Fighting the Creationist Woo

http://www.decaturdaily.com/detail/55116.html

There is so much fail in the linked article that it’s difficult to know where to begin. Here is the article:

“As a young earth creationist, I also say “yes” to both God and science. But I differ with those who believe that Biblical creationism and Darwinian evolution can be bridged.

Some of the ideas that attempt to connect these two divergent ideas are theistic evolution, progressive creation, and the framework hypothesis. The Intelligent Design movement refutes evolution by showing that the complexity existing in living organisms (as well as the orderliness in the universe) make chance formation impossible. The odds that these structures developed out of nothing and then became increasingly complex can be refuted mathematically.

No evolutionist has ever bridged the gap from non-life to life as was necessary for development of the first living cell (Law of Biogenesis). Nor has anyone shown that entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics — tendency for things to run down and become random) has been displaced in the supposed progression from simple to complex. Mutations are the mantra for biological evolution; but mutations, which are usually neutral or detrimental, cannot create DNA and can only rearrange the DNA already present. No additional information can be added, as is necessary to upgrade to more complex organisms. Fruit flies have been studied under laboratory conditions for 50-plus years and have resulted in countless different kinds of mutations and yet continue to be fruit flies — no vertical (more complex) species have developed.
The two ideologies above are based on presuppositions, of which only two exist: a Biblical view or man’s view. Few realize that hundreds of Ph.D. scientists champion the Bible view.

The first 11 chapters of Genesis are history and form the foundation for creation as well as all the major doctrines of the entire Bible. Is the authority of God’s Word true, or do we pick and choose that which fits our own presupposition? “

The mind reels. I’d like to thank the author for informing us that she is a Young Earth Creationist. We already know where her views lie thus making it rather easy to discredit her credibility in regards to the scientific debate.

I’m going to break this post down by the arguments put forth in the article.

1) “The Intelligent Design movement refutes evolution by showing that the complexity existing in living organisms (as well as the orderliness in the universe) make chance formation impossible. The odds that these structures developed out of nothing and then became increasingly complex can be refuted mathematically.”

First off, where is the mathematical proof? It’s not provided because it doesn’t seem to actually exist. We can tell that we are dealing with a typical Creationist argument in regards to the fact that the author can’t comprehend the idea of complex organisms emerging from chance formation.

“The Intelligent Design movement” can hardly be said to refute evolution. Intelligent Design on one level is a concession by creationists that evolution is true but that they can’t possibly fathom the idea that we came about without the hand of the designer. On another level ID is simply a front for creationism (see the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute).

The universe is anything but orderly. Think about the recent news that scientists are finally in agreement that an asteroid did wipe out the dinosaurs and turned the earth into a living hell. (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Paleontologists_reaffirm_the_cause_of_dino_extinction?dpl_id=161471).
Stars explode into supernovas. ("Introduction to Supernova Remnants". Goddard Space Flight Center. 2006-04-06. http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/objects/snrs/snrstext.html. Retrieved 2006-07-16). If they are large enough they will collapse into black holes (Fryer, C. L. (2003). "Black-hole formation from stellar collapse". Classical and Quantum Gravity 20: S73–S80. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/10/309. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/20/10/309.).

This information is evidence of a universe that is not orderly but quite chaotic. Not to mention our inability to find any evidence for life beyond Earth points to a terrible waste of resources. Why would an “intelligent designer” create such a vast universe and only put life on one plant that in terms of scale is smaller than the most insignificant and useless microscopic organism?

On the issue of chance formation being possible we must first address the fact that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution put forward by the creationist camp.

“There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.” (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)

Evolutionary progress doesn’t mean that one day an organism goes *poof* and makes a change by complete chance.

2) “No evolutionist has ever bridged the gap from non-life to life as was necessary for development of the first living cell (Law of Biogenesis).”

Here is yet another misconception from the creationist morons. The origins of life and evolution are two separate fields. Evolution deals with the idea that, life is already here now how did life get to be what it is today? “One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least”. The debate on the origins of life should be kept separate from evolution.

3) “Nor has anyone shown that entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics — tendency for things to run down and become random) has been displaced in the supposed progression from simple to complex.”

I nearly did a *facepalm* as I read this comment. The whole article is a minefield of creationist talking points. Talk Origins deals with this issue quite nicely:

“This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.”

At this point I am willing to say that the author knows next to nothing about evolution and is simply citing arguments from creationist sources rather than actually examining the matter for herself.

4) “Mutations are the mantra for biological evolution; but mutations, which are usually neutral or detrimental, cannot create DNA and can only rearrange the DNA already present. No additional information can be added, as is necessary to upgrade to more complex organisms. Fruit flies have been studied under laboratory conditions for 50-plus years and have resulted in countless different kinds of mutations and yet continue to be fruit flies — no vertical (more complex) species have developed.”

There is evidence that mutations result in new DNA or more appropriately genes. “Mutations can involve large sections of a chromosome becoming duplicated (usually by genetic recombination), which can introduce extra copies of a gene into a genome” (Hastings, P J; Lupski, JR; Rosenberg, SM; Ira, G (2009). "Mechanisms of change in gene copy number". Nature Reviews. Genetics 10 (8): 551–564. doi:10.1038/nrg2593. PMID 19597530.). “Extra copies of genes are a major source of the raw material needed for new genes to evolve” (Carroll SB, Grenier J, Weatherbee SD (2005). From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-4051-1950-0.).

The author takes issue with the fact that studies on fruit flies haven’t resulted in any new species being developed. Ignoring the fact that evolution doesn’t happen overnight and in the biological timescale 50 years is somewhere around a few seconds.

5) “Few realize that hundreds of Ph.D. scientists champion the Bible view.”

It would be nice to know who some of these scientists are so that their arguments could be examined. As for the argument itself, it is what I believe is known as the “argument from authority” it’s a logical fallacy. Holding a Ph.D. in science does not immediately give your views credibility. In the world of science those views must be based upon evidence that has been accepted by a peer reviewed process.

6) “The first 11 chapters of Genesis are history and form the foundation for creation as well as all the major doctrines of the entire Bible.”

I don’t want to deal with arguments from the Bible in what is a scientific debate. It’s essentially another argument from authority i.e. “God”, but I’m feeling generous. Let’s take a brief tour of Chapters 1-11 of Genesis.

Chapter 1 Verse 27-“ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Here we see that God created both man and women at the same time. Yet in Chapter 2 it says that God had finished creating Earth and then realized “oops I forgot about making the man!”

Chapter 2 Verse 5-“ And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.”

Chapter 2 Verse 17-“ But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Knowledge is apparently the enemy of God. Needless to say knowledge is the enemy of religion.

You might be wondering what happened to the female that was created in Chapter 1. Well according to Chapter 2 she hasn’t come along just yet.

Chapter 2 Verse 21-22 “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

God is a rather sloppy worker. You think an all powerful being would’ve realized sooner that Adam needed a woman for reproductive purposes.

God also proves himself to be the creator of the system of patriarchy and a hateful sexist bastard.

Chapter 3 Verse 16-“ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

All this over a piece of fruit God sounds like a child throwing a tantrum. (For those keeping track none of these events have been proven by science).

At the beginning of Chapter 4 we get into the birth of Cane and Abel. If they were Adam and Eve’s only children then we have to assume that the only way they were able to breed was with their mother. Now it begs the question, where did Cain’s wife come from?

Chapter 4 Verse 17-“ And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch”
I’ll ignore the use of “builded” suggesting the authors of the Bible have the grammatical sophistication of a 5-year old. There are a couple problems here 1) has already been mentioned, where did Cain’s wife come from? 2) At this point we only know that 5 people are alive (Abel was whacked remember) and we are to believe that 1 of them built an entire city? For what purpose would a city need to be constructed if there were only 4 people alive at this time?

If we are going to ban same-sex marriage on the basis that the Bible forbids it, then I demand my Biblical right to multiple wives!

Chapter 4 Verse 19-“ And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.”

For a time period when medical knowledge was likely non-existent Adam supposedly lived a rather long life.

Chapter 5 Verse 5-“ And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.”

Amazing, despite all our medical advancements no one has even lived to be 200. Hmm, maybe we need to pray harder?

I’m also looking forward to the day when we dig up evidence of giants, that’ll be exciting!

Chapter 6 Verse 4-“ There were giants [nephilim] in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

Chapter 6 gets into the story of the Great Flood. In the words of Michael Shermer, “I feel embarrassed for anyone who interprets this literally.” I’m not going to bother dealing with the Flood as it has already been debunked before, most recently by Richard Dawkins in a speech he gave in Sydney (http://www.smh.com.au/national/dawkins-celebrates-the-miracle-of-life-x2013-with-or-without-god-20100308-pqs1.html?autostart=1).

The language barrier can be a source of division among people that may lead to hostile relations. If the Bible is to be believed then we can blame God for dividing humanity rather than unity it.

Chapter 11 Verse 7-“ Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.”

Ok, so it’s clear that even a brief examination of Chapters 1-11 of Genesis show that it is a contradictory piece of work with no basis in scientific reality. It has no place in the debate on how we came to be.

7) “Is the authority of God’s Word true, or do we pick and choose that which fits our own presupposition?”

Actually, it is the creationist who is choosing the argument that follows her own presupposition. She already believes that God is real and made the earth because the Bible says so. Now she is attempting to find evidence, mostly by a pathetic attempt to discredit evolution, to prove that her creationist view is correct.
There you have it, a point-by-point rebuttal of typical creationist woo. Hmm, the argument was refuted in 7 points. God created the world in 7 days, according to the Bible. Does this mean that my rebuttal was guided by God?*






*No of course not, did you actually believe that? If so, I’ve lost my faith in you.