Abacus

I've gathered that creationists often like to say that evolution always leads to a reduction in "information." I assume that by this they mean a reduction of the diversity in the gene pool. If this is indeed the case, then how do they explain the modern diversity of human beings coming from only two, blond-haired, blue-eyed, anglo-saxon progenitors?

Autonemesis

They don't explain it. They wave their hands and pretend they didn't hear that evolution leads to more information, not less.

Coragyps

A cynic could accuse them of using this as an example of how everything has been deteriorating since The Fall. The ubermensch has left the building, so to speak.....

Tabula_rasa

Hi RNG.

You have every right to be confused by creationist/ID arguments since they are generally based on the incorrect application of science.

I will make an attempt to paraphrase the argument(s). Not being a Creationist/ID'er, I am making a stab at it.

<paraphrase>
The mechanisms of evolution rely on mutations and chance selection, but most mutations are harmful to the organism. Because of this, species would die off at a very high rate. So evolution cannot possibly be the cause for the complexity of life that we see.

Our Theory of Intelligent Design eliminates the problem, thusly. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) states that everything tends toward disorder. There is a similar principle of entropy in Information Theory. However, in biology we see things becoming more and more complex as time progresses. DNA provides the information that is necessary for that complexity. So...

Given, we know that everything tends towards disorder *and* information is also subject to the laws governing this disorder *and* biology uses information for its survival *but* biology appears to be going towards a state of increased order *therefore* an outside agency (intelligence) is responsible for this increased complexity.
</paraphrase>

I will leave it as an exercise to find the flaws in their argument.

Abacus

Greetings Tabula_rasa. If your representation of the creationist postion is correct, then I can only see two options as to how the present day diversity was arrived at:

1.) The higher power created all the different races separately.

2.) The higher power takes an active hand in the direction of evolution.

The second option looks like a form of theistic evolution to me.

So, creationists, which option is it?

Oh, thanks for the replies everyone.

Tabula_rasa

Or 3.) The premises for the argument are incorrect.

Abacus

Doesn't count. No true creationist, under threat of damnation to hell, would ever consider this option.

Tabula_rasa

Well, I tend to liken "true" creationists to "true" xtians - I'm not sure what one looks like or even if one exists.

However, there are some creationists who have definitely had their blindfolds of ignorance lifted to reality. Agreed that it is a rare event. If you leave out the possibility for teaching the science, then it just becomes a pointless exercise for another day's argument. I'd like to think we are helping to make a difference (naive, I know )

Bubba

I think this forum is making a difference. Someone has to discuss these ideas honestly so responses are available to YEC nonsense...

Bubba

Tabula_rasa

My point exactly. Making a difference is what it's all about.

It's not a matter of engaging a creationist with the intention of convincing that specific individual that they are wrong [an argument that is very rarely won, IMO]. However, once an individual is engaged, the discussion needs to be for the lurkers out there who are trying to understand. Getting into a polemic with a "true" creationist is a fruitless exercise.

This is the point I was making with option "3.) The premises for the argument are incorrect." The whole argument for Intelligent Design is based on two false premises.

The statement that everything tends towards disorder is being applied incorrectly. The problem with this is that the scientific implications of the 2LoT does allow for parts of a closed system to decrease, even though the total entropy of that system must increase. As long as the sun continues to pump its energy into our planet, then complex life will flourish. This is the correct application of the 2LoT. No need for an intelligent outside agency.

The second false premise is more subtle. It is true that many, if not most, mutations are harmful. The problem with this is that not all mutatations are harmful. ID proponents subtly hide the fact that beneficial mutations do often occur.

Taking on a creationist with points 1.) and 2.) only brings the game to *their* ballpark. Keep them in the realm of science and calmly refute their false claims. You may not teach that specific creationist, but you may just teach a lurker.

My 2¢