan]

The design of the universe is proof of a designer.

Then who designed the designer?

[fr_freak]

Actually, it was written in 1981, but published in 1984. And the creationists haven't changed a word of their "science." They just get more strident.

I'm surprised I haven't seen this composition before, since I've always been such an Asimov fan. I'm even more surprised to find that I disagree with some of his analysis, especially regarding the second law of thermodynamics as it applies to the question of evolution.

However, rather than argue all the points of creationism vs. evolution, I would just like to point out an intersting aspect of this whole discussion.

Those who believe in Creationism do so as an article of faith. It cannot be proven, anymore than the existence of God can be proven. This is well known, and one of the main reasons that believers of Evolution scoff at Creationists. However, how many people out there, who unquestioningly accept Evolution as the answer to our existence, really understand the nature of the theory? Even Darwin's theory is not generally taught in any great depth in high school or college (undergraduate level), and the modern theory of evolution is different from Darwin's original theories by leaps and bounds. Therefore, most fervent supporters of evolution, lacking any real understanding of what current evolutionary theory is, are accepting the theory on a basis that resembles faith rather than a true understanding of science. Why, then, are they so disdainful of those who accept creationism based on faith?

I will say that I think the 'scientific' approach to Creationism is more of an attempt to bypass the current extremely anti-religious interpretations of the Constitution than it is real science, since the best that Creationist science could hope to achieve is to disprove evolution.

[balrog666]

The Creationists make religion ridiculous

Had to go back and agree with this part.

[Southack]

"I did not say it was reversed engineered, although I can see why you took it this way. Anymore than repeater stations are intention reproductions of synapses, but clearly imitate the principle.

...

43 posted on 02/15/2003 7:20 PM CST by LogicWings

Really?!

"And that is because it is a fact that every machine invented by man is an imitation of a natural process taking place within man. Base Math 4 doesn't imitate our computers, our computer imitate the natural process. Got it backwards."

...

21 posted on 02/15/2003 6:55 PM CST by LogicWings

[Young Werther]

453 books with at least one in each category of the Dewey decimal system!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Here is a recent example of how difficult it is to maintain the 'missing link' [written by creationists whom I don't entirely agree with, but they sound like they did some research]:

"The August 23, 1999 cover story for "Time Magazine" was titled "How Man Evolved." A key part of this article was built around man's supposed oldest ancestor –Ardipithecus ramidus. The article did not tell the readers that the bones had been found over a mile area, and had been but together to form the missing link. 'Time' did it again July 23, of 2001 when it introduced us to our newest missing link, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba,"How Apes Became Human." was the title for this article.. Time said, "Meet your newfound ancestor." There below the picture of a toe bone was the caption, "THIS TOE BONE PROVES THE CREATURE WALKED ON TWO LEGS." You have to be a careful reader to discover in this eight page article that the "TOE BONE" was found almost 10 miles from the other fragments used to construct this ape man.

"Henry Fairfield Osborn a paleontologist discovered a tooth in Nebraska in 1922 and declared it was an ape man and the missing link. From this single tooth an entire prehistoric man was constructed who became know as 'Nebraska Man.' Pictures were drawn from this single tooth and it still appears in some articles today used to prove evolution. The tooth after further study was found to be from a close relative of the modern pig.

"How about these missing links:

"Piltdown Man- Declared to be 500,000 years old and the missing link. Turned out to be a orangutan jaw with the teeth filed placed with a human skull bone that had been doctored to make it look old.

"What about the Archaeoraptor? Never heard of it. This missing link made the evening news, and was featured in the November 1999 issue of 'National Geographic.' It was described as '"true missing link" proving that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Displayed in National Geographic's Explorers Hall and viewed by over 100,000 individuals. This missing link turned out to be another hoax. This time money was the motive. A Chinese farmer had glued the fragments of bird and dinosaur fossils together. The EXPERTS had been fooled because they were so eager to prove their THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

"Java man is another great example of evolution. A skull found by a river is matched with a leg bone found over a year later in another location. Other researchers at the same site have no evidence of any ancient remains. The whole process was so badly flawed it is not mentioned by most modern evolutionists.

"Peking Man was reconstructed from small scattered fragments that disappeared. Leaving the proof to faith in the honesty of evolutionists."



The latest 'missing link' must be pretty recent.

[Varda]

bump for later read

[babaloo999]

Another creation vs. evolutions thread, I see.
I was just wondering, keeping with a WOD similarity--are the creationists the "jack booted statist thugs" and
the evolutionists the "dope smoking pervert cop hating liberaltarians".
I have no dog in this fight, but I tend to agree with Arthur in post#22. Cheers.

[VadeRetro]

The difference, of course, is that Lite beer is more nutritious and intellectually honest than Creationism.

"Lite beer" is at least Lite. "Scientific Creationism" is at least Creationism. I'd say they're both tied at one for two, except Lite beer is more nutritious.

[freedumb2003]

>>I used to like Asimov a lot when I was a teenager. Then I grew up.<<

Read him again. You clearly missed the nuances.

People who bash the good doctor are like people who bash Norman Rockwell. They do it because they are elitist snobs who equate readability with accessibility.

Reread the robot series and particularly the R. Daneel series. In that day it was almost impossible to write a SF mystery without using technology as a crutch ("oh ho, I saw the crime on my spy-a-scope!"). Asimov was the bridge (along with Campbell) between the BEM era and the modern speculative fiction era.

ps: If you don't know what I mean by BEM you are not entitled to an opinion since you are a SF novitiate.

[balrog666]

...written by creationists whom I don't entirely agree with, but they sound like they did some research

That's the problem - it "sounds" good to people unfamiliar with the subject matter. How's that different from the patter of any experienced conman?

[Cicero]

Oh, horse manure.

If ten million Americans thought the earth was flat, it wouldn't set back science one bit. Presumably these people would go into some other line of business.

As long as the Creationists aren't preventing science from being taught in America, they have a right to their beliefs.

I happen to be somewhere in the middle. I think General Evolution is bad science, but I also think that when Genesis speaks of the six days of the creation it doesn't mean literal days, because the sun and the moon weren't created for the first several of them, and you can't have days without a sun.

But if some people want to believe that the earth was created in about 4,004 BC, that's their business. There are many other problems in America that are much greater impediments to the advancement of science--such as politically correct research grants.

[LogicWings]

However, how many people out there, who unquestioningly accept Evolution as the answer to our existence, really understand the nature of the theory? Even Darwin's theory is not generally taught in any great depth in high school or college (undergraduate level), and the modern theory of evolution is different from Darwin's original theories by leaps and bounds. Therefore, most fervent supporters of evolution, lacking any real understanding of what current evolutionary theory is, are accepting the theory on a basis that resembles faith rather than a true understanding of science. Why, then, are they so disdainful of those who accept creationism based on faith?

This is just the inverse of Asimov's Argument by General Consent. If there are people that accept the theory of evolution without understanding it, it is no reflection upon the 'Theory' or the 'Science' that supports it. Anymore than if some people think Doug Henning performs actual magic.

You are 'Equivocating' the meaning of the word 'faith' based upon the misconception or misunderstanding of some person's understanding of evolution. Which is why I said it was the inverse of Asimov's argument.

The assertion that "accepting the theory on a basis that resembles faith rather than a true understanding of science" is no reflection upon the theory itself and the idea that it 'resembles faith' is just an opinion. And one which, seen strictly from a scientific point of view, is wrong.