Because He's a Dick

Debating creationists and intelligent design (ID) proponents is a sort of hobby for me. One of my favorite things to do is find the logical inconsistencies in their argument and point it out to them to see what new maneuvers they will try to get out of the intellectual trouble.

The geniuses over at Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal webcomic have nailed it with a spoof on the well-known argument from design by the 18th century theologian William Paley. You can find the comic here, or see it below:

THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT: The world must be designed (by the Christian God). In the same way that you would look at a watch and clearly see all the parts could not have been made and put together by 'chance', so our world runs as intricate and perfectly as a watch, therefore there must be a designer (the Christian God, of course).

THE PROBLEM: The seemingly 'designed' world is full of sickness, death, oppression, tyranny, and disasters that do not discriminate based on race, sex, or religion. Horrible things seem to happen to people across all economic backgrounds and social classes. This indicates an indiscriminate God, a capricious deity, who randomly punishes humans for any whim. The only way this could be consistent with a deity that is also responsible for designing the world is if that deity is a dick. This is highly incompatible with a loving, personal Christian God.

THE ATHEIST RESOLUTION: Instead of supposing that there is a designer and that he's a dick (which is actually far more believable than the Christian version of a designer who actually cares about people), atheists simply (and correctly) challenge the notion that there is any interventionist, designer, or creator at all. It's not necessary, and our world does not need a creator. In fact, many have argued that the world is poorly designed in many ways, suggesting that there could not have been any overseer in the process.

In God We Teach

A video documentary is finally being put together about the Kearny, NJ case where a high school student exposed his history teaching for overtly evangelizing during class time to his students.  The student, Matthew LaClair, recorded his teacher, David Paszkiewicz, in the act of pushing creationism and religion in the middle of instruction time.  The ACLU has helped Matthew file a suit - standing up for his rights has resulted in harassment from students and teachers, as well as a death threat.

Here's a preview of the upcoming documentary:

Creationists and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics

On the upcoming 17th episode of the Pascals Bettors podcast, we have a Counter Creationism Corner where we discuss a common misconception that creationists put forth about evolution. A favorite claim by some creationists who try to dispute evolution is that “The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution”. Not surprisingly, creationists who claim this know just as little about thermodynamics as they do about evolution. Thomas Kindell, founder and president of Reasons for Faith Ministries, purports just such a claim that you can watch for yourself here - that is, if you can stomach even the first five minutes of it.

Most people don’t fully understand, and thus can’t question, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but it has the allure of being one of the foundational tenets of a paradigm in physics, and people more readily question something that is referred to as a “theory of evolution” rather than a “law of thermodynamics”. The idea behind this argument is to present a seemingly longstanding scientific principle pertaining to a hard science, like physics, to topple the weaker, younger science of evolutionary theory. While this type of argument may have some emotional appeal, if creationists knew anything about the timelines of these two disciplines they would know why this is such a farce: Charles Darwin published his book, On the origin of Species, in 1859, but Darwin and others had put forth simple notions and publications about evolution much earlier. Although naturalistic thinking on biology dates back over 2600 years ago to the 6th century BCE with the greek philosopher Anaximander, proto-evolutionary ideas were set forth as early as 1745 by a few natural philosophers like Pierre Maupertuis, and later in 1796 by Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather. Alternatively, thermodynamics emerged in the early to mid-1800s, largely due to the work of French physicist Nicolas Carnot, who believed that engine efficiency was the key to help France win the Napoleonic wars. It wasn’t until Lord Kelvin in 1854 that a concise definition of thermodynamics was recorded. Thus, even from the get-go, it seems that evolution has been around as long as, if not longer, than thermodynamics. BUT - this shouldn't matter anyways because it would be a logical fallacy to say that one science is more correct than another just because it has been around longer - so let's move on.

To begin our conversation about this topic, it is important to define our terms. Thermodynamics is the science of energy conversion involving heat and other forms of energy, most notably mechanical work. It turns out that, over time, several laws of thermodynamics have emerged. There are four well-known laws of thermodynamics: the zeroth, first, second, and third laws. The zeroth law is arguably the most fundamental of the four laws, but the need to state it explicitly was not understood until after the other laws had been formulated, in 1931. This law implies the definition of a temperature function, essentially demonstrating the possibility of constructing a thermometer. It is referred to as the zeroth because it is arguably the most fundamental of the four laws, but the need to state it explicitly was not understood until after the other laws had been formulated, in 1931. The first law (1850) is commonly expressed as the principle of the conservation of energy stating that the internal energy of an isolated system is constant - also commonly known as “energy cannot be created or destroyed” - this principle is at work in E=mc2, the equation that demonstrates the force of the atomic bomb, that matter and energy are interchangeable and the conversion of matter to energy is highly exothermic.

The second law (iterations in 1850, 1851, and 1909) states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter location. This has to do with the universal principle of decay in the universe. The second law is an observation of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. For example, this is how a space heater would work in your house - if you’re cold, you turn on the space heater - the heat produced in the heater is transferred to the air surrounding the heater which then increases in pressure and diffuses throughout the room until the air in the room produces a higher temperature equilibrium. As a result, you get warmer because the heat from the air is transferred to your body through contact. This is where it gets confusing. ENTROPY is a measure of how much this evening-out process has progressed, and entropy of a system not in equilibrium increases over time.

The word entropy is one of the most misunderstood concepts in thermodynamics, particularly by the creationists. It is a measure of the energy not available for work in a thermodynamic process. Think of it as diffusable heat in a room - the room itself is a closed system, until someone turns on a space heater - at this point, heat energy starts pouring in at one point in the room. According to the second law of thermodynamics, heat will transfer from the heater to the rest of the room. When the heater is turned off, the remaining heat will eventually diffuse and equilibrate throughout the entire room - as this happens, entropy increases until equilibrium is reached, at which point maximum entropy is recorded for the now closed system - but remember! This all changes if we turn the heater on again and create an open system with an outside input of energy.

The trouble with the word entropy comes in with its definition in the microscopic interpretation of statistical mechanics: entropy expresses the disorder or randomness of the constituents of a thermodynamic system. Unfortunately, many people walk away from this definition thinking that entropy = disorder on a macroscopic level. ENTER: the creationists! They think they are clever by saying “HA! You and I are complex and ordered! We could not have arisen through a process of evolution because the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything tends towards increased entropy, or disorder! HAHA!” This idea is absurd on its face for several reasons:

1) Disorder and entropy are not the same - the second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. There are no laws about things tending to “break down”. There are no laws about disorder as people normally use the word. The 2nd law is about spontaneous heat flow or, more generally, about the impossibility to perform useful work indefinitely. The twists put on it by creationists, including “organized complexity” are entirely fictional.

2) All systems do not tend toward decay and disorder - on Earth, there are many systems besides evolution that tend toward greater order. Some examples are ice crystals and snowflakes, cloud formations, ripples in sand and water, cracks in drying mud, streams sorting stones based on size, growing plants when “left alone”, and the development of a human from a single cell. These are clear examples of order arising on Earth.

3) Complexity can form from simplicity - take the example of hurricane formation. This is based on the idea of a pan of water with heat applied uniformly to its bottom developing a convection current that is more complex than the still water. Complex planetary ring systems arise from simple laws of gravitation. Complex ant nests arise from simple behaviors. Complex organisms arise from simple seeds and embryos. A good mathematical example of this is the Mandelbrot set which describes fractals:

4) Earth is not a closed system - our planet is not an isolated system. There is a constant input of energy from the sun. Without the sun, it is clear that no life would be possible on our planet. Sunlight (with low entropy) shines on the earth, and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

5) Even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system - the second law *does* apply universally (to our universe). But it allows for a local decrease in entropy to be offset by increases elsewhere. Intriguingly, the maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form. Cool, huh?

6) Increasing order is not a violation of the 2nd law, even temporarily. A violation would be a decrease in entropy without a greater increase in entropy to go with it. Neither growth or evolution violate the 2nd law because both take advantage of local differences in entropy to get work done. Evolution requires only reproduction, heritable variation, and natural selection - ALL OF THESE PROCESSES OBVIOUSLY OCCUR. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE 2ND LAW - if anything, the 2nd law would need to be re-written to accommodate the reality of evolution occurring.

In short, order from disorder happens on earth ALL THE TIME. Creationists who claim otherwise are either deluded or being intellectually dishonest. I'm not sure which of those is worse.

You would all get an F!

Glad these were not my students last session. They would have all received "F"s for an inability to think. I don't know who is worse: the students who choose to live in stark ignorance, the parents who lead them there, or the teachers who let it continue unchallenged.

The Original Script

Well, Jesus finally figures it out and quits - it's about time!

CRDIHP Institute

Flying Pachyderms

PZ Myers has composed a compelling piece of satire, reminiscent of Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories, that should be read by both evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike.

To his final question, I would only add the word 'truth' to the list: "Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty [and truth], O Reader? In elephants, or elephants' wings?"

Like father, like son

Just because Kent Hovind is serving a 10 year jail sentence for tax evasion doesn't mean his creation ministry is bunk. Creationism is screwed up all on its own - the jail sentence is just a bonus in his case. However, Kent's son, Eric Hovind, seems to have every intention of taking the dummy baton and trying to place first in the race for the youngest and most stupid creationist.



Unfortunately his youth and slightly better use of graphics may make his pitch a little easier to young people in the church. If only we could get those young people to watch Bill Nye instead.

Creationists

Why do they clamor about and scream 'academic freedom'? Creationists and ID proponents use their airtime and article space to complain about academic freedom, instead of ever offering their solid, scientific evidence for why they should be given time in a SCIENCE classroom.

I'm so tired of it - here's a tirade I commented on a blog by infamous ID'er Casey Luskin in US News and World report today. I hope you understand my frustration:

How is it that someone who thinks that the world is trying to censor their point of view, takes almost 7000 words in an opinion piece to never ONCE put forth the evidence for their claim?

You act like science is a democracy. Science is, in fact, NOT a democracy - it is constantly discriminating against ignorance and poor methodologies, logical fallacies and plain old ideologies. Theories and models MUST hold up to scrutiny and observable fact. When they do not, they are discarded for newer, updated models that better explain our natural world/universe.

The fact that the universe is 13.6 billion years old, that our planet is ~4.6 billion years old, that single-celled organisms can be found ~2 billion years ago, that the fossil record shows emerging organisms with greater complexity over time, that we're all related genetically in proportion to our morphological similarities and complexities, that religions, myths, and ancestor worship has been around since cro-magnon man, best support a model of evolution and a natural means of origin of life.

If you want to take the unknown and say that a god did it, fine. Humans have been doing that for eons. You're just playing the 'god of the gaps' - whatever mystery exists, whatever we don't understand, you're claiming is just a god. Nevermind that people can't agree whether it's Zeus, or Thor, or Apollo, or Athena, or Jehovah, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. For years we've been closing the gaps on these gods, explaining things like where the rain comes from, why the grass is green, why developmental defects occur, how the sun 'comes up' every day, how we evolved from simpler life forms. But if you want to hold out your superstition, there's no logical argument that says you're committing some intellectual fallacy.

However, getting backed into a corner and exclaiming, "Well, you can't PROVE a god DIDN'T do it!" doesn't do anything to help your case. With that kind of reasoning, I'm as justified in declaring, "Well, you can't PROVE that Santa Claus DIDN'T do it!" It's equally nonsensical.

Of course, this is when it always hits me. I realize it. You don't believe in 'intelligent' design because of any scientific reason. You believe it because it supports a model that you want to be true - that you WANT to believe in. And therein lies the rub.

Ultimately, I can't reason someone out of something that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

And on that note, have fun on sunday suppressing the truth for your magicman in the sky.

god(s) of the Gaps

Be afraid. Be *very* afraid. Answers in Genesis is warning us that the upcoming celebrations of Darwin's 200th birthday and 150th anniversary of his publication of On The Origin of Species will not be honest about the 'true' origins of life. Specifically they claim:

During the “Year of Darwin” and “Darwin Day” celebrations on February 12, our hope is that many souls will dig a little deeper and discover the true Source of Life, whose Book holds the key that unlocks the mysteries of life.

Of course they're talking about their holy codex (La Biblia), which they apparently seem to think was meant as a science book from god.

In the article, they link to free samples from their latest issue of Answers Magazine, (I imagine they're having trouble selling it) pulling perspectives from creation 'scientists' who 'research' the creation 'model'. Sorry for the quotes, but I don't want you thinking I consider those true to their definitions.

In the article God of the Gaps, they point out that transitional fossils still do not exist in the fossil record, and according to Darwin's text himself his hypothesis is thus refuted. I think because they've repeated this drivel so much that they actually believe it.

It's painful to read through the many errors in the text, not least of which when they continue to purport evidence from fossils laid down by 'the Flood'. Most interesting about this particular article is how, instead of completely ignoring the evidence (as they normally do), they twist and lie about what it represents by misleading the reader to think it's an interesting anomaly:

Likewise, groups of animals that purportedly link reptiles to mammals, or fish to amphibians, are fascinating cases to be studied. Rather than being transitions, they appear to be brushstrokes from God’s creative palette, examples of wonderful designs suited for their unique, pre-Flood environments.

'Cases to be studied'? 'Brushstrokes from God's creative palette'? Wtf? There are SO many examples of transitional fossils - invertebrates to fish, dinosaurs to birds, evolution of whales, horses, and human primates. Here's an example of the transition of fish to tetrapods:



I got the pictures from Wikipedia - they are artistic renditions based on the fossils discovered. I took the liberty of organizing them into a timeline with names and dates. Note how every 2-5 million years there's another advance to the tetrapod form.

Of course Ken Ham would have you believe that these are not transitions, but instead 'brushstrokes' of a creator. This is what you call 'moving the goal posts' - this is what happens with true believers. Because they start out with their conclusion, they claim that there are no transitional forms because a god created the world 6000 years ago. They are admitting that transitional forms would refute their 'creation model' so they are forced to claim that they simply don't exist, but implicit in this is that should transitional fossils be presented their model would be invalidated. So now when we have them, and when new ones are discovered, instead of being intellectually honest and admitting what they are, they simply move the goal posts and say that they aren't really transitional 'enough'. Some creationists think transitional forms mean cats giving birth to dogs, etc. That just shows their complete ignorance when it comes to the subject in general.

Go be motivated - google search transitional forms and see all of the awesomely cool links that we DO have. Don't let someone fool you into thinking that we are missing all transitional forms. Imagine how many others might still be out there ...

Evolution is ... Jewish?

One of my friends sent me a link this week to a website that exposes a particularly sinister PAC called the 'Fair Education Foundation.' Upon initial examination you might suspect that this is some sort of joke, but after careful scrutiny you'll find that the people behind it are quite serious.

It turns out that this particular exposure is a little dated (from Feb of 2007) but worth an entry on my blog for the sake of demonstrating the kind of kooks you can find trying to tamper with our government.

The following is a memo purportedly sent from the office of Ben Bridges (R-Cleveland, GA) and concerns how to combat the teaching of evolution in the public school science classroom:
Particularly interesting is the strategy: since creationism and intelligent design (ID) can't be taught in the science classroom because of their religious agenda, Mr. Bridges will attempt to make evolution the agenda of Judaism. I'm sure they would love to live in this fantasy world where they can defeat evolution/science while also scoring points against another rival religion. Too bad this is one of the most absurd ideas and would never fly in a court of law.

Overlooking the apparent anti-semitism, the supporting evidence that is offered is the best part of the whole ordeal. The actual website for the PAC also includes further information about our planet and universe. Specifically they suggest 'evidence' for the idea that our planet does not revolve around the sun, but that it is suspended motionlessly in space by magnets ... magnets that were placed by god, no less:

So the take home message is that according to the Fair Education Foundation not only is evolution a lie from a cult Jewish sect, but the heliocentric model of our solar system is blatantly incorrect - all evidenced by scriptures from the christian bible.

It's sad that they believe this - though it's even more depressing that while Ben Bridges denies issuing this memo, claims to support it more than he would 'evolutionism' or 'big bangism.' To be exact he says, "I agree with it more than I would the Big Bang Theory or the Darwin Theory,” ... “I am convinced that rather than risk teaching a lie why teach anything?"

He is a state REPRESENTATIVE! Well, why would we expect someone who graduated from Barber College to actually understand basic 7th grade science?

Transition This!

I'm currently working in the lonely confocal microscope room, trying to keep my sanity after a few hours of work in a warm, smelly, dark room. I figure, hey, why not check out the answersingenesis.org site? They always have crazy stuff being posted there by that crazy australian, Ken Ham. Indeed, I have not been let down.

I decided to read Ken's blog - can't go wrong there - and see what new evidence he has to show me that creationism, not evolution, explains life as we know it, both functionally and philosophically. Here's a link to his entry: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/03/04/semantics-and-evolution/

My apologies if his link has been removed due to the grotesqueness of its innaccuracies. :)

Ken has taken it upon himself to explain how, because of the profundity and cleverness of the intelligent design arguments, scientists are now panicking that someone has finally come along to punch holes in their quicksand 'theory' about how life essentially functions on this planet. According to Ham, scientists are now playing word games to 'reclaim' the word 'design' and to clear up ambiguities concerning transitional fossils. Ken Ham is so convinced by the obviousness of the scientific stupor that he doesn't clarify his point much - he simply quotes prominent scientists explaining how to combat the logos of intelligent design.

Not only is he arrogant, but he seems to be quite intellectually dishonest to boot. If anyone is playing semantics, it is Ken Ham. The constant bickering, that creationists aren't treated fairly because they are ignored by mainstream science, is incredibly exhausting, especially in light of this drivvel. How is it that he doesn't understand how the human mind works through an understanding of causality. Should we see something moving in the air in a particular direction, we assume that there was a 'cause' in the opposite direction to which the object is traveling. Many more scientists, including Richarrd Dawkins, have made the eloquent arguments better than I, indicating the amazing-ness of life's SEEMING design. We have a habit of looking at things from a designed perspective, and when they don't look designed, insist that they must somehow be. This is truly an incredibly weak argument that Ham is trying to make. Scientists have been awed at the complexity of biology by poetically admiting the superficial cleverness of the system as if it were 'designed.' Unfortunately certain sects have exploited the use of this term to mean something entirely different. I'm ready to have a discussion any day with someone who thinks that my near legally blind eyesight or herniated disc in my lower back were products of 'design.' But that's right - Ham concedes those biological flaws in the system are due to the fall of man because of original sin; perfectly reasonable, right?

The second point that Ham wants to make is just ludicrous. This is the same camp that supported the evolution challenge: show evidence of a transitional fossil (i.e. a cat headed dog being born from a cat, and giving birth to a dog) to prove evolution and win a monetary prize. I'm not lying - here, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NkO6fQvydM

Understanding what a transitional fossil is should be key to knowing how intellectually dishonest these creationists are being. First off, let's do a thought experiment I once heard Richard Dawkins suggest on a podcast. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives. Because evolution is a bushy process in general, there have been other species besides just the two of us; however we're the only most related extant species in 2008. But if we were to consider alll of the other species that have gone extinct: Homo habilus, Homo erectus, etc. and line them up side by side; we should be able to have intercourse with the most related group, and they could then mate with their next most related group, and so forth down the line, until we realize that we're n degrees of separation from having screwed a chimp. I think it's quite sobering to realize that if all of these other species were alive with us today, this experiment would be possible.

The notion that we need a cat-headed dog to prove evolution is patently absurd. Anyone taking a cursory glance at an evolution text book realizes that cats and dogs didn't come from each other, they each come from a common ancestor! This goes hand in hand with the frequently repeated misconception that humans descended from chimps ... NO! Chimps AND humans descended from a COMMON ANCESTOR. Each time that a creationist rhetorically questions or states that "I didn't come from no monkey!" They're either ignorant or intellectually dishonest ... and judging from his age and intellect, something tells me that for Ken Ham, it's the latter.

Ahhh for the Dark Ages

I don't have time to submit a full posting on any topic in particular, but I couldn't help but share this bit of news with anyone who might read. 'The View' on ABC has finally let Rosie O'Donnell go (thank Zeus!) and have replaced her with a black woman named Sherri Shepherd ... a creationist.

Yes, that's right ... a creationist. After all we must tolerate ALL view points, right? I've posted the link to the clip on youtube so that you can enjoy the sadness with me. You see, Whoopi Goldberg, by chance or sheer calculated cunning (I'm going with luck on this one), was trying to get Sherri to describe her view point and was attempting to toss her some softball questions. Along the way, she begins to lead with the question, "Do you believe that the world is flat?" Simple question - I suppose it deserves a simple answer. Response is .... "I don't know ... I've never thought about it before."

What?

That's right, she continues to reiterate the point that she 'doesn't know' and then proceeds to say that she doesn't worry about such things - she's busy worrying about how to feed her son. Apparently it's too much to have to go to work to earn a living AND be smarter than a 2nd grader. But there you have it in the link to the left, in all its glory. Someone who isn't sure if the world is flat, and we're supposed to accept her belief in creationism as based on any sound or credible logic?

On that note of 'tolerance' - I find it interesting that people think science should be tolerant of creationism. When pollsters ask citizens whether or not they think creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom, the majority say yes. Why? Because we've hyped up the idea of DEMOCRACY so much, that people think Science is democratic ... nothing could be farther from the truth! Science rules with an iron fist - the reason it's wrong to 'teach the controversy' in the science classroom between creationism and evolution is because the very act is intellectually dishonest - THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. On some later posts, I will undoubtedly tease this out into many individual arguments, but for now it should suffice to reason that Science is NOT tolerant of all view points. It eternally rejects those that are ignorant and stupid. As such, let's keep creationism out of school and leave it where it belongs ... on The View.