PoAC rant: ID baloney

[velvetpage]

First, the article: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061117/23510.htm

A few choice quotes: "First, Christians need to realize that part of basic human rationality detects action of intelligence. . . . To explain the first step, the apologist listed emails, Stonehenge, and monuments in Washington as examples that are “clearly the products of intelligence” that would be “irrational” to explain otherwise."

The idea that "anything this complex OBVIOUSLY has an intelligence behind it" is really, really poor logic. It's basically a cosmic conspiracy theory, on the same level as, "My son got autism right after he got his MMR, therefore the vaccine caused his autism!" or even "The number of traffic tie-ups between me and the mall is a clear indication that God doesn't want me doing my Christmas shopping this afternoon." It confuses coincidence with causality, leading to a monumental error. To say that human intelligence is hard-wired to find items that were created by an intelligence is true, as far as it goes. What it doesn't say is that humans often manage to find conspiracy where there is only coincidence. Just because we see intelligence in everything doesn't mean we're right - it means we want there to be intelligence in everything. (Note: I'm not saying God didn't create - I'm saying this particular argument for creation is as full of holes as my cheese grater, and about as useful for holding water.)

On to my next critique. First, the quote: "The questions that result from these discoveries are where did all these genetic information come from and why are they specific to one bacteria if according to Darwin’s theory of common descent they have to derive from a common ancestor?"

I think he's missed a few things here - specifically, a century and a half of scientific thought since Darwin. Does science still postulate that all life on Earth came from a single bit of life millenia ago? My suggestion for this: why is it impossible for life to develop twice or more times, independently of each other? The answer: it's not impossible, just highly improbable. But given the vast amounts of time involved, the improbable becomes much more possible. Other possibility: maybe you just haven't found the links that tie this bit of DNA in with the more common varieties that science has already linked to each other. Just because you don't have the link doesn't mean it doesn't, and never did, exist. It just means you haven't found it yet.

Okay, I'm done.

Comments

[hendrikboom.livejournal.com]

"But given the vast amounts of time involved, the improbable becomes much more possible."

Actually, the vast times, to my understanding, don't make it any more probable, and just give one or other of the independently originated life strains more time to die out. I see the first life mutating and evolving and specializing to fill all available ecological niches, leaving very little space for anything independent to arise later. If the second start of life doesn't start almost at the same time as the first, the deck is stacked against it very heavily.

-- hendrik

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

In which case, my second suggestion is more likely: there are links, but they haven't been found and classified as links yet. Either way, his science is flawed.

[michellinator.livejournal.com]

This post has just helped me figure out why I get so angry when a certain co-worker starts talking to me about Creationism and what should be taught in schools. I thought I was being defensive because our points of view differ (as I voted NOT to continue religious teachings in my local school district) and tried to focus on her other qualities. That's not it, though. It's that she feels that only her version of How We All Got Here should be taught, and independant thought (such as this) should be discouraged. That scares me from any source.

[(Anonymous)]

And this is so basic, too. I mean, all I did was apply some rules of logic that should be very easy to teach and almost automatic to apply. But they're not taught. Maybe we need to go backwards a hundred years and teach logic, rhetoric, and other debating tactics in our schools as a matter of course. It's inexcusable that this guy, who has several Ph.D's and teaches in a university, can be out-thought by a teacher whose last science class was (the Ontario equivalent of) senior AP Chemistry, thirteen years ago. I didn't even do that well in it.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

That was me, in case you hadn't figured it out. I CAN think my way out of a paper bag, but remembering to log in is a different story.

[lasarina.livejournal.com]

There are lots of examples of dead-ends, independent lines of development and such. Neanderthals come to mind, though the knuckle-dragging-small-brain of the creationists do make me wonder IF ... nah just another independent development - the stupidity gene. Unfortunately, they are breeding faster than people with sense *sigh*. If you like, I can dig up some more examples.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

It's a truism of modern society that higher intelligence + higher education = fewer kids. It's both inevitable and, on some level, unfortunate.

I would be interested to see the examples. I wouldn't likely pass them on to these guys, though. There's really no point, since they're not interested in actual science. But for my own elucidation, certainly. :)