No new creationist arguments in 150 years!
Posted by Larian Lequella on January 23rd, 2011 – 9 Comments – Posted in Debate, Evolution, ScienceOne thing that I have noticed about creationists is that they are incredibly dull. Not boring, but unimaginative. Since the publishing of On The Origin of Species, their arguments are basically the same. Sure, they may dress up an argument in different words, but they are all pretty much all the same logical fallacies. It’s almost as if they haven’t the mental reserves to come up with anything new. So here are some simple statements to make right before getting into a discussion about evolution. Feel free to just copy and paste this list to any forum or web page you choose to discuss evolution on as an immediate counter to the same old arguments…
* It’s just a theory.
Yes, just like gravity is “just a theory”. Anti-evolution types tend to not understand what “theory” means in a scientific context. It means that the idea started out as an hypothesis, based on observation; that researchers made predictions based on the observations and the hypothesis; that they collected more data, tested those predictions and re-examined the original ideas, and that this process has been done over and over and over until the idea is supported by so much evidence that it is as close to fact as science can come. Further, like any theory in science, it can be falsified if some new data comes along showing it to be wrong. Contrast this with the “theory” (and I use the quotes on purpose, there) of Intelligent Design or Creationism. ID consists pretty much only of questioning evolution. It makes no predictions. It has no research testing any ideas. It cannot be falsified. The “evidence” provided of supposed irreducible complexity does not rule out evolution of the structures examined, nor does it show how such a structure may have been designed and created as is. In short, though evolution deniers claim that ID is a theory, it is not.
* There are no transitional fossils.
Every fossil, and indeed every living creature, is transitional between an older form and a newer (or yet to come) form. We have a pretty good collection of fossils that show a transition from older forms to newer forms, such as the transition of large land mammals to whales. Scientists using the Theory of Evolution have even predicted a transitional form and where to find it. This transitional fossil, tiktaalik, was found based on these predictions.
* Evolution denies god(s).
Nothing in the Theory of Evolution denies the existence of god (or any other deity). At best, it merely contradicts a literal interpretation of either of the two biblical creation stories (and any of the countless other creation stories from other religions/cultures). All that the theory of evolution does is show how everything came to be the way it is without the need for god(s).
* Evolution says that life just sprung out of nowhere.
Not true. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the origins of life. Rather, the theory examines how life changes over time and across environments after it already exists. There is a branch of science, however, that is examining the origins of life: abiogenesis. But, that is currently separate from the ToE and is still in its infancy, scientifically speaking.
* Why not teach the controversy?
That’s just the thing, there is no actual scierntific controversy! The only controversy is that which has been manufactured by creationists and intelligent design proponents. Sure, there may be specific elements where one scientist may disagree with another scientist, but those are specific mechanisms and particulars of the theory, not the entire theory itself. By this same logic, one should teach the “stork” theory of human reproduction.
* I can accept micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution.
That argument makes no sense. There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.
* Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics
This statement not only highlights a poor understanding of evolution, but also of all physics. First of all, the earth itself is not a closed system. The sun provides a great deal of energy for order to be built from. Not only that, but given how the volume of the universe is increasing by an order of three dimensions, and entropy is generally a linear equation, the “room” for order is actually constantly increasing in the universe (which is really beyond the scope of this discussion). Suffice it to say that all in all, deniers of evolution consistently show a poor understanding of nearly all aspects of science.
* What about the list of scientists that disagree with Evolution?
This list is probably one of the most dishonest pieces of propaganda out there. It was put together by the “Discovery Institute” (an organization with no credentials and fewer scruples). The list of “scientists” generally are not scientists, and if they are, most are not in any way qualified to talk about biological evolution. Also, the initial statement as presented to some scientists was twisted as to project a meaning different from what the actual reputable scientists contend. Just because a certain aspect may be in question, the entire theory is in no danger of suddenly falling out of favour. This video may give you some insight into the nature of that list.
* Do you honestly think that all this came about by chance?
Again, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding and denial of basic chemistry, physics, and even biology. While there are certain “random” elements involved in evolution and pretty much every natural process, keep in mind that the “room” for order in the universe is increasing. Not only that, the majority of processes are not at all left to chance, but rather follow very natural and orderly constraints of the universe.
* What about the “Irreducible Complexity” of the eye, blood, flagellum, etc.?
Well, first of all, “irreducible complexity” is a non-sense term invented by creationists and intelligent design proponents. All it really says is that they can’t possibly understand a particularly complex mechanism, so therefore something else did it. The basic premise behind irreducible complexity is to take a well designed item, remove a part to break it, and proclaim that it’s broken… The problem is that it’s entirely backwards thinking, and doesn’t take into account how something was actually built up. Every single item of irreducible complexity has an answer, however creationists and intelligent design proponents will keep throwing out examples of complex systems until they hit upon one that their debate opponent may not have all the facts on. As soon as they find that one thing that someone may not know the answer to, they proclaim victory for their entire side, totally ignoring all the other instances where their argument was trounced.
* What about the woodpecker’s tongue, the panda’s thumb, the whatever’s thingy, etc.?
Again, this is all part and parcel of the “throw enough poo at your opponent, and eventually you’ll hit on something they don’t know” strategy. Most of the things that creationists and intelligent design proponents will throw out are horrid misunderstandings of the basic biological mechanisms at work, so not only are you debating evolution with them, but you need to correct them on how whatever strawman they have thrown out is wrong from the sense of basic biology, not only from an evolutionary standpoint.
These are only some of the more common and oft repeated arguments. Those who deny evolution are really denying nearly ALL science that has been conducted in the past 200 years, and the sheer amount of education needed to catch them up to reality is nearly insurmountable.
All good arguments until the second part under the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The increasing space for order does not make any sense at all and the conclusion is a counter-point to the argument.
But other than that, completely agree! =)
Localized order will happen more often per many theories of universal scale until proposed heat death. The reason these “pockets of order” appear in the universe is because volume is a 3rd order equation while entropy is a liner equation. I may have attempted to simplify works by Gregory A. Clark, Andreas Class, Alvin Bayliss, Bernard J. Matkowsky, Phillip Pendleton, and Lin Chena. Sadly those papers are subscription only.
And of course, when simplifying something, there is always the danger of totally obscuring the original intent.
As I say, “which is really beyond the scope of this discussion” but it meant to deflate the whole idea that more complex order is impossible (but then by that logic, a sperm and ovum should never turn into a fully developed human…).
My usual response to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument against evolution is to point out that the 2nd law, as commonly stated, says that the entropy/disorder of a closed system will tend to increase with time.
The key is the the earth is *not* a closed system. Energy in the form of sunshine is continually flooding in. So it is quite possible for localised pockets of order to increase (ie life on earth) as long as the entropy of the system as a whole is increasing.
The two times I’ve used this in conversation it has been enough to end that line of argument – both times the person concerned was merely quoting an argument they’d heard, and had no real understanding of what the 2nd law really means.
The second law argument is one of my favorites. I use it to show how idiotic the creationists are.
First, ask the person what the second law of thermodynamics says. Most of the time, they don’t know. (Then, for kicks, ask them how many laws of thermodynamics there are, and to explain each. They’ll know of only the second one.)
If they “know,” they might refer to entropy. If so, ask them to define entropy.
If they didn’t use the term entropy, or if they’re trying to define it, they’ll probably refer to “randomness” or “disorder,” or perhaps “decreasing complexity.” Ask them how any of these is measured in the physical sciences. They won’t know.
In fact, when teaching thermodynamics to my students, I use an idea that makes it clear that neither “randomness nor “disorder” is a sufficient description of entropy, and — in fact — is often contrary to the true meaning.
While I understand the idea that smaller volumes are more likely to experience local decreases in entropy, not only do I question the third-order vs. first-order explanation, I think that the volume argument is poorly placed here, particularly with those people who are discussing this topic precisely because they do not understand it.
As a teacher, I’ve seen scores on both tests for students and tests for teachers. Students do poorly on thermodynamics, but this is understandable because even most teachers don’t understand it. There is no reason to believe that a local Bible thumper with NO education in the physical sciences has any better understanding.
Some things that I’ve found are more helpful to point out in these cases:
- If their conceptualization of “randomness” or “complexity” were true, then — as Shawn said — development into an adult would be impossible. (However, it could also be pointed out that an adult body contains more entropy than a child’s, merely as a result of containing more matter, which simply emphasizes that “randomness” isn’t always a useful synonym for entropy. The fact that an adult can develop from a child is irrelevant to the entropy content of either.)
- As has already been mentioned: The second law applies only to closed systems. Organisms are not closed systems. (For the topic of evolution, whether the earth is a closed system is irrelevant. It is, in fact, possible for local areas of decreased entropy to exist even if the planet as a whole was not experiencing an influx of useable energy.)
As a comment directed toward flippertie: I’ve often found that expounding at length about these things makes it clear that I know what the hell I’m talking about, and the morons shut up because they know they don’t stand a chance. (Once I brought biology textbooks to a creationist talk; as soon as I broke one out, the guy cut his presentation short.)
Thanks for the inputs. I may take out the more theoretical 3rd vs 1st order discussion and just go with the simplest opening to the actual definition of the second law, and provide links to other sources to expand on it. This was all an effort to put together something to copy/paste onto the Bad Astronomy blog whenever creationtards showed up.
Savonarola,
I agree, the 2nd Law is also my favorite creationist argument… it’s so fun to watch them bumble around, try to use science against itself, and be stonewalled so easily. Really, if you take how they look at it to its logical conclusion, then no new human is possible and ‘god’ would have to be responsible for everything continually since giving birth could be considered in their eyes, as a reduction in entropy.
Larian, I know you meant there is more to it, and while I have not read those works directly, and while I do not fully understand it myself (as Savonarola point out, not many do), I still disagree with the volume argument (at least as presented here)… take the ‘gas molecules in a box’ scenario that seems to be a favorite… when the molecules are held in one half of the box and then released, entropy is said to increase because they have more possible locations and combinations in which they can be, though localized decreases in entropy are possible (to include all the molecules randomly arranging themselves in 1 half of the box again) Therefore, increasing the “volume” of the universe would only increase the possible combinations of where all matter and energy can be and thus increase entropy. Again, it then depends on how you define entropy on macroscopic and microscopic levels and in this case how you define the universe and space/time and the still undecided role of dark energy, etc etc =P
Man, this makes me tired… I think I’m just going to say, needlessly, that creationists don’t have these kinds of discussions, and that’s why they’re wrong =P …and why I find it exciting to realize I don’t have all the answers
I’ll respond because I’m a huge geek and love talking about this kind of stuff, not because I really disagree with what Shawn has said…
Shawn wrote:
>… and ‘god’ would have to be responsible for everything continually
> since giving birth could be considered in their eyes, as a reduction
> in entropy.
But I wouldn’t put it past creationists to claim this! These are exactly the kind of people who will argue that “God makes everything possible” and that “we exist only because God allows it.” At this point we’d have to point out that EVERY observation we make above the nanoscale is consistent with the second law, even those that result in a more “complex” constitution of organisms.
> take the ‘gas molecules in a box’ scenario that seems to be a favorite…
Yes, let’s consider this example. Suppose that there are very few molecules in the box. Start with a relatively small box, if you’d like. It is entirely conceivable that all of the molecules will — by pure happenstance — be in only one half of the box at some time after being released. This would be a spontaneous DECREASE in entropy, and it has been observed! Hence, we usually consider classical thermodynamics a macroscale discipline that is dependent upon a sample size large enough that statistical interpretation is sufficient.
For the record, Larian: how increasing the volume of the aforementioned box affects the probability of random self-segregation is something I’m having to mull. Consider the following:
For the setup of a few molecules in a larger box, I’m not seeing how the probability that any arbitrarily-sized component volume will experience this local entropy decrease is affected. But for the larger the overall volume, the greater the number of component volumes of a given size; the greater the number of “samples,” if you will, the greater the likelihood that any one of them will experience this decrease.
Does this seem on par with the gist of what you were talking about, sans reliance upon dimensions?
The box example doesn’t apply particularly because that is referring to a closed physical system. The papers discuss the amount of entropy in the universe as a whole, and then it gets into maths that I had a lot of trouble following. Again, I appreciate the difficulty of following that example, and will probably just stick to the earth as a system instead of viewing it as a case of the entire universe.
I understand the value of sticking to the earth as a(n open) system for the debate with creationists. This is more of an aside, a discussion here for us with some understanding. I was simply hoping that your reading of those articles that you mentioned instilled in you enough understanding of the general concept being posited therein that you could tell me whether my characterization of the relationship between “available volume” and “probability of local entropic decreases” was accurate and/or equivalent to their positions.
Although, if we really like the simplicity of the box example and want to illustrate the effect of outside energy having an effect on the box, simply use the illustration of Maxwell’s demon.