Evolution vs. Creation (again)

[Chaos]

Hi again,

I´m just back from a Tutorial session on Microeconomics. TOday´s topic: the Irrationalist Perception Theory (not sure about translation), as proposed by David Hume.

(Wondering what this has to do with Evolution vs. Creation? Don´t hurry, I´ll get there)

This theory says that repetition (i.e. lots of evidence, as in "the sun has risen every morning") does not count as proof. (as in "therefore I can be certain the sun will rise tomorrow")

Of course, this means we can never be certain of anything.

As an example, the professor cited the controversy between evolution theory and creation "science".
The papers we´ve been given say:

Two coexisting paradigms:
Evolution theory and creation history

Both are belief systems. Nobody was there, there are no witnesses; everything beyond an age of 3000 is pure speculation.

200-year-old vulcanic rock has been dated as being 2 billion years old. The long periods of time (which evolution needs, or the construction of hypotheses collapses?) are purely speculative.

The evolutionist Arthur Keith claims:
Evolution cannot be proven. We believe in in because the alternative would be an act of creaion by god, and that is unthinkable.

The computer scientist Werner Gitt says - paraphrased -:
Wherever we find Codes, Structure and Planning, we know from experience there there must be intelligence at work...there is no information by chance.

(...)

The oldest human remains, the Cro-Magnon, are identical with modern-day humans. Therefore all "Neandertal developments" are lapsed.
The current state of research: all remains found are either human or ape. (..) After countless fossil findings there is no link [betiween human and ape].

(source: papers, eiter by my tutor or my professor; no author is stated) (is that in keeping with copyright rules?)

The tutor also floated the old cold turkey that "evolution theory states that all life has developed by chance".

So my questions are...

...what am I to think about this?

...if this is the same old creationist BS (the professor has spent lots of time in the US, according to his bio), what can I say to refute this?

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[-=Vagrant=-]

Chaos, you should check this out.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
It's a list of pretty much every creationist argument in circulation.

 

[Brian the Snail]

First, the Irrationalist Perception Theory just sounds like the criticism that pure inductive logic can't give you the full truth. For example, you can say "all crows are black" given that all the crows you've seen are black. However, there's always the possibility of finding a counter-example, e.g. a white crow. So you can't be entirely sure that your original hypothesis is true based on induction alone.

Philosophers of science have know about this for decades (perhaps centuries), and have concluded that in fact, science doesn't work like this anyway. For example, Popper proposed that science works by testing falsifiable hypotheses. So that the hypothesis "all crows are black" is a falsifiable hypothesis since it can be shown to be false given a counterexample of a white crow. Evolution is a falsifiable hypothesis in this way. Most forms of creationism aren't.

What this has to do with the points your professor raises is beyond me, though. In fact, he just seems to be churning out creationist propaganda (check out the talk origins site for rebuttals). Perhaps he's just trying to say "well nothing can be proven in science, so you just have to take everything on faith," which is an absolutely vacuous point to make, and shows a complete misunderstanding of the nature of science.

 

[Brian the Snail]

Just to touch on a couple of the specific points:

Both are belief systems. Nobody was there, there are no witnesses; everything beyond an age of 3000 is pure speculation.

Here's an analogy. There's been a murder committed. There are no witnesses. However, a suspect is arrested, and it is found that his fingerprints match those on the murder weapon found near the scene, and there's a DNA match to other blood found on the scene.

However according to the reasoning of the professor, there is no evidence linking the suspect to the murder, and therefore he should be set free.

What's wrong with this picture?

200-year-old vulcanic rock has been dated as being 2 billion years old. The long periods of time (which evolution needs, or the construction of hypotheses collapses?) are purely speculative.

No source I see. However, this sounds very similar to something I've heard before. This link addresses it (and don't be put off by the title, it's actually an excellent article). From the Appendix "common misconceptions regarding radiometric dating methods":

14. A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years. This shows we should not trust radiometric dating.

There are indeed ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. The reasons are discussed in the Potassium-Argon Dating section above. Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths.

 

[Benguin]

Seeing as the points made by your professor are pretty fatuous, I feel the need to respond in kind ...

The computer scientist Werner Gitt says - paraphrased -:
Wherever we find Codes, Structure and Planning, we know from experience there there (sic) must be intelligence at work...there is no information by chance.

I spend my life in front of code, a good propotion of it has been created without any intelligence at work at all.

But, to be more serious, that sophistry is so full of holes it worries me a professor would seriously present it. He's not just trying to get you to think critically by presenting flawed arguments from apparently authorative sources is he?

The computer scientist is playing with circular reasoning and should know it. Disregarding planning (as I see no evidence of that in the natural world) ... by codes does he mean DNA? I suppose there is structure there too? Human intelligence (and very definitely computer science) largely mimic the code and structure they see in the natural world, just because we use our intelligence to mimic and extend doesn't mean the original came about through intelligent design, not at all.

 

[Brian the Snail]

The computer scientist is playing with circular reasoning and should know it. Disregarding planning (as I see no evidence of that in the natural world) ... by codes does he mean DNA? I suppose there is structure there too? Human intelligence (and very definitely computer science) largely mimic the code and structure they see in the natural world, just because we use our intelligence to mimic and extend doesn't mean the original came about through intelligent design, not at all.

Well, note that the computer scientist is hardly an impartial source. In actual fact, Werner Gitt is a creationist.

Active creationist, prominent information scientist, writer, and close friend of AiG, Dr Gitt is also a renowned evangelist. In October 1999, he led a series of meetings in Bielefeld, Germany. His topics included ‘After death — what then?’ ‘The wonder of the Bible’, and ‘What creation teaches us’. Fifty-one people made first-time professions of faith in Christ.

As for the quote from Sir Arthur Keith, he died in 1955, so it's at least 50 years old. That's if the quote is genuine, and not just copied from some dodgy website. Creationists rarely give the original source for their quotations, and aren't above misquoting people or just making quotes up.

 

[Martin]

That's if the quote is genuine

It isn't. According to the Quote Mine Project, it's pure fabrication.

 

[CurtC]

The oldest human remains, the Cro-Magnon, are identical with modern-day humans. Therefore all "Neandertal developments" are lapsed.
The current state of research: all remains found are either human or ape. (..) After countless fossil findings there is no link [betiween human and ape].

It's hard to know where to start here. I'll give it a shot. If you define "human" to mean "identical to modern-day humans," then by yor definition anything that's close, but not quite identical, is "not human" and presumably therefore "ape." That seems to be what this person has done. We have a pretty darn good set of fossils showing gradual transitions from apes that are just starting to evolve walking upright (Lucy), all the way up through modern man. These fossils show a clear gradual evolution of human characteristics over the last 4 million years or so.

And the sentence " Therefore all 'Neandertal developments' are lapsed." - what does that mean? Does the author not realize that the Neanderthal is a side-branch of our evolutionary tree, one which died out?

 

[The Don]

As has been mentioned many times before each "new " missing link discovered just throws up another pair of missing links to be found. The best example of evolutution in action through the fossil record I have read about recently was from (the late and sadly lamented) Stephen J. Gould where he discusses the evolution of whales from land based animals

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0517888246/103-0767312-1335050?v=glance

 

[Rob Lister]

Seems to me the professor is in a no win situation. If you disregard evolution in favor of creation, you end up right back where you started -- evolution -- because the creator must have somehow 'evolved' to create. Therefore, even if you accept creation as the manner by which we 'actually' came into existance, evolution remains the only non-circular argument for our existance. That's not to say that another might some day emerge, but if it does, I suspect it will emerge as a result of evolutionary science.

 

[Chaos]

First, thank you for all the answers. This will certainly help.

Benguin

He's not just trying to get you to think critically by presenting flawed arguments from apparently authorative sources is he?

I don´t think so. He´s giving authoritative sources all the time. Since you cannot do experiments in Economics (even less so at university), all you can turn to is deductive logic and authoritative arguments - and this paper demolishes deductive logic.

Later on, the paper also quotes Max Planck (I´ll paraphrase it here)
"There is no intellect in the universe, but since there must be intelligence at work in its creation, this is a proof of the existence of god."

CurtC

And the sentence " Therefore all 'Neandertal developments' are lapsed." - what does that mean? Does the author not realize that the Neanderthal is a side-branch of our evolutionary tree, one which died out?

I admit "lapsed" was a bad translation. Never trust an online dictionary. The sentence means that these developments are unimportant or inconsequential...whatever THAT is supposed to mean...

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Bah. Yet another person in a pseudoscientific field that thinks truth is determined by authority and authority is determined arbitrarily.

 

[ppnl]

Here's an analogy. There's been a murder committed. There are no witnesses. However, a suspect is arrested, and it is found that his fingerprints match those on the murder weapon found near the scene, and there's a DNA match to other blood found on the scene.

However according to the reasoning of the professor, there is no evidence linking the suspect to the murder, and therefore he should be set free.

What's wrong with this picture?

So what are you saying? That O.J. was guilty?!?

 

[Brian the Snail]

I don´t think so. He´s giving authoritative sources all the time. Since you cannot do experiments in Economics (even less so at university), all you can turn to is deductive logic and authoritative arguments - and this paper demolishes deductive logic.

I thought that it was addressing induction, not deduction. Unless I misunderstood your original post?

Later on, the paper also quotes Max Planck (I´ll paraphrase it here)
"There is no intellect in the universe, but since there must be intelligence at work in its creation, this is a proof of the existence of god."

It sounds very much like your professor is trying to preach his religious views. It all seems rather strange anyway (and nothing at all to do with economics).

 

[Chaos]

I thought that it was addressing induction, not deduction. Unless I misunderstood your original post?



It sounds very much like your professor is trying to preach his religious views. It all seems rather strange anyway (and nothing at all to do with economics).

Sorry, I meant inductive. Have mercy, please, it´s 8 PM and I have just survived 10 hours in lectures.


I´m puzzled too why he chose evolution/creation as an example. He is drawing a lot of analogies between economics and natural sciences anyway...

 

[Martin]

I´m puzzled too why he chose evolution/creation as an example

Because he's an idiot?

 

[pupdog]

Both are belief systems. Nobody was there, there are no witnesses; everything beyond an age of 3000 is pure speculation.

This assertion is flat-out false. Unless you believe in the Ultimate Coverup ("God made it look old so we would feel right at home.") And when Creationists refer to the seemingly anomalous radioactive date, they don't mention that, considering what was sampled, the date is what would be expected.

A good printed anthology of the philosophy of Intelligent-Design Creationism, with materials from the ID Creationists themselves, as well as criticism from real scientists, is Robert Pennock's "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics."

It's not about some competing scientific viewpoint; it's about bringing back a Medieval worldview, one that is consistant with a particular sect's fundamentalist religious beliefs. Does their way of thinking help us to understand the natural world better than the scientific method? Can their "theocratic science" produce more efficient photovoltaics, or a more disease-resistant barley?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Why do creationuts have to pick on evolution so much? It is not in any way used to explain the 'origins' of life. That is biogenesis (sp?). So what if the earth is older than they thought? So what if dinos were around before humans? Why do they have to be so darn defensive and keep on making up ridiculous arguments?

If you cannot incorporate new knowledge into something, then that thing is just an obstacle to learning. It is a pillar of ignorance, and a pile of dumb.

It's like believing all illness is caused by some flaw in your 'energy', and ignoring the fact that the body actually has an immune system that fights microbes-since that goes against that energy belief.

Roadblock. Some people would rather ram their heads into it than get over it.

 

[pupdog]

So what if the earth is older than they thought? So what if dinos were around before humans? Why do they have to be so darn defensive and keep on making up ridiculous arguments?

Because--Science is the Devil's laboratory.

 

[Chaos]

*bump*

I am composing an E-Mail to the professor about these papers.

To summarize it:


The paper said evolution and creation science are equivalent. This is wrong, because:

- evolution is based on findings in nature, both from fossils and living organisms, while creationism is based on a several-thousand-years-old legend of unknown origin.
- there is lots of evidence for evolution, even though it is not complete; except the book of Genesis (see first point) there is no evidence for creationism
- scientists "believing" in evolution have tried and still try to falsify their theory; creationists never do that, but instead snipe at evolution
- evolution theory has changed since the days of Darwin, as it has been improved and modified - because in science, theories are modified to fit the facts; creationists tend to ignore, select and twist facts to fit their theory

The quote from Arthur Keith is a fabrication (source: ...)

The statement about dating rocks is not correct (source: ...)

The statement that "evolutionists believe that the universe, humans, animals and plants came into existence by pure chance" is wrong. (explanation...)

Anything that you think I missed? Anything I should add?