Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Debunking Darwinist myths...The Arguments From Incredulity (or Ignorance) and the Laws of Probability show Darwinism is anti-science and illogical!!!

Because Darwinists have created a number of fake fallacies and used a plethora of bad and illogical arguments,  this seemed like a good time to remind folks that Darwinism is statistically impossible. It isn't just the odds against an organism just happening by chance (statistically and chemically impossible) but also the odds of a Universe popping into existence.   It is a ridiculous and totally impossible event!!!

The only logical and scientific explanation for existence and life is a Supernatural Creator capable of creating a temporal world.  The Darwinist and his fake fallacy of the "Argument from Incredulity" will not fly in the real world.  Can you imagine a murder suspect's lawyer trying to use such an argument in court?  Let's think on that:


A wealthy single man in his thirties was found strangled to death in his home.  Now here is the evidence:


The murder victim lived in a home that had security cameras that viewed all sides of the house and had a entrance keypad that would require a code to be entered to allow entry.  The victim was killed on a Thursday.  His uncle was the ONLY person caught on video entering and leaving on Thursday, his prints were found on the keypad.   The victim was strangled by a length of rope and the exact same kind of rope was found in the uncle's shed.  The rope used to strangle the victim is not found, but the uncle could have disposed of it in many ways.   The uncle had no alibi for Thursday, as he had called off of work and no one could remember seeing him for a space of about eight hours that day.   The uncle would be one of the family members who would inherit the wealth of the victim as he was listed in the victim's will.  His alibi was that he was sick and went to bed and, if he was seen on video it must have been someone else in disguise.   


The prosecuting attorney lays out the scenario - the uncle had motive, he had opportunity and he had the means to murder his nephew.   He was the only person detected at the scene on the day of the murder, he had no alibi and his fingerprints were on the entrance keypad.


The defending attorney's defense?  "Your honor, the prosecuting attorney is using a logical fallacy we call the argument from incredulity.  Even though he cannot imagine a way someone else could have murdered the victim, my client was sick in bed as he testified.  Surely no one could use the argument from incredulity to send a man to jail for the rest of his natural life?"


Would you care to guess what the jury and judge would think of such a defense?   That defense would be so pathetic that the uncle, who would be convicted, might apply for a retrial because of his incompetent defense attorney!!!   YET in science this kind of argument is what Darwinists use when Creationists point out that so many aspects of their mythology is logically and statistically impossible!   Just think about that? 



"If you properly shuffle a deck of cards, in all likelihood, the resulting deck has never been seen before in the history of the world."

Number of permutations possible = 52! = 8.0658175e+67 (i.e. 8 followed by 67 zeroes)

Playing cards were invented in China in the 9th Century. 

So, humans have been playing cards for 1200 years i.e 1200*365*24*60*60 = 37843200000 seconds.
Even with the blown-out-of-proportion assumption that there are 1 billion shuffles per second in the world, the total number of shuffles is 3.78432e+19 which is about 2*10^48 times lesser than the total permutations.

Hence, the probability of at least 2 decks being the same is infinitesimally small. - 
Deepak Mehta

Intelligent Design Proponents such as William Dembski have debunked this fake fallacy nicely by investigating the fallacy in comparison to actual scientific investigation:


Response to Claim That ID Theory Is An Argument from Incredulity

The Contention That Intelligent Design Theory Succumbs To A Logic Fallacy:
It is argued by those who object to the validity of ID Theory that the proposition of design in nature is an argument from ignorance.   There is no validity to this unfounded claim because design in nature is well-established by the work of William Dembski.  For example, here is a database of writings of Dembski: http://designinference.com/dembski-on-intelligent-design/dembski-writings/. Not only are the writings of Dembski peer-reviewed and published, but so are rebuttals that were written in response of his work.  Dembski is the person who coined the phrase Complex Specified Informationand how it is convincing evidence for design in nature.
Informal Fallacy
The Alleged Gap Argument Problem With Irreducible Complexity:
The argument from ignorance allegation against ID Theory is based upon the design-inspired hypothesis championed by Michael Behe, which is known as Irreducible ComplexityIt is erroneous to claim ID is based upon an argument from incredulity* because ID Theory makes no appeals to the unobservable, supernatural, paranormal, or anything that is metaphysical or outside the scope of science.  However, the assertion that the Irreducible Complexity hypothesis is a gap argument is a valid objection that does need a closer view to determine if the criticism of irreducible complexity is valid.
An irreducibly complex system is one that (a) the removal of a protein renders the molecular machine inoperable, and (b) the biochemical structure has no stepwise evolutionary pathway.
Here’s how one would set up examination by using gene knockout, reverse engineering, study of homology, and genome sequencing:
I. To CONFIRM Irreducible Complexity:
Show:
1. The molecular machine fails to operate upon the removal of a protein.
AND,
2. The biochemical structure has no evolutionary precursor.
II. To FALSIFY Irreducible Complexity:
Show:
1. The molecular machine still functions upon loss of a protein.
OR,
2. The biochemical structure DOES have an evolutionary pathway.
The 2 qualifiers make falsification easier, and confirmation more difficult.
Those who object to irreducible complexity often raise the argument that the irreducible complexity hypothesis is based upon there being gaps or negative evidence.   Such critics claim that irreducible complexity is not based upon affirmative evidence, but on a lack of evidence, and as such, irreducible complexity is a gap argument, also known as an argument from ignorance.  However, this assertion that irreducible complexity is nothing other than a gap argument is false.
According to the definition of irreducible complexity, the hypothesis can be falsified EITHER way, by (a) demonstrating the biochemical system still performs its original function upon the removal of any gene that makes up its parts, or (b) showing that there are missing mutations that were skipped, i.e., there is no stepwise evolutionary pathway or precursor.  Irreducible complexity can still be falsified even if no evolutionary precursor is found because of the functionality qualifier.   In other words, the mere fact that there is no stepwise evolutionary pathway does not automatically mean that the system is irreducibly complex.  To confirm irreducible complexity, BOTH qualifiers must be satisfied.  But, it only takes one of the qualifiers to falsify irreducible complexity.  As such, the claim that irreducible complexity is fatally tied to a gap argument is without merit.
It is true that there very much exists a legitimate logic fallacy known as proving a negative.  The question is whether there is such a thing as proving nonexistence. It’s a logic fallacy. While it is true that it is impossible to prove a negative or provide negative proof, it is very much logically valid to limit a search to find a target within a reasonable search space and obtain a quantity of zero as a scientifically valid answer.
Solving a logic problem might be a challenged, but there is a methodical procedure that will lead to success.  The cure to the logic fallacy, is to correct the error and solve the problem.
Solving a logic problem might be a challenge, but there is a methodical procedure that will lead to success. The cure to a logic fallacy, is to simply correct the error and solve the problem.
The reason why the irreducible complexity hypothesis is logically valid is because there is no attempt to base the prediction that certain biochemical molecular machinery are irreducibly complex based upon absence of evidence.  If this were so, then the critics would be correct.  But, this is not the case.  Instead, the irreducible complexity hypothesis requires research, such as various procedures in molecular biology as (a) gene knockout,(b) reverse engineering(c) examining homologous systems, and (d) sequencing the genome of the biochemical structure.  The gene knockout procedure was used by Scott Minnich in 2004-2005 to show that the removal of any of the proteins of a bacterial flagellum will render that bacteria incapable of motility (can’t swim anymore).  Michael Behe also mentions (e) yet another way as to how testing irreducible complexity using gene knockout procedure might falsify the hypothesis here.
When the hypothesis of irreducible complexity is tested in the lab using any of the procedures directly noted above, an obvious thorough investigation is conducted that demonstrates evidence of absence. There is a huge difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence.  One is a logic fallacy while the other is an empirically generated result, a scientifically valid quantity that is concluded upon thorough examination.  So, depending upon the analysis, you can prove a negative.
Evidence of Absence
Here’s an excellent example as to why irreducible complexity is logically valid, and not an argument from ignorance.  If I were to ask you if you had change for a dollar, you could say, “Sorry, I don’t have any change.” If you make a diligent search in your pockets to discover there are indeed no coins anywhere to be found on your person, then you have affirmatively proven a negative that your pockets were empty of any loose change. Confirming that you had no change in your pockets was not an argument from ignorance because you conducted a thorough examination and found it to be an affirmatively true statement.
The term, irreducible complexity, was coined by Michael Behe in his book, “Darwin’s Black Box” (1996).  In that book, Behe predicted that certain biochemical systems would be found to be irreducibly complex.  Those specific systems were (a) the bacterial flagellum, (b) cilium, (c) blood-clotting cascade, and (d) immune system.   It’s now 2013 at the time of writing this essay.  For 17 years, the research has been conducted, and the flagellum has been shown to be irreducibly complex. It’s been thoroughly researched, reverse engineered, and its genome sequenced. It is a scientific fact that the flagellum has no precursor. That’s not a guess. It is not stated as ignorance from taking some wild uneducated guess. It’s not a tossing one’s hands up in the air saying, “I give up.” It is a scientific conclusion based upon thorough examination.
Logic Fallacies
Logic fallacies, such as circular reasoning, argument from ignorance, red herring, strawman argument, special pleading, and others are based upon philosophy and rhetoric. While they might lend to the merit of a scientific conclusion, it is up to the peer-review process to determine the validity of a scientific hypothesis.
Again, if you were asked how much change do you have in your pockets. You can put your hand in your pocket, look to see how many coins are there. If there is no loose change, it is NOT an argument from ignorance to state, “Sorry, I don’t have any spare change.” You didn’t guess. You stuck your hands in your pockets and looked, and scientifically deduced the quantity to be zero. The same is true with irreducible complexity. After the search has taken place, the prediction the biochemical system is irreducibly complex is upheld and verified. Hence, there is no argument from ignorance.
The accusation that irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance essentially suggests a surrender and abandonment of ever attempting to empirically determine whether the prediction is scientifically correct.  It’s absurd for anyone to suggest that ID scientists are not interested in finding Darwinian mechanisms responsible for the evolution of an irreducible complex biochemical structure. If you lost money in your wallet, it would be ridiculous for someone to accuse you of rejecting any interest in recovering your money. That’s essentially what is being claimed when someone draws the argument from ignorance accusation. The fact is you know you did look (you might have turned your house upside down looking), and know for a fact that the money is missing. It doesn’t mean that you might still find it (the premise is still falsifiable). But, a thorough examination took place, and you determined the money is gone.
Consider Mysterious Roving Rocks:
On a sun-scorched plateau known as Racetrack Playa in Death Valley, California, rocks of all sizes glide across the desert floor.  Some of the rocks accompany each other in pairs, which creates parallel trails even when turning corners so that the tracks left behind resemble those of an automobile.  Other rocks travel solo the distance of hundreds of meters back and forth along the same track.  Sometimes these paths lead to its stone vehicle, while other trails lead to nowhere, as the marking instrument has vanished.
Roving Rocks
Some of these rocks weigh several hundred pounds. That makes the question: “How do they move?” a very challenging one.  The truth is no one knows just exactly how these rocks move.   No one has ever seen them in motion.  So, how is this phenomenon explained?
A few people have reported seeing Racetrack Playa covered by a thin layer of ice. One idea is that water freezes around the rocks and then wind, blowing across the top of the ice, drags the ice sheet with its embedded rocks across the surface of the playa.  Some researchers have found highly congruent trails on multiple rocks that strongly support this movement theory.  Other suggest wind to be the energy source behind the movement of the roving rocks.
The point is that anyone’s guess, prediction, speculation is as good as that of anyone else.  All these predictions are testable and falsifiable by simply setting up instrumentation to monitor the movements of the rocks.  Are any of these predictions an argument from ignorance?  No.  As long as the inquisitive examiner makes an effort to determine the answer, this is a perfectly valid scientific endeavor. 
The argument from ignorance would only apply when someone gives up, and just draws a conclusion without any further attempt to gain empirical data.  It is not a logic fallacy in and of itself on the sole basis that there is a gap of knowledge as to how the rocks moved from Point A to Point B.  The only logic fallacy would be to draw a conclusion while resisting further examination.  Such is not the case with irreducible complexity.  The hypothesis has endured 17 years of laboratory research by molecular biologists, and the research continues to this very day.
The Logic Fallacy Has No Bearing On Falsifiability:
Here’s yet another example as to why irreducible complexity is scientifically falsifiable, and therefore not an argument from ignorance logic fallacy.  If someone was correct in asserting the argument from incredulity fallacy, then they have eliminated all science. Newton’s law of gravity was an argument from ignorance because he didn’t know anything more than what he had discovered. It was later falsified by Einstein. So, according to this flawed logic, Einstein’s theory of relativity is an argument from ignorance because there might be someone in the future who will falsify it with a Theory of Everything.
Whether a hypothesis passes the Argument of Ignorance logic criterion, or not, the argument is an entirely philosophical one, much like how a mathematical argument might be asserted.  If the argument from ignorance were applied in peer-review to all science papers submitted for publication, the science journals would be near empty of any documents to reference.  Science is not based upon philosophical objections and arguments.  Science is based upon the definition of science, which is observation, falsifiable hypothesis, experimentation, results and conclusion. It is the fact that these methodical elements are in place which makes science based upon what it is supposed to be, and that is empiricism.
Scientific Method
Whether a scientific hypothesis is falsifiable is not affected by philosophical arguments based upon logic fallacies.   Irreducible Complexity is very much falsifiable based upon its definition.  The argument from ignorance only attacks the significance of the results and conclusion of research in irreducible complexity; it doesn’t deter irreducible complexity from being falsifiable.  In fact, the argument from ignorance objection actually emphasizes just the opposite, that irreducible complexity might be falsified tomorrow because it inherently argues the optimism that its just a matter of time that an evolutionary pathway will be discovered in future research.  This is not a bad thing; the fact that irreducible complexity is falsifiable is a good thing.  That testability and obtainable goalpost is what you want in a scientific hypothesis.
ID Theory Is Much More Than Just The One Hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity:
ID Theory is also an applied science as well, click here for examples in biomimicry.  Intelligent Design is also an applied science in areas of bioengineering, nanotechnology, selective breeding, and bioinformaticsto name a few applications.  ID Theory is a study ofinformation and design in nature.  And, there are design-inspired conjectures as to where the source of information originates, such as the rapidly growing field of quantum biology,Natural Genetic Engineering, and front-loading via panspermia.
In conclusion, the prediction that there are certain biochemical systems that exist of which are irreducibly complex is not a gaps argument.  The definition of irreducible complexity is stated above, and it is very much a testable, repeatable, and falsifiable hypothesis.  It is a prediction that certain molecular machinery will not operate upon the removal of a part, and have no stepwise evolutionary precursor.  This was predicted by Behe 17 years ago, and still remains true, as evidenced by the bacteria flagellum, as an example.
*  Even though these two are technically distinguishable logic fallacies, the argument from incredulity is so similar to the argument from ignorance that for purposes of discussion I treat the terms as synonymous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Probability is one of the most misunderstood of all sciences and is used by Darwinists to promote their mythology.   Now that the argument has been made in terms of a court case and the specific example of the e.coli motility motor, shall we now look as why this also applies to Darwinism versus Creation by God?

Evolution, chance and creation

by Michael Stubbs
Many ordinary people believe that an uncontrolled process called evolution has produced the intricate designs which we see around us. It only takes a few moments of easy mathematics to check out the truth of such a belief.

50:50

When we toss a coin, we expect it to land showing either a head or tail. We say from experience that the probability of the coin landing ‘heads’ is one half, or we can say ‘tails’ has a 50% chance of showing up. We also know from experience that this does not mean when we throw a head first, the next throw will be a tail. It simply means that if we keep tossing coins long enough, then half the time the coin lands, it will show heads, and half the time tails.

However, even in the idea of ‘1/2 heads’ are some assumptions or beliefs which few of us bother to check when throwing coins. We take it for granted that the coin weighs the same on both head and tail sides, so it gives an unbiased result. We rarely check to see if the coin has both a head and a tail, even though rare double headed coins do exist.
An interesting situation arises when two separate events occur at the same time, e.g. tossing a coin and throwing a die. (Most of you will call it a dice, but that is plural for more than one die.) If we ask what is the ‘chance’ of throwing a head and a 6 at the same time, a simple look at all the possible results of throwing coins and dice will show the answer.
Since the coin has two sides and only one head, the possibility of a head is 1/2.
Since the die has six sides and only one face with 6 on it, the possibility of six is 1/6.
The only trouble is that half of the times the die lands showing a 6, the coin will show a tail, the other half of the times we throw a 6, the coin would show a head. So the probability of throwing the head and the 6 together, must be one half of the sixes, or put mathematically, 1/2 x 1/6. This, of course, is 1/12. Again we must remember that this does not mean one in every 12 throws, but if you throw for long enough, 1/12 of all throws would have both a 6 and a head (see footnote). Puts one off gambling somewhat!

Can ‘chance’ count to 10?

Let us extend this idea further. (A problem for any Grade 10 math’s class.) Suppose we have a bucket in which are placed ten (10) identical discs, each numbered from 1-10. The question is: Can chance methods enable us to count from 1 to 10? If only one disc is to be selected from the bucket, noted and replaced, and we require disc 1 first, disc 2 second, etc. in the correct sequence from 1-10, what is the probability of selecting all ten discs in order?
The maths are relatively easy. Since there is only one disc numbered 1, there can be only one chance in ten (1/10) of selecting it. After we replace the first disc, the chance of selecting the disc number 2 is the same—1/10. In fact, every separately numbered disc has one chance in ten of being selected. The probability of selecting the first one followed by the second one in correct order must be 1/10 x 1/10 or 1/100. To select all 10 in the right order the probability is 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 or (1/10)10. This means that you would select the right order only once in 10 billion attempts. Put another way ‘chance’ requires 10 billion attempts, on the average, to count from 1 to 10.

The theory of evolution

Further tests exist to measure how efficient chance is at producing design. The following is fascinating. The question is: What is the expected probability for chance to spell the phrase—‘the theory of evolution’? This phrase by chance would involve the random selection and sequencing of letters and spaces in the correct order. Each letter from the alphabet plus one space (totaling 27 possible selections) has one chance in 27 of being selected. There are 20 letters plus 3 spaces in the phrase—‘the theory of evolution’. Therefore ‘chance’ will, on the average, spell the given phrase correctly only once in (27)23 outcomes!!
This computes to only one success in a mind boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3x1032) (gasp!). Suppose ‘chance’ uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this random method. If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 5 billion years, then ‘chance’ could take five times this time to spell out its own success, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation. And this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form, and children of average intelligence could perform this same spelling task within a minute or so.
Amended 7 October 2004.

Footnote

Statisticians have made this into a rule called the Multiplication Rule of Probability. This states that the chance of several independent results occurring at once is found by multiplying the mathematical probabilities of obtaining the individual results. Return to text.

Related Articles

Cheating with chance

lightning
Flickr/J.J. Verhoef
The argument from probability that life could not form by natural processes but must have been created is sometimes acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument.1 The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged2 to be worse than 1 in 1057800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number. To try to put this in perspective, there are about 1080 (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would ‘only’ amount to 10160electrons.
These numbers defy our ability to comprehend their size. Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. For example, Hoyle said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time3—and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists (real world ‘simple’ bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex). [Note added 2013: see update to How simple can life be?] As Hoyle points out, the program of the cell, encoded on the DNA, is also needed. In other words, life could not form by natural (random) processes.
Evolutionists often try to bluff their way out of this problem by using analogies to argue that improbable things happen every day, so why should the naturalistic origin of life be considered impossible? For example, they say the odds of winning the lottery are pretty remote, but someone wins it. Or, the chances of getting the particular arrangement of cards obtained by shuffling a deck is remote, but a rare combination happens every time the cards are shuffled. Or the arrangement of the sand grains in a pile of sand obtained by randomly pouring the sand is extremely complex, but this complex and improbable arrangement did occur as a result of random processes. Or the exact combination and arrangement of people walking across a busy city street is highly improbable, but such improbable arrangements happen all the time. So they argue from these analogies to try to dilute the force of this powerful argument for creation.
You probably realize there is something illogical about this line of argument. But what is it?
In all the analogies cited above, there has to be an outcome. Someone has to win the lottery [note added Feb 2013: even with lotteries where the prize jackpots if no-one gets the exact set of digits drawn, the number of digits to guess is adjusted in line with the number of tickets likely to be purchased to make sure that there will be a winner frequently and there are always lesser prizes for getting less than the full set of digits]. There will be an arrangement of cards. There will be a pile of sand. There will be people walking across the busy street. By contrast, in the processes by which life is supposed to have formed, there need not necessarily be an outcome. Indeed the probabilities argue against any outcome. That is the whole point of the argument. But then the evolutionist may counter that it did happen because we are here! This is circular reasoning at its worst.
Note several other things about these analogies:
In the processes by which life is supposed to have formed, there need not necessarily be an outcome.
  • Creationists do not argue that life is merely complex, but that it is ordered in such a way as to defy a natural explanation. The order in the proteins and DNA of living things is independent of the properties of the chemicals of which they consist—unlike an ice crystal where the structure results from the properties of the water molecule. The order in living things parallels that in printed books where the information is not contained in the ink, or even in the letters, but in the complex arrangement of letters which make up words, words which make up sentences, sentences which make up paragraphs, paragraphs which make up chapters and chapters which make up books. These components of written language respectively parallel the nucleic acid bases, codons, genes, operons, chromosomes and genomes which make up the genetic programs of living cells.
  • The order in living things shows they are the product of intelligence. The result of the lottery draw is clearly the result of a random selection—unless family members of the lottery supervisor consistently win! Then we would conclude that the draw has not been random—it is not the result of a random process, but the result of an intelligent agent.
  • The arrangement of cards resulting from shuffling would not normally suggest anything other than a random process. However, if all the cards were ordered by their suits from lowest to highest, we would logically conclude that an intelligent agent arranged them (or ‘stacked the deck’ in card-playing parlance) because such an arrangement is highly unlikely from genuine shuffling—a random, non-intelligent process.
  • The arrangement of the sand grains in a pile would not normally suggest it resulted from intelligent activity rather than natural processes. However, if all the sand grains were lined up in single file, or were in a neat rectangle, we would attribute this to an intelligent agent, or a machine made by an intelligent agent, as this would not be likely from a natural process.
  • The arrangement of people crossing a busy street would not normally suggest anything other than a random process. However, if all the people were ordered from shortest to tallest, or some other ordered arrangement, we would suspect that an intelligent agent was responsible for putting them in this order—that it did not result from chance. If 20 people were arranged from shortest to tallest, the odds of this happening by chance are less than one in a billion, billion (1018), so it would be reasonable to conclude that such an ordered arrangement was not due to chance whereas there would be nothing to suggest intelligent involvement if there was no meaningful pattern to the arrangement of people.
Many scientists today claim that an invisible ‘intelligent cause’ is outside the realm of ‘real’ science. These scientists have redefined science as naturalism (nature is all there is). However, scientists recognise the evidence for an invisible intelligent agent when it suits them. For example, forensic science determines if past events were the result of accident or plan and purpose (‘Who done it?’). The Piltdown ape-man fraud was discovered, after some 40 years, when researchers had the opportunity to examine the original bones and not just replicas, and they noticed file marks on the teeth.4 Such marks do not happen by natural processes and the researchers recognised the involvement of a human (intelligent) agent—a hoaxer.
Likewise, United States taxpayers are spending millions of dollars yearly in funding the Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). If those listening hear a radio signal with random noise, it is clearly the product of a natural process, but if there is a pattern such as ‘dah-dah-dah-dit-dit-dit-dah-dah-dah’, it will be hailed as evidence for an intelligent, although invisible, source.
If such evidence indicates an intelligent source then surely the incredible amount of information on the DNA in living things, equivalent to a library of a thousand 500-page books in a human being,5 shouts creation by a Creator! The more we know about the biochemical workings of living cells, the stronger the evidence becomes for the intimate involvement of a creator. We are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made and no amount of illogical and irrelevant analogy will counter the clear evidence for this.

Related Articles

Further Reading

References

  1. D.A. Bradbury, ‘Reply to Landau and Landau’, Creation/Evolution 13(2):48–49, 1993. Return to text.
  2. ibid. Return to text.
  3. F. Hoyle, ‘The big bang in astronomy’, New Scientist92(1280):527, 1981. Return to text.
  4. M.L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention—a Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1992, pp. 39–44. Return to text.
  5. M. Denton, Evolution: Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, p.351. Return to text.
(Also available in Greek)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Intelligent Design scientists such as Michael Behe, Stephen C. Meyer and William Dembski have thoroughly debunked the idea that organisms could possibly have evolved by chance occurences and in fact that they could have evolved at all.   We have also shown in previous posts that the idea of life forming in nature is chemically impossible.  

Darwinism is impossible from a statistical standpoint.   For a Darwinist to bring along the fallacy we have sliced and diced, it is actually the equivalent of waving a white flag.  Darwinists cannot defend their failed hypothesis, so they use false fallacies, censorship, propaganda and bullying tactics to threaten the career of any scientist or educator or media outlet that dares defy their lockstep fallacious fairy tale!

No upward evolution of one kind of organism turning into another has been observed, but rather speciation and extinction, which is what the Creation model predicts.  Mutations are not creative, they are destructive and threaten to eventually kill off all higher organisms as they accumulate in our gene pools.  We have found that, in the case of reproduction, the mother lays the framework for the child so that the child will be the same kind of organism as the mother.  Furthermore, only the same kind of organism can reproduce.  In cases of sexual reproduction, a male and female of the same kind can mate and no others.  For instance, a dog and a dog can mate and, since a dog and a wolf can mate we know that wolves and dogs are species of the same kind.  A lion and a lion can mate.  But a lion and a tiger can also mate, so we know that lions and tigers are members of the same cat kind.  Creationism has been supported by experiment and observation and Darwinism has been an epic fail.  It just doesn't happen and observation of the way organisms reproduce has taught us that it could not happen and therefore never has happened.  

32 comments:

Anonymos said...

"The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged2 to be worse than 1 in 1057800."

The "statistical impossibility" argument used by creationists is a strawman argument.

Modern science does not claim that a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell was formed whole by chance. There are currently different hypotheses of life forming at the molecular level, including the initial formations of a cell under very specific circumstances, and for these the calculated odds would be very different, since none of them claim what YECs pretend they claim.

What are the odds of Radar being able to suddenly appear out of nowhere at the Statue of Liberty?

Close to impossible.

What are the odds of Radar appearing at the Statue of Liberty if you propose that he wouldn't have to pop out of thin air and add, for example, the existence of various means of transportation at his disposal?

Quite manageable.

If I were to argue that it is impossible for Radar to appear at the Statue of Liberty because the odds of him just popping into existence there are statistically impossible, you would immediately see the flaw in my argument.

So it is with the creationist argument in this case. They are trying to sell you a bill of goods, and they're going to have to do better than trying to fool you with logical fallacies.

radar said...

This article debunks your comment before you make it. Did you even read it? Because you do not really deal with the issues at all.

Anonymos said...

Yes, I did read the article. Twice now. The article makes a number of other fallacious arguments that I can also get into one by one, but I had to start somewhere. No, the blog post above does not debunk my comment. Talking about the statistical impossibility of "the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell" is and remains a strawman argument.

If you genuinely think that is debunked in the above article, kindly copy the particular section that you think debunks my demonstration of this creationist strawman argument and paste it into the comment section here. You don't have to do any "homework" of looking up other articles on your own blog, just show us that section.

I've noticed that you have a history of claiming that things have already been debunked somewhere but then not being unable to show exactly where. This time it couldn't be any easier for you. If you can't find the section in the blog post directly above the comments that you claim is there, we know that you don't have it.

Anonymos said...

Sorry, "not being unable" was meant to be "not being able" in the previous comment.

Anonymos said...

"Because you do not really deal with the issues at all."

I dealt directly with an issue that was included in the blog post, the inclusion of a common creationist strawman. If you can't debunk it (as I know you can't), I will gladly move on to the next issue.

radar said...

Well, for one thing we know where the Statue of Liberty came from and also where I came from. Furthermore I cannot "pop" into existence at the Statue of Liberty, I have to travel to get there.

There is no way an organism could "pop" into existence for many reasons. If it was possible by chance, the odds against this are presented. But we know there are chemical barriers to the formation of the components of life and, if they did manage to be formed, they would face the chirality problem. Beyond that, where is the programmer capable of converting these raw materials into code? Mankind cannot use the 4-character DNA string properly even now.

If you somehow could propose a natural way for all that to happen, where do you get the life from? We have not been able to capture life in a petri dish or a test tube. The composition of a frog is exactly the same when it is alive and at the second it dies. Yet life has gone from the frog and we cannot measure it.

Therefore, both information and life are not natural in form or substance. So here are your problems:

The laws of probability preclude a natural chance occurrence of even one living thing.

Even if it was possible statistically, it is impossible chemically.

Nature does not produce information, which is needed in abundance in a living thing.

We only get life from life, so with no source of life a miraculous lifeless conglomeration of "life building blocks" would have no way to become alive.

radar said...

Your so-called argument does not even address the post at all. Come up with something worth dealing with and I doubt you can do it.

Readers, read this blogpost and then consider whether Anonymos even raised one valid issue. He is setting up a strawman, not me.

Anonymos said...

Can I take it that you're conceding that the above article didn't debunk my comment? Somehow now you can't find that "debunking" of me pointing out the creationist strawman for some reason?

Okay then.

"He is setting up a strawman, not me."

When I point out that you've presented a logical fallacy or lied about something, I try to be very specific about what the fallacy or lie is, as I did above and have done in previous comments.

So, can you point out what strawman you are accusing me of setting up? Of course you can't.

Do YECs not say that "Darwinists" claim that organisms just pop into existence by chance? You're even doing it yourself in your comment here (e.g. "The laws of probability preclude a natural chance occurrence of even one living thing"). You either just don't get it or you are so used to or enamored of your logical fallacies that you have become blind to them.

If you can't point out the strawman you're accusing me of, I take it that this is as weak a bluff as your preceding accusation, and that you are conceding both points for lack of a relevant response.

The visiting reader can easily see that my first comment above was NOT debunked in the above article, as Radar claimed, and that I did NOT present a strawman in my first comment above, as Radar claimed.

Making misrepresentations about me that any reader can see aren't true really isn't helping your cause, Radar.

radar said...

Anonymos, quit using fallacious fallacies and address the issues.

You have not given one shred of evidence to debunk the statistical analysis.

You have not given one shred of evidence for one observed organism emerging from non-life nor have you figured out a way to overcome the chemical barriers.

In fact you have not made an argument at all. You are hiding behind a claim of logical fallacies, but I cut that argument off at the knees in the body of the post.

If that is all you have to reply, then your weak response is a concession.

Anonymos said...

"You have not given one shred of evidence to debunk the statistical analysis."

I have correctly pointed out that its basis - a "hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell" forming by chance - is a creationist strawman, and therefore the "statistical analysis" that follows it is completely meaningless.

That is a complete debunking of that claim. If the initial premise is nonsensical, then the result of the calculation is irrelevant. In this case, creationists should look at actual theories regarding abiogenesis and calculate the odds of those, if they feel like it.

But making stuff up out of thin air and calculating the odds of that and pretending that this is in any way a serious argument will not win YECs any points.

"You are hiding behind a claim of logical fallacies, but I cut that argument off at the knees in the body of the post."

I have clearly identified the logical fallacy. See above. In turn you have STILL not pointed out where we might find your counter-argument, even though this would be very easy for you to do.

So don't pat yourself on the back just yet. If you are a man of honor, paste the section with the counter-argument that you've claimed exists in the comments here or retract your claim.

radar said...

Typical troll. You think I am going to publish my post in the comments thread?

Give my ANY valid argument to refute, so far you have presented nothing. Zip. Nada. You are wasting my time.

Anonymos said...

I asked you to paste the refutation of the strawman into the comments thread, not the entire post.

In order to refute the above strawman that I pointed out for the benefit of your readers, you would have to show that what you're arguing against (be it "Darwinism"/"evolutionism" or whatever) actually claims or is dependent on the claim that "a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell" is formed by chance.

The post above doesn't do this, nor will you find any confirmation of such a ludicrous claim anywhere in modern scientific literature. If you want to claim otherwise, kindly provide an actual source and not just another "nuh-uh" comment, as you have been doing.

"Give my ANY valid argument to refute, so far you have presented nothing. Zip. Nada. You are wasting my time."

The valid argument is right there in my first comment in the thread. I pointed out that modern science doesn't make the particular claim YECs pretend it makes.

You have been unable to refute it and clearly have no interest in backing up your claim.

To avoid wasting my time, we can consider this matter closed. The strawman is duly pointed out and goes unrefuted. Another talking point out the window.

Since you accused me of setting up a strawman when I clearly didn't, I suspect you haven't quite grasped the meaning of a "strawman argument" and so I invite you to read your friend's definition again.

radar said...

Sorry, Charlie...

Darwinism can be refuted by observational science in that we have NEVER observed one kind of organism evolving into another kind. We do see devolving and speciation. So there is a great deal of posting on this blog about why this kind of evolution is impossible. I would say that even the Darwinists have managed to refute their own theory...see for instance - Kirschner, M.W. and Gerhart, J.C., The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2005.

BUT you cannot run away from the fact that science teachers in public schools and colleges and the secular media all also state that life came from non-life by natural means rather than starting with the idea that God created and then evolution took over.

Therefore I am NOT making a strawman argument and you are hiding behind a fake fallacy because you KNOW you have no evidence to use. Darwinism pretends that "the check is in the mail" concerning the so-called "abiogenesis" or "chemical evolution" even though any biochemist worth his salt knows life from non-life is imposssible by natural means.

Yes, you are running away from the argument because you know you cannot win. So you hide behind a fallacy that does not apply. Checkmate.

Anonymos said...

Moving right along...

"In that book, Behe predicted that certain biochemical systems would be found to be irreducibly complex. Those specific systems were (a) the bacterial flagellum, (b) cilium, (c) blood-clotting cascade, and (d) immune system. It’s now 2013 at the time of writing this essay. For 17 years, the research has been conducted, and the flagellum has been shown to be irreducibly complex."

The author's examination can't have been all that thorough. It's 2013 indeed, that much we can agree on. We now know that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducible (parts of it can be removed while it preserves its function), and it does have at least one evolutionary pathway. Here's one example of the research, though Google will easily kick up more if anyone is interested.

It seems this blogger (Dennis Jones), writing in 2013, either didn't like doing research or was being somewhat economical with the truth.

Anonymos said...

"Yes, you are running away from the argument because you know you cannot win. So you hide behind a fallacy that does not apply. Checkmate."

Radar, a "nuh-uh" comment doesn't get you to checkmate. If you think the fallacy doesn't apply, explain clearly and specifically why you think that isn't the case.

Otherwise you're just chasing after an argument that you lost at the beginning of this comment thread.

Anonymos said...

"Darwinism can be refuted by observational science in that we have NEVER observed one kind of organism evolving into another kind."

Interesting argument. You know, we've never seen a global flood either. Shall we consider it "refuted by observational science"?

But apart from that, you're using the word "kind" here, a term that science doesn't really use in the context of evolution (if you mean it in the sense of "baramin", which I suspect you do).

According to what the theory of evolution postulates, we wouldn't actually expect to observe macroevolution in a human lifetime. Speciation yes, but nor macroevolution. It would be like claiming that plate tectonics are BS because we don't see continents crashing into each other in our own lifetime - I'm sure you can see that that would be a silly argument.

"BUT you cannot run away from the fact that science teachers in public schools and colleges and the secular media all also state that life came from non-life by natural means rather than starting with the idea that God created and then evolution took over."

Why would I run away from that fact? A personified God creating everything 6,000 years ago has been falsified in numerous ways, so of course it shouldn't be taught as science in schools.

radar said...

Since you like to lie (like claiming that creation by God has been falsified, which is completely and utterly false and ridiculous) then it doesn't surprise me that you would also lie about the e.coli motility mechanism. It has NOT been shown to operate after removing one of the key components. Baldfaced lie.

I a making a post that will go up tonight that will skewer the entire abiogenesis myth quite thoroughly. It is already checkmate, you just like to tip over the board when you see yourself losing.

Anonymos said...

"We do see devolving and speciation."

Speciation, yes, of course. But the creation of new species (which is what speciation is, by definition) is certainly a part of the theory of evolution, which also has mechanisms for it.

How and where, pray tell, do we see "devolving"?

Anonymos said...

"Since you like to lie"

1. I don't and didn't lie, and 2. I don't like to lie. Which is why I don't do it. For the record, you haven't been able to identify any lie on my part.

"(like claiming that creation by God has been falsified, which is completely and utterly false and ridiculous)"

How easily you slip into misrepresentations! That certainly isn't what I said. Kindly check the text immediately preceding yours.

"then it doesn't surprise me that you would also lie about the e.coli motility mechanism. It has NOT been shown to operate after removing one of the key components. Baldfaced lie."

My specific claim was "We now know that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducible (parts of it can be removed while it preserves its function)". It is backed up here.

"I a making a post that will go up tonight that will skewer the entire abiogenesis myth quite thoroughly."

Good luck.

"It is already checkmate, you just like to tip over the board when you see yourself losing."

The exposed strawman argument stands until you refute it. Which you can't.

Your childish derision and boastful emotional pleas won't win you any arguments. Someone of your alleged IQ should be able to not just comprehend opposing arguments (which it's becoming clear you don't), but also present arguments and facts to counter such arguments. So far you have misrepresentations and excursions into unrelated subjects, and I suspect your upcoming post on abiogenesis won't raise the bar much.

radar said...

Here is one of your lies and I am just quoting you here:

"A personified God creating everything 6,000 years ago has been falsified in numerous ways, so of course it shouldn't be taught as science in schools."

You said it and then claimed you didn't say it. That is two lies right there. I will remind readers of the third now...

Now as far as the so-called proof that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, that little link of yours doesn't manage to prove anything. I sure hope readers go and check it out. It is a bunch of unproven conjecture and it is garbage. There are several components of the e. coli flagellum that are not found in any other bacteria.

I have decided to make a post on the impossibility of life arising from non-life and it will be up in a few minutes. Read it and weep...and do please do a better job when you claim to be making an argument, that link is WEAK!!!

Why do you keep knocking your head against a granite wall? You seriously do not know about genetic entropy?! The accumulation of mutations and the loss of genetic information is devolution and all higher organisms are endangered.

No, speciation is just the selection of pre-exisiting genetic information as Blyth identified before Darwin even thought of it! Darwin just didn't know much about the cell and did not understand speciation at all. Mendel identified some aspects of speciation and we have learned much more since.

Anonymos said...

"You said it and then claimed you didn't say it. That is two lies right there."

I know this is a common snide thing to say in blog discussions, but unfortunately in your case it really is true: your reading comprehension is very, very poor. (It even appears you didn't understand the discussion of strawman arguments at the top of this thread. You've given no indication that you've understood it and at least one indication that you haven't. You should check out the explanation of a strawman that I linked to. It's by your friend Cowboy Bob.)

Yes, I said "A personified God creating everything 6,000 years ago has been falsified in numerous ways".

No, I did not say "creation by God has been falsified".

There is a rather large difference in meaning between the two statements.

I even asked you to go back and read the respective section again, since you clearly failed to comprehend it this time. And lo and behold, even the second time around, a simple declarative sentence eludes you.

So that's one accusation of lying refuted.

Next: yes, a personified God creating everything 6,000 years ago has been falsified in numerous ways. Pretending otherwise (as YECs do) involves a lot of whistling past the graveyard by creationists, as we can see not just in recent discussions on your blog, but on creationist websites in general. We can dig into some of these issues as we go along.

Anonymos said...

"The accumulation of mutations and the loss of genetic information is devolution and all higher organisms are endangered"

How so, if harmful mutations are simply selected out?

"speciation is just the selection of pre-exisiting genetic information"

You're agreeing with Darwinists here. That is indeed what speciation is, and new species can be generated in this way. It's macro-evolution that creationists deny.

Anonymos said...

"as far as the so-called proof that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, that little link of yours doesn't manage to prove anything"

One of the falsifiable aspects of an allegedly irreducibly complex organism that was listed in the article you posted:

"To FALSIFY Irreducible Complexity:

Show:

1. The molecular machine still functions upon loss of a protein."


The link I posted showed that the functions were preserved when certain proteins were not present.

Perhaps the particular falsification that the blog author proposed is not sufficient for your liking, but as it is written here, the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum is falsified.

I don't find this aspect of the falsification particularly interesting myself. The second falsification looks much more interesting to me:

"OR,

2. The biochemical structure DOES have an evolutionary pathway."


At least one evolutionary pathway for the bacterial flagellum has been identified, if not more. Google is your friend.

Anonymos said...

Moving right along:

"The murder victim lived in a home that had security cameras that viewed all sides of the house and had a entrance keypad that would require a code to be entered to allow entry. The victim was killed on a Thursday. His uncle was the ONLY person caught on video entering and leaving on Thursday, his prints were found on the keypad. The victim was strangled by a length of rope and the exact same kind of rope was found in the uncle's shed. The rope used to strangle the victim is not found, but the uncle could have disposed of it in many ways. The uncle had no alibi for Thursday, as he had called off of work and no one could remember seeing him for a space of about eight hours that day. The uncle would be one of the family members who would inherit the wealth of the victim as he was listed in the victim's will. His alibi was that he was sick and went to bed and, if he was seen on video it must have been someone else in disguise.

The prosecuting attorney lays out the scenario - the uncle had motive, he had opportunity and he had the means to murder his nephew. He was the only person detected at the scene on the day of the murder, he had no alibi and his fingerprints were on the entrance keypad.

The defending attorney's defense? "Your honor, the prosecuting attorney is using a logical fallacy we call the argument from incredulity. Even though he cannot imagine a way someone else could have murdered the victim, my client was sick in bed as he testified. Surely no one could use the argument from incredulity to send a man to jail for the rest of his natural life?""


You really have no idea what the argument from incredulity means, do you? This analogy has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Here's an explanation for your edification.

radar said...

That bogus paper that was presented does not show that an e.coli flagellum continues to function when a protein is removed. Nor does it explain how the flagellum could have been assembled one change at a time. You do not understand what you supposedly say.

Again, you are hiding behind fake fallacies and then, when I point that out, you pretend I do not understand the fallacies. What a bunch of boneheads. Quit hiding and address the issues!

Anton Q. Mouse said...

Radar is apparently suffering from delusions of competence again...

Radar, the link from Anonymos shows exactly what he/she said it does: that some flagellar parts are not essential for function. I know you have zero background in molecular biology/biochemistry/genetics, so here's a little hint for you: YOU DON'T GET TO PUBLICLY REPORT ON A GENE DELETION OR ITS PHENOTYPE UNLESS YOU HAVE ACTUALLY MADE THE DELETION IN THE LAB, HAVE PUBLISHED THE WORK AND HAVE MADE THE STRAIN AVAILABLE TO OTHER RESEARCHERS!!!!

In simple terms: if they list a gene as being able to be removed without loss of function, it has been done in the lab and the strain containing the listed mutation is available for anyone that asks. The gene deletion is not conjecture or hypothetical or bogus - it has been done in the real world. Full stop.

Also:
There are several components of the e. coli flagellum that are not found in any other bacteria.

Do you understand the significance of this?

radar said...

I understand it all too well. Lots of papers are submitted for peer review that are pure junk.

I happen to KNOW that the flagellum motor assembly does NOT work properly if a part is taken away. Furthermore, there is no 'path' for it to have 'evolved' from any other motility system in bacteria since it has several parts exclusive to that particular structure. Just because some guy gets a paper published that means little or nothing. It is just a way for Darwinists to argue without having facts at their disposal.

Did you see the bacteria after they were altered and did you grab some time on an electron microscope to check it out? No. But I had already heard of this effort to wriggle away from the problem of that particular flagellum system and the paper is speculative garbage.

Anonymous said...

When you have to break your Commandments to show others how superior your Commandments are...

... maybe you're doing it wrong.

Sometimes well-intentioned people lose their way.

Just a thought.

radar said...

Trolls, you do not address the arguments of the post. You continue to do these things:

1. Hide behind fake fallacies to avoid having to argue the point.

2. Accuse me of lying when I have not lied.

3. Posted links rather than try to argue the point.

It seems to me that you are unable to argue against the points made on the post and therefore resort to fake fallacies, ad hominem attacks and even authority.

Now, if you could look at Jonathans 15 points and try to address even ONE of them you would be actually engaged in discussion. Otherwise your comments sound like Charlie Brown's teacher to me.

(PS- You think I am dumb enough to lie when I know the Creator of the Universe and I know He doesn't like it? You are piling up condemnation against yourself when you unjustly accuse...not smart).

radar said...

Really? So magic vents take care of all the problems? Like the chemical impossibility of the building blocks of life to exist in nature outside of the cell, the problems of chirality, the lack of a source for information and the rest of the 15 reasons abiogensis is not possible? All those insurmountable problems are solved by these magic vents? Wow. Drink the Flavor-Aid!!!

Anton Q. Mouse said...

So, Radar, it's your position that not a single component of the E. coli flagellum can be removed without loss of function, and the researchers who claim to have created these deletion mutants in the lab (you know, operational science) are just plain lying?

Also, you KNOW that no single component can be removed without losing functionality how?

Anonymous said...

Bueller?