Over the next several postings (until I'm done), I will be reviewing this document by Ray Comfort.
On the outset, let me first tell the parts of the document that I will not be reviewing. I will start right off by skipping the first thirteen pages. These pages, as you can verify yourself from the link above, contain a history of Charles Darwin, as well as a timeline of his life. The facts of Darwin's life are objectively verifiable, and to a large extent are correct as presented in this document. I could quibble about the language used, but by and large, I have no major objection to the initial sections of this document.
Furthermore, I won't bother reviewing the section from the 43rd page to the end, starting with the section titled "Atheist Penn and the Time Bomb." These statements contain Ray Comfort's personal opinions and as such cannot objectively be evaluated. Suffice it to say, he draws the false assumption that evolution and atheism are synonymous (despite the fact that he himself names a number of scientists who accept or accepted both evolution and the existence of God; something which he does not even consider a possibility anywhere in his 50-page discourse), and the last pages of his manuscript are him saying that he sees atheism, and all the other major religions as bad, and Christianity as good.
This is going to be a long project, and anticipate the first posting tomorrow, in which I will start talking about the first few pages of the document.
I say that I will probably only get to the first few pages on that particular posting because the first page alone of this document is so crammed full of distortions, half-truths, outright lies, and straw-man arguments that much more than that would result in a ridiculously long posting.
At any rate, anticipate the first posting tomorrow.
Showing posts with label things I can't believe I still have to refute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label things I can't believe I still have to refute. Show all posts
Friday, September 18, 2009
What would Hitler do?
By far, one of the most egregious claims made by creationists is that somehow the theory of evolution is responsible for the Holocaust.
Now for the purposes of this discussion, I will set aside two undeniable facts:
1) the claim is pure, unadulterated, bullshit.
and
2) it would have no effect whatsoever if Hitler had quoted Darwin in every third sentence of Mein Kampf. One very evil person's opinions do not, in themselves, constitute an argument against any given position.
I'm going to set both of these aside for the moment and ask something a little more fundamental: if, indeed, Hitler were motivated purely by Darwin's theory of evolution, does the Holocaust even make sense?
Of course, one could posit that Hitler's approach is based upon a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, but that can hardly be blamed on the theory. So, in the interest of full disclosure, in this little thought-experiment, I will make one assumption which I'm sure will be considered reasonable: Hitler actually understood the theory of evolution beyond the typical creationist straw-man versions of it. In other words, he understood what the theory of evolution actually says, rather than what creationists say it says.
So, if one was a dictator, motivated purely by an understanding of evolution, what would one do? In short, how, as a maniacal dictator, would one go about maximizing one's evolutionary potential? Well, in order to do that, one needs to first look at nature and ask what the most successful organism on the planet is, and see if there is any way we can mimic its behaviour.
Creationists are fond of claiming that human beings are the pinnacle of evolution. We're the most successful species on the planet, according to their version of evolution. This is, by any standard pertinent to what evolution actually says, false.
By any standard pertinent to evolution, the lowly e. coli bacteria is among the most successful organisms on the planet. Bacteria in general (and yes, I know, I'm talking about a whole kingdom here, rather than a species) are now, and always have been, the dominant organisms on this planet. They kick the asses of the entire animal kingdom in terms of reproductive rate, adaptability, and number of individuals, biomass, and environments exploited. By these standards, the only standards pertinent to evolution, all of the eukaryotic branches of the tree of life combined (that includes plants, animals, sponges, anything multicellular, and absolutely every living thing you can possibly see without a microscope) cannot even come close to matching the success of the e. coli species of bacteria alone.
A dictator, familiar with what the theory of evolution actually says would know this. Such a dictator would also know that it is beyond our technical capabilities to cause the human race to revert to the prokaryotic stage.
So, given this limitation, what is a dictator to do?
Well, short of reducing the human generational time to a matter of hours, rather than years (also beyond our capabilities), the next best option would be to increase the level of biological diversity as high as you possibly can. Actually, the most sure-fire way of guaranteeing a population's extinction would be to reduce the gene pool of your populus. Since extinct populations generally don't evolve any further, it seems unlikely that a dictator familiar with what the theory of evolution actually says would take this course of action. Put simply, if Hitler were actually motivated by the theory of evolution, the absolute last thing he would ever, ever want to do is create a "master race." In fact, were he motivated by what the theory of evolution actually says, he would know a "master race" of any kind; whether black, white, fuchsia, mauve or green; should be avoided at all costs.
There are any number of ways in which the genetic diversity of a population can be maximized, and while none of them are particularly palatable options, they're certainly not what Hitler did.
First off, some form of breeding program is a must. Not to breed out specific characteristics, mind you, the way that you do with dogs. The objective here would be to create the human equivalent of a mutt. Women will have to be required to produce offspring with different men of different ethnic backgrounds. This breeding program will have to go on for generations. After 6-10 generations or so (when we're breeding mice, we generally go with 6), it will be virtually impossible to tell that you have "races" at all in your population.
Next, from any country you conquer, the population which survives the conquering process will have to be included in the above-described breeding program. For example, it would be to your benefit to make sure that the gene for sickle-cell anemia exists somewhere in your population, as this has as a benefit a near-immunity to malaria. This gene exists almost exclusively in African populations. There's also a family in Greece which has a mutation which allows them to more efficiently process low-density lipoproteins. As a consequence, they have no family history of heart attacks. In tibet, a population has a gene which allows them to survive better at higher altitudes. Since none of these exist inherently in Germany, and very few exist in the caucasian races, limiting your genetic diversity to one race is, frankly, stupid.
Like I said, this will likely have to carry on for many generations, so you'll also probably have to do something about that whole "mortality" thing.
Now, we can argue about the ethics of this approach, and I agree, I'm not terribly keen on it myself. However, I think that there's one thing we can all agree on:
It's not what Hitler did.
Now for the purposes of this discussion, I will set aside two undeniable facts:
1) the claim is pure, unadulterated, bullshit.
and
2) it would have no effect whatsoever if Hitler had quoted Darwin in every third sentence of Mein Kampf. One very evil person's opinions do not, in themselves, constitute an argument against any given position.
I'm going to set both of these aside for the moment and ask something a little more fundamental: if, indeed, Hitler were motivated purely by Darwin's theory of evolution, does the Holocaust even make sense?
Of course, one could posit that Hitler's approach is based upon a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, but that can hardly be blamed on the theory. So, in the interest of full disclosure, in this little thought-experiment, I will make one assumption which I'm sure will be considered reasonable: Hitler actually understood the theory of evolution beyond the typical creationist straw-man versions of it. In other words, he understood what the theory of evolution actually says, rather than what creationists say it says.
So, if one was a dictator, motivated purely by an understanding of evolution, what would one do? In short, how, as a maniacal dictator, would one go about maximizing one's evolutionary potential? Well, in order to do that, one needs to first look at nature and ask what the most successful organism on the planet is, and see if there is any way we can mimic its behaviour.
Creationists are fond of claiming that human beings are the pinnacle of evolution. We're the most successful species on the planet, according to their version of evolution. This is, by any standard pertinent to what evolution actually says, false.
By any standard pertinent to evolution, the lowly e. coli bacteria is among the most successful organisms on the planet. Bacteria in general (and yes, I know, I'm talking about a whole kingdom here, rather than a species) are now, and always have been, the dominant organisms on this planet. They kick the asses of the entire animal kingdom in terms of reproductive rate, adaptability, and number of individuals, biomass, and environments exploited. By these standards, the only standards pertinent to evolution, all of the eukaryotic branches of the tree of life combined (that includes plants, animals, sponges, anything multicellular, and absolutely every living thing you can possibly see without a microscope) cannot even come close to matching the success of the e. coli species of bacteria alone.
A dictator, familiar with what the theory of evolution actually says would know this. Such a dictator would also know that it is beyond our technical capabilities to cause the human race to revert to the prokaryotic stage.
So, given this limitation, what is a dictator to do?
Well, short of reducing the human generational time to a matter of hours, rather than years (also beyond our capabilities), the next best option would be to increase the level of biological diversity as high as you possibly can. Actually, the most sure-fire way of guaranteeing a population's extinction would be to reduce the gene pool of your populus. Since extinct populations generally don't evolve any further, it seems unlikely that a dictator familiar with what the theory of evolution actually says would take this course of action. Put simply, if Hitler were actually motivated by the theory of evolution, the absolute last thing he would ever, ever want to do is create a "master race." In fact, were he motivated by what the theory of evolution actually says, he would know a "master race" of any kind; whether black, white, fuchsia, mauve or green; should be avoided at all costs.
There are any number of ways in which the genetic diversity of a population can be maximized, and while none of them are particularly palatable options, they're certainly not what Hitler did.
First off, some form of breeding program is a must. Not to breed out specific characteristics, mind you, the way that you do with dogs. The objective here would be to create the human equivalent of a mutt. Women will have to be required to produce offspring with different men of different ethnic backgrounds. This breeding program will have to go on for generations. After 6-10 generations or so (when we're breeding mice, we generally go with 6), it will be virtually impossible to tell that you have "races" at all in your population.
Next, from any country you conquer, the population which survives the conquering process will have to be included in the above-described breeding program. For example, it would be to your benefit to make sure that the gene for sickle-cell anemia exists somewhere in your population, as this has as a benefit a near-immunity to malaria. This gene exists almost exclusively in African populations. There's also a family in Greece which has a mutation which allows them to more efficiently process low-density lipoproteins. As a consequence, they have no family history of heart attacks. In tibet, a population has a gene which allows them to survive better at higher altitudes. Since none of these exist inherently in Germany, and very few exist in the caucasian races, limiting your genetic diversity to one race is, frankly, stupid.
Like I said, this will likely have to carry on for many generations, so you'll also probably have to do something about that whole "mortality" thing.
Now, we can argue about the ethics of this approach, and I agree, I'm not terribly keen on it myself. However, I think that there's one thing we can all agree on:
It's not what Hitler did.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Get Intelligent Design into the Classroom in 6 easy steps
1. Actually come up with a theory of Intelligent Design. It must make positive, testable predictions beyond "Evolution is wrong, therefore Intelligentdesignerdidit." It must make predictions of the form "if intelligentdesignerdidit, then when we perform experiment x, we will observe y." Observing something other than y must disprove the theory of Intelligent Design.
2. Perform experiments. The results of those experiments must not be explainable by the theory of evolution, or by any other explanation other than an intelligent designer. In the course of these experiments, you must make a concerted effort to conclusively disprove that an intelligent agency had any hand in the creation of life, and for every single experiment, there must be a result predicted which would disprove the action of an intelligence.
3. Repeat step 2. A lot.
4. Publish the results obtained in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
5. Repeat steps 2-4. A lot.
6. Sit back, relax and enjoy a beer, and keep your Nobel prize polished to a healthy shine while ID is automatically inserted into science textbooks everywhere, and becomes the new standard in science education in biology.
Do these six things and no scientist on earth will object to ID being inserted into science class. Evolution has done this many times over. That's why it's in science textbooks right now. If ID did the exact same thing, it'd be in the science texts within the next 20 years, easily.
So, who's up for it?
2. Perform experiments. The results of those experiments must not be explainable by the theory of evolution, or by any other explanation other than an intelligent designer. In the course of these experiments, you must make a concerted effort to conclusively disprove that an intelligent agency had any hand in the creation of life, and for every single experiment, there must be a result predicted which would disprove the action of an intelligence.
3. Repeat step 2. A lot.
4. Publish the results obtained in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
5. Repeat steps 2-4. A lot.
6. Sit back, relax and enjoy a beer, and keep your Nobel prize polished to a healthy shine while ID is automatically inserted into science textbooks everywhere, and becomes the new standard in science education in biology.
Do these six things and no scientist on earth will object to ID being inserted into science class. Evolution has done this many times over. That's why it's in science textbooks right now. If ID did the exact same thing, it'd be in the science texts within the next 20 years, easily.
So, who's up for it?
Thermodynamics for Creationists
Okay, so in a recent discussion, the second law of thermodynamics came up. Honestly, I can't believe that I'm having to point this out again, but the truth of the matter is that the second law of thermodynamics in no way prohibits evolution. All the second law of thermodynamics states is that the total entropy of the universe must increase over time.
So let's start with the basics. What is entropy?
The thermodynamic definition of entropy is k*ln(multiplicity)
Okay, what is multiplicity?
let' start with a simple conceptual example (which, surprisingly enough, turns out to have a real world thermodynamic version (the two state paramagnet))
Let's say you flip four coins.
How many possible ways are there for it to come up all tails? 1
How many ways are there for it to come up with exactly one heads? 4
How many ways for two heads? 6
How many ways for three heads? 4
And for all four heads? 1
Those numbers are what are called multiplicities.
Let's look at that again. Define a microstate as the specific state. ie, tails-heads-tails-tails would be one microstate. heads-tails-tails-tails would be a different microstate; but they're both part of the same macrostate (one heads). The fundamental assumption of thermodynamics is that in any given macrostate (all tails, one heads, and so on), the microstates are indistinguishable from each other. So, assuming that your coins are fair, the probability of a microstate is equal to any other.
In other words, multiplicity is effectively a measure of probability. multiplicity of some macrostate/multiplicity of all possible macrostates of a system gives the probability of that specific macrostate.
Back to our definition of entropy.
S = k*ln(multiplicity)... log is a monotonic function, so bigger it is, bigger S will be. k is boltzman's constant.
This is what entropy, essentially, truly is. The reason we say it tends to increase is because, as long as the fundumental assumption of statistical mechanics holds, higher entropy states directly correspond to higher probability states. ie, the high entropy states are literally the most likely states of reality. However, the key point here is total entropy.
Systems can easily take a entropy drop in one area so long as there's a corresponding entropy increase elsewhere. In fact, that's pretty much exactly how your refrigerator works.
First, consider if you have two systems, one with multiplicity A, the other with multiplicity B. What's the total multiplicity? A*B, right?
so therefore the two entropies would be the sum, since ln(A*B) = ln(A) + ln(B)
accept that so far?
Great. Now, let's define temperature. Temperature is not actually defined as being proportional to the energy of an object. That's a nontrivial fact about temperature. Temperature nowadays is defined thermodynamically as the reciprocal of the partial derivative of entropy with respect to energy with volume and number of particles (and external magnetic field and other such things) held constant when relevant.
Now, what does that actually mean? it means an object for which a slight change in energy would net a huge change in entropy (in the same direction) would have a low temperature, while big change in energy causing small change in entropy would have a high temperature, right? This also works backwards, if two objects, one hot one cold, both undergo a change in temperature of an equal quantity, the cold one will have a greater change in entropy than the hot one. That's pretty much the definition of the term. Again, if you're having trouble with this, I recommend you pick up a good thermodynamics text. I recommend Kittel and Kroemer's "Thermal Physics." I don't know which edition it's in now, but you should be able to find it on Amazon.
So place those two objects together. What's going happen? Well, the highest probable states are those that correspond to the highest entropy, right?
So... if energy goes from the cold object to the hot object, a lot of entropy will be lost from the cold object, while only a little entropy will be gained by the hot object. So a net decrease in entropy.
In the other direction, there'd be obviously a net increase in entropy. This is why energy goes from hot to cold. And it's a nontrivial fact, as I mentioned.
All of this is to point out the obvious: local decreases in entropy are not only possible; but they happen as a matter of routine in nature. Take crystal formation for example, or the operation of your refrigerator. All the second law of thermodynamics states is that the entropy of the universe has to go up. It doesn't matter if the entropy of a living being, or even of the entire planet earth drops, as long as there's an increase in entropy elsewhere.
So let's start with the basics. What is entropy?
The thermodynamic definition of entropy is k*ln(multiplicity)
Okay, what is multiplicity?
let' start with a simple conceptual example (which, surprisingly enough, turns out to have a real world thermodynamic version (the two state paramagnet))
Let's say you flip four coins.
How many possible ways are there for it to come up all tails? 1
How many ways are there for it to come up with exactly one heads? 4
How many ways for two heads? 6
How many ways for three heads? 4
And for all four heads? 1
Those numbers are what are called multiplicities.
Let's look at that again. Define a microstate as the specific state. ie, tails-heads-tails-tails would be one microstate. heads-tails-tails-tails would be a different microstate; but they're both part of the same macrostate (one heads). The fundamental assumption of thermodynamics is that in any given macrostate (all tails, one heads, and so on), the microstates are indistinguishable from each other. So, assuming that your coins are fair, the probability of a microstate is equal to any other.
In other words, multiplicity is effectively a measure of probability. multiplicity of some macrostate/multiplicity of all possible macrostates of a system gives the probability of that specific macrostate.
Back to our definition of entropy.
S = k*ln(multiplicity)... log is a monotonic function, so bigger it is, bigger S will be. k is boltzman's constant.
This is what entropy, essentially, truly is. The reason we say it tends to increase is because, as long as the fundumental assumption of statistical mechanics holds, higher entropy states directly correspond to higher probability states. ie, the high entropy states are literally the most likely states of reality. However, the key point here is total entropy.
Systems can easily take a entropy drop in one area so long as there's a corresponding entropy increase elsewhere. In fact, that's pretty much exactly how your refrigerator works.
First, consider if you have two systems, one with multiplicity A, the other with multiplicity B. What's the total multiplicity? A*B, right?
so therefore the two entropies would be the sum, since ln(A*B) = ln(A) + ln(B)
accept that so far?
Great. Now, let's define temperature. Temperature is not actually defined as being proportional to the energy of an object. That's a nontrivial fact about temperature. Temperature nowadays is defined thermodynamically as the reciprocal of the partial derivative of entropy with respect to energy with volume and number of particles (and external magnetic field and other such things) held constant when relevant.
Now, what does that actually mean? it means an object for which a slight change in energy would net a huge change in entropy (in the same direction) would have a low temperature, while big change in energy causing small change in entropy would have a high temperature, right? This also works backwards, if two objects, one hot one cold, both undergo a change in temperature of an equal quantity, the cold one will have a greater change in entropy than the hot one. That's pretty much the definition of the term. Again, if you're having trouble with this, I recommend you pick up a good thermodynamics text. I recommend Kittel and Kroemer's "Thermal Physics." I don't know which edition it's in now, but you should be able to find it on Amazon.
So place those two objects together. What's going happen? Well, the highest probable states are those that correspond to the highest entropy, right?
So... if energy goes from the cold object to the hot object, a lot of entropy will be lost from the cold object, while only a little entropy will be gained by the hot object. So a net decrease in entropy.
In the other direction, there'd be obviously a net increase in entropy. This is why energy goes from hot to cold. And it's a nontrivial fact, as I mentioned.
All of this is to point out the obvious: local decreases in entropy are not only possible; but they happen as a matter of routine in nature. Take crystal formation for example, or the operation of your refrigerator. All the second law of thermodynamics states is that the entropy of the universe has to go up. It doesn't matter if the entropy of a living being, or even of the entire planet earth drops, as long as there's an increase in entropy elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
