Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr.GH · 08-02-2003, 11:41 AM

Creationists on the Internet draw from a limited number of sources. We see the same arguments presented over and over, often in a garbled form. YECs are of course the easiest to refute, because their arguments invoke nonexistent physics, impossible geology, and cosmology. Observational facts from astronomy, paleontology, anthropology, etc. can serve to provide overwhelming data rejecting the early earth, creation of fixed kinds, global flood nonsense. The hard work in locating the source material is helped by this group's contributers, and at TalkOrigins, TalkDesign, and NCSE. The Sarfatis of the world can be outragous, and irritating, but their actual arguments are trivial.

I was reading a slew of creationist books last few weeks. Two books were particularly irritating:

Broom, Neil
1998 How Blind Is The Watchmaker?: Nature�s Design and the Limits of Naturalistic Science. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press

Spetner, Lee
1997 Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. New York: The Judaica Press

What was irratating is the effort to isolate the errors of fact from errors of inference. Both authors are smart, well educated men who have earned doctorates, and have considerable academic career achievements. This is not at all typical of YECs, but fairly common among the principle IDCs. I point to these not only because of their typical creationist�s use of inflammatory language (most notably by Broom), but also because it was particularly hard to isolate their errors. Both men were inspired to reject evolutionary biology because of prior religious belief, and both were particularly motivated to write in response to Richard Dawkins. This is also typical of many YECs. But, these are the sort of creationist that likes to deny being a creationist: Intelligent Design Creationists, and are much more difficult. But in the end they reduce to one argument: 1) Life = complex information, this complexity can not have derived from natural processes.

Refuting these (and other IDCs) is complicated by the fact that very, very few of their followers will actually have understood the probability arguments, or the biochemistry of genetics. This reduces to merely a question of trust, and their followers have already made that choice. The farce of ARN or ISCID provides ample examples of this problem. There are particular errors of fact that these authors do make. For example, Spetner makes a major error about the evolutionary influence of redator/prey dynamics. But, too few intelligent design followers will recognize its significance to be worth point out to them.

Regardless of any other flourishes, the Divine origin of information is their core argument, and the origin of life is their hole card. Many times I have seen evolutionary partisans insist that evolution can ignore the origin of life, that evolution is something that only happens after life has begun. This is abandoning the field to IDC. It is surrender. So, I am urging science supporters to become better informed about the current status of Origin of Life research by recommending the following:

Iris Fry,
2000 "The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview" Rutgers University Press

Schopf, J. William
1999 "Cradle of Life:The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils" , Prinston University Press

Woese, Carl
1998 �The universal ancestor� PNAS Vol. 95, Issue 12, 6854-6859, June 9

Woese, Carl
2002 �On the evolution of Cells� PNAS Vol. 99 13:8742-8747, June 25

And while you are at it, I also suggest reading one of the key creationist accounts of why OOL is "proof" of Divine intervention that is also highly cited by the IDCs:

Thaxton, C. B., Walter L. Bradley, R. L. Olsen
1984 The Mystery of Life�s Origin. New York: Philosophical Library

08-02-2003, 12:10 PM

As a matter of interest, does anyone know if Dawkins is aware of the two ID books cited? He might be interested in a short article on each or both together.

Toto · 08-02-2003, 01:07 PM

How Blind?

Quote:

From Publishers Weekly

Broom, a biomaterials engineer writing from a Christian perspective, makes a spirited but ungainly case against Darwinism as he defends a return of purpose and intentionality to biological explanation. The book's most helpful material is found in chapters four through seven where Broom reviews life-origins research, comparing the failure or limited success of most studies with widespread and extravagant claims in the "pop science" realm that the basic problem of biogenesis has been solved. The second half of Broom's treatise takes a turn for the worse as the subject matter shifts from specific research results to evolutionary theory and the philosophy of biology, a conceptual thicket where careful distinctions and judicious arguments become crucially important. In this section, Broom's lack of sympathy for his opponents often colors his presentation of their arguments; in some cases it is unclear whether he has really understood them. An uncharitable reading of Darwinism lures him into a tendentious and muddled argument about natural selection in which he seems to be forcing Darwinists to interpret the metaphor of "selection" in terms of literal intentionan interpretation any orthodox or neo-Darwinist is bound to disavow.

Not by Chance

The reviews are full of 5 stars from ID'ers. The two most critical are in the middle:

Quote:

Reviewer: Dale Franks from Oceanside, CA USA
Dr. Spetner has constructed a flawed critique of the Darwinian idea of evolution through natural selection.

. . . I find it fascinating that the main criticisms of evolution come from physicists, engineers, and chemists, rather from the people who actually study it, such as biologists, and paleontologists. Perhaps engineers are simply repelled by the messy nature of biology, in contract to their worlds of smoothly functioning machinery, and universal laws.

Even more interesting is the fact that this and similar critiques of evolution are almost entirely an American phenomenon. In nearly every other country in the world, evolution is uncontroversial. Only in America is there a significant movement to question evolution, or to submit arguments for Design or Creation. One wonders why books like Dr. Spetner's are not coming out of Italy, or Japan.

. . .

It is telling, however, that despite his statistical analysis, Dr Spetner is forced to admit that there is both direct and indirect evidence for evolution. Even as he stands at the brink of declaring evolution to be a statistical impossibility, he steps back and acknowledges its truth, however grudgingly.

One is forced to wonder at the end what Dr. Spetner's point is. He spends a large part of his book "proving" the statistical impossibility of evolution, yet any graduate biology student accepts this statistical unlikelihood as a matter of course.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that what Dr. Spetner has really demonstrated is that mathematics is not the proper discipline to use when seeking explanations about evolution.

This review incited a lot of counter reviews:

Quote:

Ph.D. in Physics does not = understanding of evolution, August 11, 2000 Reviewer: erica peters

. . . Usually we get to hear about improbability (even Behe's arguments are based on a mis-understanding of the genetic basis of his "observed complexity" and probability), complexity, and the biggest joke of all, the second law of thermodynamics. Ladies and gentleman, when you hear a John Doe with a Ph.D. in Physics talk about how the second law of thermodnamics makes evolution impossible, close the book and run away. That Physicist CONSCIOUSLY LYING to you and attempting to prey on a lack of scientific knowledge concerning the second law of thermodynamics. THE EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM, if it were, the temperature of the earth would be approximately equal to the temperature of the surrounding universe (i.e. 3 degrees above absolute zero... and at such temperatures the atmosphere would freeze and fall to the surface of the earth). The fact is that evolution is GENETICALLY BASED. To even begin to understand the mechanisms involved one would need to devote at least 4 years of college education to that topic and that topic alone. A degree Genetics = an understanding of genetics (hopefully). This is such a simple point, but it is a point that so many people are willing to overlook because the author is saying something that sounds and feels good. . . . . To those people out there who want to rate this review as unhelpful, understand that this book too is unheplful. It will take you further down the path of scientific illiteracy, which is what these authors are preying on. . . .

Kevbo · 08-02-2003, 03:20 PM

Dr.GH, is there a way to access those scientific papers online?

Dr.GH · 08-02-2003, 03:35 PM

Register for the Proceeding of the National Academy of Science at their website. It is free. You will gain access to PNAS one calendar year old, or older (back to 1990 IIRC). Most every one invloved in the evo/creto debate should be registered there, and also at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Nature mag'.

God Fearing Atheist · 08-02-2003, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevbo
Dr.GH, is there a way to access those scientific papers online?

Kevbo,

Woese's papers cited above can be found here and here.

-GFA

Coragyps · 08-02-2003, 03:38 PM

PNAS is online and free from 1990 to, I think, a year prior to the most recent issue here.
To add to Dr GH's suggestion:
http://www.sciencemag.org/

http://www.nature.com/

Kevbo · 08-02-2003, 09:56 PM

Thanks, guys, that's some good stuff :notworthy

djmullen · 08-03-2003, 07:05 AM

Broom has published what amounts to an abridged version of his book at ISCID here.

emotional · 08-03-2003, 10:03 AM

On a side question: have there been any other experiments for abiogenesis than the famed ones by Urey-Miller and Fox?

08-02-2003, 11:41 AM	#1
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	IDC and OOL- minor rant. Creationists on the Internet draw from a limited number of sources. We see the same arguments presented over and over, often in a garbled form. YECs are of course the easiest to refute, because their arguments invoke nonexistent physics, impossible geology, and cosmology. Observational facts from astronomy, paleontology, anthropology, etc. can serve to provide overwhelming data rejecting the early earth, creation of fixed kinds, global flood nonsense. The hard work in locating the source material is helped by this group's contributers, and at TalkOrigins, TalkDesign, and NCSE. The Sarfatis of the world can be outragous, and irritating, but their actual arguments are trivial. I was reading a slew of creationist books last few weeks. Two books were particularly irritating: Broom, Neil 1998 How Blind Is The Watchmaker?: Nature�s Design and the Limits of Naturalistic Science. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Spetner, Lee 1997 Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. New York: The Judaica Press What was irratating is the effort to isolate the errors of fact from errors of inference. Both authors are smart, well educated men who have earned doctorates, and have considerable academic career achievements. This is not at all typical of YECs, but fairly common among the principle IDCs. I point to these not only because of their typical creationist�s use of inflammatory language (most notably by Broom), but also because it was particularly hard to isolate their errors. Both men were inspired to reject evolutionary biology because of prior religious belief, and both were particularly motivated to write in response to Richard Dawkins. This is also typical of many YECs. But, these are the sort of creationist that likes to deny being a creationist: Intelligent Design Creationists, and are much more difficult. But in the end they reduce to one argument: 1) Life = complex information, this complexity can not have derived from natural processes. Refuting these (and other IDCs) is complicated by the fact that very, very few of their followers will actually have understood the probability arguments, or the biochemistry of genetics. This reduces to merely a question of trust, and their followers have already made that choice. The farce of ARN or ISCID provides ample examples of this problem. There are particular errors of fact that these authors do make. For example, Spetner makes a major error about the evolutionary influence of redator/prey dynamics. But, too few intelligent design followers will recognize its significance to be worth point out to them. Regardless of any other flourishes, the Divine origin of information is their core argument, and the origin of life is their hole card. Many times I have seen evolutionary partisans insist that evolution can ignore the origin of life, that evolution is something that only happens after life has begun. This is abandoning the field to IDC. It is surrender. So, I am urging science supporters to become better informed about the current status of Origin of Life research by recommending the following: Iris Fry, 2000 "The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview" Rutgers University Press Schopf, J. William 1999 "Cradle of Life:The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils" , Prinston University Press Woese, Carl 1998 �The universal ancestor� PNAS Vol. 95, Issue 12, 6854-6859, June 9 Woese, Carl 2002 �On the evolution of Cells� PNAS Vol. 99 13:8742-8747, June 25 And while you are at it, I also suggest reading one of the key creationist accounts of why OOL is "proof" of Divine intervention that is also highly cited by the IDCs: Thaxton, C. B., Walter L. Bradley, R. L. Olsen 1984 The Mystery of Life�s Origin. New York: Philosophical Library

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-02-2003, 12:10 PM	#2
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	As a matter of interest, does anyone know if Dawkins is aware of the two ID books cited? He might be interested in a short article on each or both together.

08-02-2003, 03:20 PM	#4
Kevbo Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NY Posts: 212	Dr.GH, is there a way to access those scientific papers online?

08-02-2003, 03:35 PM	#5
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	Register for the Proceeding of the National Academy of Science at their website. It is free. You will gain access to PNAS one calendar year old, or older (back to 1990 IIRC). Most every one invloved in the evo/creto debate should be registered there, and also at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Nature mag'.

08-02-2003, 03:38 PM	#7
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	PNAS is online and free from 1990 to, I think, a year prior to the most recent issue here. To add to Dr GH's suggestion: http://www.sciencemag.org/ http://www.nature.com/

08-02-2003, 09:56 PM	#8
Kevbo Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NY Posts: 212	Thanks, guys, that's some good stuff :notworthy

08-03-2003, 07:05 AM	#9
djmullen Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison, WI, USA Posts: 97	Broom has published what amounts to an abridged version of his book at ISCID here.

08-03-2003, 10:03 AM	#10
emotional Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah Posts: 1,945	On a side question: have there been any other experiments for abiogenesis than the famed ones by Urey-Miller and Fox?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.