Long creationist E-mail I can't be bothered answering myself

[Sela]

How can natural selection create the first common ancestor with life over a period of time (regardless of how long) and produce eyes, tongue, ears, the intestines, the organs designed to have sex and reproduce (how would it know that there was or was to be a female companion and make provision for this?) and all the other complex organs WITHOUT ANY “SELF AWARE” INTELLIGENCE behind these processes?.

I must say this is really the most fun line to tear apart in this. So Ojo purports that a self-aware intelligence (which is somehow capable of altering natural/physical law) designed physical laws to purposefully create us? That gender, eyes, tongue, ears, organs . . .these were design-objectives?

The first life - that has lasted far *far* longer than humans have are ASEXUAL, SINGLE-celled (no organs, tongue, ears, eyes) prokaryotes. And they've been 'designed' by evolution such that they were there for at least 3-4 billion years! By comparison, we're - at best - 2 million years old. Seems to me the intelligent designer was actually designing bacteria, not humans. We're just an accident.


Moreover, pray-tell why the designer would use such a *BAD*, *INDIRECT* method as evolution? Let's face it - as a design strategy evolution really stinks! It took 800million years to make a single-celled living organism, and a further 1 billion years to learn photosynthesis! I mean, as far as a design-choice goes, evolution has to be one of the worst methods for an 'intelligent' being to chose.

And then it goes one further, after about 530 million years of various flora and fauna evolving, culminating in the dinosaurs - we go ahead and wipe the slate with an extinction level event. And that's just one of five such ELE's. This intelligent designer has picked a system so poor that it wouldn't have worked unless 50% of the existing species went extinct. . . . all at once . . . five times. With a total of 97% or more of all species that ever existed being currently extinct.

Just an alternate way to have fun with the argument; I know it's not the best answer since it allows the creationist assumption of an intelligent designer for the sake of argument rather than simply demanding they prove the designer out and out. Still, couldn't resist. That, and it's more fun than spouting the same identical rebuttal each time.

[Oskuro]

What really makes me laugh is how he misses an important point of Intelligent Design. The whole thing has always been an attempt to make religious doctrine sound scientifical by specifically avoiding the usage of words like "God" or "bible" when defending their positions. So this guy throwing all that out the window by finishing his email with bible quotes and a prayer for Mike's soul got a chuckle out of me.

[Liberty]

I think the biggest things to point out to him are:

A. How the scientific method actually works and why Intelligent Design is not a real theory at all.

B. The obvious evidence for evolution, like the rock layers with species and fauna in them distinct that that layer, that no fossils are out of place, what we can learn from DNA, that whales have pelvic bones and are mammals and thus clearly lived on land at one point and evolved into sea creatures, etc. Just easy, simple, clear stuff like that.

C. What evolution actually is, and that there is no difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution," and that actually we have seen things evolve.

D. Colossally bad design examples. If God really designed things, would he have actually designed them like they are? (the problem is that this can be countered by a simple "well, after the fall...," but still)

[JBG]

Alyrium Denryle, that was a good piece of work.

[PeZook]

They also don't understand odds: 150 billin stars in the galaxy, about 170 billion galaxies in the visible universe (some vastly bigger than the Milky Way),and it's somehow unconceivable that one planet in one galaxy has complex life on it?

Even if the chances of a water-bearing planet finding itself in the sweet spot of its star are something retarded like 1:2.5E20, it's pretty likely it's going to happen somewhere at least once.

So even if we assume all processes in the universe are completely random (and they're not, of course), the odds aren't quite as terrible as these people make them out to be.

[Serafina]

Again, you HAVE to point out that most of these things are NOT random and NOT governed "by chance".

Chemical processes are VERY deterministic - put these chemicals together and this happens.
The beginnings of life were simple chemical processes (as Alyrium described it). The only thing were you could argue chance are with getting these starting conditions - and as PeZook pointed out, the sheer number of stars makes this harldy surprising.

Likewise, evolution is NOT a random process.
First, you have to point out that evolution is an intrisic property of life - you can not have living beings without evolution.
It's quite simple:
-Life reproduces - that's part of the definition.
-Reproduction is not perfect - since there can not be a perfect process.
-Therefore, offspring will have slightly different properties.
-These properties can be either good or bad for their enviroment.
-Being better suited for your enviorment increases the chances of reproducing.
-And finally, these changes are passed on to the next generation.

Al off these are simple, logical, inevitable steps - you can not deny that life reproduces with variation (you are not identical to your parents.
Likewise, it is obvious that some properties are better than others and increase your chance of not dieing etc.
And unless you deny all of genetics (which would mean that you are not actually related to your parents), these changes ARE passed on to the next generation.

So, the next question is going to be "but that does not mean speciation, just adaption" or similar crap.
Well, them ask them: Where does it stop?
What mechanism prevents parts of our genes changing so that only minor adaptations can happen.
Point out that the changes are very gradual - only the sum of them produces new species.

So, does chance play a role in this change?
Why, yes - but ONLY if you are after our current state of life. It's the same kind of chance that governs our life.
Ask them what the odds of your or them being born if you go two generations back - how about four or seven or ten generations? So many little things could have happened that would have changed which children your parents had.
But what were the odds of there being someone LIKE you? What are the odds of your grandgrandgrandparents having offspring in your generation?
In the end, chance does not matter that much due to sheer scale. You are talking about whole species, so ask about "what are the odds of there being offspring of todays belgians (or whatever) in five generations? Pretty good, eh?".

Remember what the point is - explaining that chance does not work the way he thinks it does. Specific things are unlikey to happen, but the odds that something are pretty damn good.

[Iosef Cross]

Apparently there is some connection between the views that any complex organism (or even life) was designed by a human like mind, and the views that social institutions were the result of conscious design.

All that is based on the common idea that everything that exists was the result of human like thought processes. People usually have the perception that anything always happened due to some directing will (mind). For example, some people think that poverty exists (in the world) due to the conscious effort of some interest groups, that there is some higher mind controlling the world or the universe.

The fact is that conscious design is something very rare in the universe and even in human society. It is important to note that Darwin's ideas were derived from the original work of Scottish social philosophers, with were developed to explain human institutions.

[wolveraptor]

Apparently there is some connection between the views that any complex organism (or even life) was designed by a human like mind, and the views that social institutions were the result of conscious design.

All that is based on the common idea that everything that exists was the result of human like thought processes. People usually have the perception that anything always happened due to some directing will (mind). For example, some people think that poverty exists (in the world) due to the conscious effort of some interest groups, that there is some higher mind controlling the world or the universe.

Are you seriously trying to shoehorn your half-baked political theories into this thread?

Is there any reason to believe Creation Theorists are somehow linked to "people [who] think that poverty exists (in the world) due to the conscious effort of some interest groups"? Do you really think there is significant overlap between the two populations?

[Akhlut]

Apparently there is some connection between the views that any complex organism (or even life) was designed by a human like mind, and the views that social institutions were the result of conscious design.

All that is based on the common idea that everything that exists was the result of human like thought processes. People usually have the perception that anything always happened due to some directing will (mind). For example, some people think that poverty exists (in the world) due to the conscious effort of some interest groups, that there is some higher mind controlling the world or the universe.

Are you seriously trying to shoehorn your half-baked political theories into this thread?

Is there any reason to believe Creation Theorists are somehow linked to "people [who] think that poverty exists (in the world) due to the conscious effort of some interest groups"? Do you really think there is significant overlap between the two populations?

Actually, from what I've seen, a lot of Creationists think poor people are poor because they're too lazy and rely too much on welfare.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, from what I've seen, a lot of Creationists think poor people are poor because they're too lazy and rely too much on welfare.

There's some truth to that, but of course, it's based on selection bias. We all do it. You see worthless layabouts sitting on their lawns and you tend to think that they represent poor people. You don't think about the menial-wage clerk at the gas bar who's way too old to be a high school student, and who would represent an example of a hard-working poor person. You don't think about the cab driver, who has a shitty job and doesn't get paid much money, yet keeps dragging his ass out to work every day. These people just fly under the radar, but when you see some welfare asshole sitting on his lawn laughing at people who have to work for a living, you get angry and you tell your coworkers about him.

[Samuel]

Apparently there is some connection between the views that any complex organism (or even life) was designed by a human like mind, and the views that social institutions were the result of conscious design.

You mean like the constitution and government?

It is important to note that Darwin's ideas were derived from the original work of Scottish social philosophers, with were developed to explain human institutions.

No, his work was mainly influenced by the new field of geology and the idea of gradual change over a large time scale resulting in the world we see around us.

[Darth Wong]

Where does this "Iosef Cross" guy get his ideas? Darwin's Theory of Evolution is based on Scottish sociology now? WTF?

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is important to note that Darwin's ideas were derived from the original work of Scottish social philosophers, with were developed to explain human institutions.

Um... no. They were derived from the following sources.

His grandfather Eurasmus Darwin, LeMark, the new gradualist school of geology, the works of Alexander Von Humboldt and other early biogeographers, and the writings of Thomas Malthus, along with a chain of naturalist thinkers going back to the greek philosopher Democritus.

[Mayabird]

Also his own extensive research; he was a respected naturalist in his day for all his work, especially on barnacles. Behold his list of publications. And this was a guy who had some sort of chronic illness most his life.

[Surlethe]

He's talking about Malthus, guys. IIRC, Malthus' ideas on scarcity were instrumental in getting Darwin to think about competition between organisms for resources, which helped lead him to natural selection. I wouldn't condone saying Darwin's ideas were derived from Malthus', but there's a Scottish philosopher whose ideas on human institutions influenced Darwin.

[Mr. Tickle]

He said

The point is that tornadoes in a junkyard, even if occurring every day for trillions of years, would never leave in its wake a 747 produced by natural selection or by natural laws regardless of whether or not it appeared suddenly or over the period of trillions of years.

This is an interesting point actually which always get me annoyed. In reality it's "possible" if we were able to conduct that experiment by random chance the pieces would perfectly land and fit into a 747, but thats not the point. The fact is that's only 1 of billions upon billions results of doing such a shake up, the vast majority would result in nothing more a mess but wouldn't it equally amazing if we did the same thing and we ended up with 4 fire engines? or 25 humvee's etc etc, there are potentially millions of "amazing" results from that experiment.

My point is then is that just because we are at this point of an overall "universe" experiment and we are lucky observe the wondorous world we shouldn't ignore the billions of other equally wonderous worlds we could be left in and then cry for a designer because no other outcome could be imagined.

[Alyrium Denryle]

He's talking about Malthus, guys. IIRC, Malthus' ideas on scarcity were instrumental in getting Darwin to think about competition between organisms for resources, which helped lead him to natural selection. I wouldn't condone saying Darwin's ideas were derived from Malthus', but there's a Scottish philosopher whose ideas on human institutions influenced Darwin.

See, I would not call him a social philosopher and more of an early macroeconomist and demographer.

[Iosef Cross]

He's talking about Malthus, guys. IIRC, Malthus' ideas on scarcity were instrumental in getting Darwin to think about competition between organisms for resources, which helped lead him to natural selection. I wouldn't condone saying Darwin's ideas were derived from Malthus', but there's a Scottish philosopher whose ideas on human institutions influenced Darwin.

Nah... I was talking about the likes of David Hume and co.

Roughly speaking, the process of institutional formation happened quite like the evolution of organisms. People noticed first that society was not a product of intelligent design, and them applied to the natural world.

In fact, the most complex processes of the universe are never a product of intelligent design. So, the argument that life is too complex to have evolved without design is ironic: Life is too complex to be designed.

[Iosef Cross]

It is important to note that Darwin's ideas were derived from the original work of Scottish social philosophers, with were developed to explain human institutions.

Um... no. They were derived from the following sources.

His grandfather Eurasmus Darwin, LeMark, the new gradualist school of geology, the works of Alexander Von Humboldt and other early biogeographers, and the writings of Thomas Malthus, along with a chain of naturalist thinkers going back to the greek philosopher Democritus.

Malthus was heavily influenced by the Scottish social philosophers.

Also, you really think that these were all the influences on his work or only the most important ones?

[Iosef Cross]

There it is people:

The Influence of Scottish Enlightenment on Darwin 'sTheory of Cultural Evolution
Alain Marcianoa1 and Maud Pelissiera2
a1 Université de Corse-Pascal Paoli, Faculté de Droit et d'Economie, BP 52, 20250 Corté; marciano@univ-corse.fr, et GREQAM UMR CNRS 6579, 15-19 allée Claude Forbin, 13627 Aix-en-Provence Cedex.
a2 Université d'Aix-Marseille, Faculté d'Economie Appliquée et GREQAM UMR CNRS 6579, 15–19 allée Claude Forbin, 13627 Aix-en-Provence Cedex; mpeli@univ-aix.fr.

Since the 1980s, institutional change has become a matter of great interest as economists faced the necessity and the challenge to provide a theory of economic or cultural evolution. Their first reaction was to refer to biology, a field in which theories of evolution have reached a high degree of sophistication. This was all the more legitimate and relevant given that biology has been largely influenced by economics (Schweber 1977, 1980; Gordon 1991; Kresge and Wenar 1994; Depew and Weber 1995). Indeed, the influence of classical political economy on the views of one of the fathers of the modern theory of evolution, Charles Darwin, is widely admitted. Darwin borrowed from economists fundamental ideas such as spontaneous order and methodological individualism (from Adam Smith), the positive role of diversity and variety (from Charles Babbage) and the concept of the struggle for life (from Thomas Malthus). Therefore, the ideas promoted by the founding fathers of political economy, sometimes called “Darwinians before Darwin” (Hayek 1973, p. 23), have shaped Darwin 'stheory of biological evolution.

[Mayabird]

Are you seriously telling us that you're into the post-modernist view that evolution was derived from economics? Are you fucking shitting me?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Are you seriously telling us that you're into the post-modernist view that evolution was derived from economics? Are you fucking shitting me?

The reality is, evolution is a fact of the universe. That it took an observation from economics (which to a large degree mirrors evolution in its basic operations, to the point that economists use genetic algorithms derived from biology in their research) is irrelevant. To say that the theory of evolution is derived from economics when in reality economic processes mirror evolution in function, and the intellectual tradition which gave darwin the material he needed to think about the question is in some cases thousands of years old and in disciplines as disparate as geology and epistemology is asinine.

[Mr. Tickle]

(which to a large degree mirrors evolution in its basic operations, to the point that economists use genetic algorithms derived from biology in their research)

Genetic algorithms? Derived from biology? oh dear.

[Mayabird]

Thank you, Ben, for saying what I should have said.

(which to a large degree mirrors evolution in its basic operations, to the point that economists use genetic algorithms derived from biology in their research)

Genetic algorithms? Derived from biology? oh dear.

What's wrong with them?

[TheKwas]

There it is people:

Of the three mentioned economists in that abstract (Babbage, Malthus, and Smith), only Smith was Scottish. Malthus and Babbage were English. Malthus and Babbage also probably shouldn't be considered 'social philosophers' either.

This connection you're trying to draw between Darwin and Hobbes & co. is very thin.