Apologizia

A creationist (xian) apologist using the Argument from Design recently made this astounding claim to bolster her argument.

"Did you know that you have over 75 Trillion Living cells within your body, each composed of 200 trillion protein molecules?"

Being a skeptic, not entirely clueless but certainly not good enough with math to process a response on the spot, I resorted to the stall… “Let me get back to you on that.”

Fortunately there are skeptics who are quite good at math and in the analysis of such claims. A little Internet research reveals this particular complexity argument, although new to me, is not uncommon… and neither is the response. All were basically the same so, more for my benefit than hers, I randomly picked one using simple terms.

Proteins are made up of amino acids. For the sake of this discussion we will assume a ridiculously simple organism made of just one kind of protein… composed only of a single, simple amino acid. Glycine is the amino acid with the simplest physical structure: NH₂CH₂COOH. Adding the molecular weights of each of the components we get about 75.04g/mol of glycine molecules.

(75E12 cells/body)x(200E12 proteins/cell)x(75.04 g/mol)

= 1.87E6 g/body

6.022E23 proteins/mol

= 1870 kg (+/- 4120 lbs.)

This reveals that the organism described by my antagonist would weigh in at somewhat over two tons, even using the most incredibly lightweight of protein.

Weight Watchers anyone?

To make the argument remotely viable would require that complexity be reduced by a factor of three digits… turning trillions into billions. If the full range of amino acids and the proteins of which they are composed were considered this particular complexity argument would be further reduced… but still remaining in the 10 digit plus complexity range.

So we cannot say that the argument to complexity (and thus design) has zero merit, but this particular confrontation does a good job of illustrating the apparent need of theist apologetics to exaggerate. The complexity of organisms, and especially the higher order mammals is incredibly fascinating without the need for exaggeration.

As it turns out the young lady was simply repeating something read in one of the xian publications, which likely was quoting something spouted by yet another apologetic. She had accepted it without question because it confirmed her predisposed bias and stroked her need to believe that her particular mythology was true. Even if the original claim of complexity were accurate, it still fails to imply design. The appeal is circular, having no supporting empirical evidence. Exaggerations and omissions abound.

So the next question posed to my particular gadfly was, “Why do xians so often feel compelled to lie in support of their argument?”

###

The persistance of Christianity?

Why is it that when a non-believer confronts one of the faithful the argument invariably turns on demands that we must prove mythical beliefs wrong? In all aspects of science and in the law the burden of proof rests with the person asserting the positive claim. Proving or disproving a hypothesis is a relatively simple process for the scientist, but apparently quite difficult for the faithful.

Literature, history and science yields untold examples of rational, scientific and theoretical thought, but the Bible is not considered literature, history or science. Perhaps it should be… but it isn’t. We might wonder why Christianity is so underrepresented, but clearly it is because scientists, historians and theoreticians reject the concept of miracles. This renders the Bible moot and relegates Jesus to the status of street corner evangelist.

But if we were to accept the claims of divine creation, how would we prove it? If we are to take the whole of academia as guidance… we can’t… which leaves the real question; Why does the myth survive if there can be found not a single shred of evidence for the Christian story of creation, yet evidence disproving Biblical explanations abound? The answer is as simple as brainwashing.

It is not necessary to prove fact or fiction if we are able to convince the mind to accept theory without evidence. The Jesuit Francisco de Jassu y (St. Francis) Xavier said “Give me a child until the age of seven and I will give you the man.” That same creed is still practiced by the Jesuits, as well as in schools across the globe. It was a foundation stone for the Third Reich and is said to have been a favorite quote of Josef Stalin.

Adults tend to be skeptical and are far more able to sift fact from fiction. For this reason cultists and politicians alike strive to indoctrinate the children at the earliest possible age. Witness the ongoing battles waged by Christians to teach creationism as part of the science curriculum in our public schools.

What kind of “truth” is it that must be taught to the immature mind that a more mature person might reject? As humans mature we develop what Michael Shermer calls a “Baloney Detector,” but children exposed to early brainwashing will not have fully developed these critical thinking skills. Children intrinsically trust that which adults teach, and adults with an agenda are quick to take advantage of this.

Christians are Christian not due to truth or evidence, but because they are born into an environment intent upon brainwashing children at an early age.  Just like all religions across the globe, Christianity is cultural and fails to be representative of the truth.

###

Ray Comfort smackdown

In celebration of the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's ‘On the Origin of Species’, an evangelical xtian ministry has published a butchered version of the book, inserting a marvelously ridiculous introduction using worn out and debunked creationist garbage, all in an almost laughable attempt to rebut Darwin's theory and make the case for ‘intelligent design’.

Creationist and certifiable lunatic Ray Comfort and his Living Waters ministry plan to distribute tens of thousands of free copies on the nation’s college campuses next month.

Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, received an evaluation copy in advance of its release, and does a fine job critiquing the vandalized tome. The NCSE is the leading group promoting and defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. Her remarks are published today in U.S. News & World Report’s online edition. Dr. Scott appears not too worried about the effects, closing her review with these words:

“I have faith that college students are sharp enough to realize that Comfort's take on Darwin and evolution is simply bananas.”

Let us hope Dr. Scott is correct in her praise of the average college student. Please find her full article HERE.

~~

The Skeptical Naturalist

"Whatever the reason you're on Mars, I'm glad you're there, and I wish I was with you."

One of my modern-day heroes was Carl Sagan. Of the writers who have lived at least part of their lives concurrent with mine, I count Sagan near the top. I say near, as it would be difficult to bump Isaac Asimov out of the number one slot, but Sagan comes close. He was not the most prolific of authors, publishing only some 200 scholarly papers and was author, co-author or editor of 20 (or 21, depending on perspective) tomes. His last work, Billions & Billions, was finished by his 3rd wife, Ann Druyan, following his untimely death in the winter of 1996. Sagan’s only true science fiction work was the novel Contact, which Robert Zemecki made into a movie by the same name. Jodi Foster was the star.

Sagan’s finest service to mankind was in his attempts to use popular media as a means to educate the masses. Carl Sagan is inarguably the champion in that field. His television series Cosmos, in which he revealed the mysteries of the universe in layman’s terms, was a must watch for millions worldwide. The 13 hour-long episodes started and ended in 1980, but shortened versions are continuously rebroadcast by various Turner networks and by the BBC. The series is acclaimed as being the most widely watched series in PBS history.

Sagan’s advocacy for science was legend. He was a major proponent of the search for extraterrestrial life, which was the basis for the book and movie Contact. He promoted the use of radio telescopes to listen for signals from intelligent extraterrestrials. In 1982 he managed to get a petition, signed by 70 scientists including seven Nobel Prize winners, advocating SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Life) published in the journal Science. Single handedly, Carl Sagan turned the UFO craze into a legitimate search for extraterrestrial life.

During the cold war era, Sagan worked to raise the public’s awareness of the potential effects of a nuclear confrontation. He published a model of how even a limited exchange of nuclear weapons could dramatically upset the balance of life on Earth, coining the phrase “nuclear winter.”

The neat thing about Sagan was not so much his accomplishments, but his humility. In 1991, following Desert Storm, he predicted that the smoke from the Kuwaiti oilfield fires, set by Sadam’s retreating armies, could have a detrimental effect on agriculture throughout the Middle East and Asia. He retracted this and admitted his error in his book, The Demon Haunted World, once again proving that science is self-correcting.

In the news lately have been stories about NASA’s inability to track the so called “Killer Asteroids.” Shortly before his death, Sagan pitched his weight behind the implementation of an organized search for Near Earth Objects (NEO’s) that might impact Earth. This effort fell by the wayside until recently, when an asteroid with a trajectory that will bring it uncomfortably close to us was spotted.

Sagan was a rationalist about religion, maybe an atheist, uttering such statements such as: "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

Today I found the following video on You Tube. The intro had a bit of an honorific for Carl Sagan. It prompted me to write this missive. Enjoy.


~~

I get mail

When I write something and post it here, I enjoy getting comments. Since I’ve failed at my attempts to be paid for my writing, comments provide, if not monetary reward, at least some satisfying feedback. What I don’t like as much is direct email commenting on my posts. Engaging me singularly is, I guess, okay… but I’d prefer if it came as comments on the blog so it would be an open debate with an audience. Narcissism, I suppose.

But it doesn’t always work that way, and I Get Mail. So, to answer one of those direct emails, shall we dwell for a moment on my last missive? My critic takes me to task for my comment regarding the null hypothesis. In my previous message I stated:

"Theists often turn science on its head by demanding proof of the absence of god. What they demand is not possible, so they offer the inability to prove the negative as proof of the positive. Not very good science."

My critic contends that if a hypothesis can’t be disproved, it must be considered valid. I strongly disagree. Let us draw an analogy. Consider the following two existing and well documented theories of the creation of the universe, and of mankind:

Theory 01:

In the beginning there was a great void. Let’s call it Ginnungagap. This void existed along with the land of fog and ice in the north, and the land of fire in the south. The mix of fire and ice caused part of reality to melt, forming a giant we will call Ymir, and a cow named Audhumla. Ymir survived by drinking the cow’s milk and everything was cool. Then Ymir fell asleep, and his armpits sweated, begetting a pair of frost giants. One was a dude and the other a chick. The sweat from Ymir’s crotch begat yet another dude. The cow needed something to eat too, so she licked the salty ice formed from Ymir’s sweat. The licking begat another god, who we will name Buri. Buri had a son, but we don’t really know how because he didn’t have a wife yet. Still, he called his son Bor. Bor had some kids too, and he named them Odin, Vili and Ve. These were bad kids, always into mischief I suppose, because for no good reason they decided to murder Ymir. Well, the dude bled a lot and it caused a flood that killed just about everybody, including all those sweat-induced frost giants. The two survivors were some dude we haven’t heard from yet and his wife. We don’t know where they came from, but they floated off in the flood of blood in a boat. We don’t know where the boat came from either. In the mean time the bad boy brothers three took Ymir’s corpse and tore it apart, slinging the pieces everywhere. Some of the body parts became the sun, stars moon, earth and the sky. Then the brothers three happened upon a couple of driftwood logs, from which they created they Ash tree (man) and the Alder bush (woman).

And that’s how we got here… [Editor’s note: please pay attention to the tree that was man, and then notice the name of this blog. Think about that for a moment]

Theory 2:

The universe sprang into existence as a "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. We don’t know what a singularity is, but we’re working on that. Singularities defy our understanding of physics, which makes us curious. We think they exist at the core of black holes, and we’re trying to find evidence to confirm that hypothesis, but we really don’t know what black holes are either. We think black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure, so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density. Infinite density is a mathematical concept that boggles our minds too, but again, we’re working it. Until we know something different we’re calling these zones of infinite density singularities, but we admit we may have it all wrong.

In summary, our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something or another, that we’ve decided to call a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. Like I said, we’re working on that.

What we theorize is that after its initial appearance, the whole kit and caboodle inflated really quickly and really explosively in an event we’ve taken to calling the Big Bang. We think that after the main act, the whole shooting match cooled pretty quickly, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe over just 13.7 million years. And we think it ain’t over yet either. We think that the whole shebang is still expanding and cooling as we speak, and will continue to do so for another few billion years.

We also think that over those several billion years all manner of life forms have come and gone in some kind of cosmic dice roll to see what works and what doesn’t. At this moment in time, at this plain of reality, in this perceivable dimension, mankind and mules have been sort of successful at surviving, finding sustenance and shelter. We also create a lot of crap and may be lucky to maintain that survival.

All of this due to some infinitesimal singularity that we can barely describe, which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown.

And that’s how we got here… we think. [Editor’s note: please pay attention to the product of man’s existence, and then notice the name of this blog. Make any more sense now?]

Science is the trick pony

So here we are back to the null hypothesis. Mine for theory #1 would be that this is a bunch of mumbo jumbo…

But I can’t prove that. I can’t even test it for validity, so I can never affirm my null hypothesis with 100% certainty, just as I can never state that god doesn’t exist with 100% certainty.

But with theory #2 I can use science to diminish my doubts. I still can’t prove it, but I can defend it against some opposition because there is evidence in geology and astronomy… and we have gained some rudimentary understanding of physics.

So, in answer to my anonymous heckler, while I am never able to disprove one theory or another, that alone does not grant any theory automatic validity. I have some knowledge of the scientific method, and I understand the limits of man’s knowledge; therefore I will never make a positive statement in response to a null hypothesis. I cannot.

The fact will remain that my inability to disprove Ymir’s sweaty balls does not validate that particular hypothesis... but neither does it diminish my doubt.
~~

p.s. I blew it on my word count again…
~~

From NPR Newsroom

Krulwich On Science
by Robert Krulwich

'Falling For Science': Obeying All The Signs
Morning Edition, December 22, 2008 ·

Me? I fall for stories. Tell me a tale about some guy climbing Mount Everest, and in my head, I'm with him — grabbing at the ice, slipping, breathing the thin air. I'm there. I've always hitchhiked by reading or listening to other people's yarns. But that's only one way to fall in love with the world. Another way, says Sherry Turkle, the Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology at MIT (whew!) is to play with things.

Turkle thinks that when you get your first microscope, or your first set of Legos, or take apart your first broken radio, you become an explorer. She says that for some kids, the thrill of touching, fastening, examining, rebuilding and unbuilding is life changing, mind changing and never goes away.

She recently published a book, Falling For Science, that collects essays written by senior scientists (artificial intelligence pioneer Seymour Papert, MIT president and neuroanatomist Susan Hockfield, and architect Moshe Safdie, for example) and by students who passed through her classes at MIT over the past 25 years. They were all asked the same question: "Was there an object you met during childhood or adolescence that had an influence on your path into science?"

And after a tidal wave of Legos (7 different essays), computer games and broken radios, I found a few wonderful surprises. One MIT student reported how she couldn't stop braiding her My Little Pony's tail, weaving the hairs into endlessly repeating patterns (a clue, perhaps, to her fascination with mathematics). But this one … this one is a gem.

It tells the story of a little boy (now a software designer) and a stop sign.

Excerpt: 'Falling For Science': 'Stop Signs'
by Joseph Calzaretta (1992)

NPR.org, December 3, 2008 ·

By the age of two, I could recognize certain shapes as letters and identify them by name. Not long after I read the letters on the red sign at the end of my block: STOP. When I asked my parents about the sign, they told me it was a stop sign and that people had to stop for it. They pointed to a moving car and told me to watch the car's actions. The car came to the sign, slowed to a halt, and then turned the corner. My parents had told the truth.

I fell in love with the stop sign. Every time we passed one on foot I would stop for a few seconds. I would point them out in the car and was delighted when we stopped, respecting the sign's wishes. I owned a picture book and I would always turn to the page with the stop sign and cry, "Stop!" Noticing my fascination with the sign, my parents bought me a stop sign piggy bank. My aunt knitted me a stop sign rug and my father eventually gave me a real stop sign that had fallen off its pole after a car accident.

After the stop sign taught me to read, I discovered letters and words everywhere. But signs had words that commanded people.

I couldn't understand why anyone would ever purposely disobey signs, although I saw that my fellow children sometimes pretended to fool signs by pretending not to see them. As for me, for a while I was obsessed with following the rules. Once when my family went to a local restaurant I noticed a sign in an ominous red font: OCCUPANCY OF THIS ESTABLISHMENT BY MORE THAN 232 PERSONS IS DANGEROUS AND UNLAWFUL.

"Mommy," I asked, "what's 'occupancy'?" She told me, and I immediately began to count all the people in the restaurant. I was plagued by the thought that my family's arrival would doom us all to an awful punishment.

Now I hardly think of stop signs, but something about my childhood fascination has stayed with me. In signs I saw the natural laws of my environment. A world of fixed and simple principles appealed to me. When the rules of the stop sign and its cousins lost their infallible status, others took their place. My favorite subjects are physics and mathematics. I still feel satisfaction when I behold the universe obeying its own "signs," such as: Speed Limit—671 Million MPH, Entropy—One Way, and Quantum Leaps—Exact Change Only. These universal signs give commands that cannot be broken by careless children or reckless drivers; they are unwavering principles.
I tend to see our existence governed by some simple rules written on signs posted in the very fabric of space.

When I encounter a confusing situation or a seemingly impossible task I break it down and make a mental sign with instructions for its completion. I know my method has its drawbacks. It lets me enjoy physics because of rules, but I quickly became intolerant of biology, which starts with the final products of unknown rules. I view the world in narrow pieces—a way of thinking that I know can be arbitrary and inaccurate. In the real world, everything is firmly attached to everything else. My method of rules would tell me now that I need to go beyond it to have the fullest appreciation of the world. I should probably throw away the big red sign hanging in my dorm room. Life isn't that simple. Joseph Calzaretta received an SB and SM from MIT in Mechanical Engineering and now works in Information Services and Technology at MIT as a software developer.

Excerpted from 'Falling For Science: Objects in Mind,' edited and with an introduction by Sherry Turkle, published in May 2008 by The MIT Press. Copyright: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008, all rights reserved.

...

The Never Ending Story?

… On 2008.12.11, in criticism of my little missive SNOOPY SEZ...

Wai said...

The hypothesis of a bad switch is plausible only if one could discern where the fault in the switch lies. A bad switch is a bad switch no matter how many times the chain is pulled. Lucy lucked out when it was only the bulb that was bad. If the replacement bulb had not lit up when she pulled the chain, then she must go back to her first hypothesis that the switch might still be the culprit. Or try another bulb because the first replacement bulb might be back as well. But when all else fails, she might have tucked herself under her blanket and waited out the storm. Twelves years old...she wouldn't be home alone anyway.

Do I detect the odor of tiger?

When discussing much of anything with a group of peers, one must be moderate in ones attempts to make a point. When one dissects an idea to the bone, as much or more may be lost as gained. One must assume that one is average, and that some of one’s audience may be superior in subject knowledge, while others suffer from some ignorance. "Holier than thou" doesn't sell in Peoria.

One must also beware of assumptions (ass-u-me). Let us take your missive bit by bit to see if our baloney detector reacts:

"A bad switch is a bad switch…”

Perhaps true, but only further experiment will tell. Perhaps the switch is just misbehaving. Perhaps if we jerk its chain a few times we will, by abrasion and friction, burnish the contacts and convince the switch to fall back in line. With this hypothesis we arrive at the theory that a suspect switch may be repaired by the simple act of jerking a chain.

“… no matter how many times the chain is pulled”

This hypothesis is rendered invalid by the example above.

"If the replacement bulb had not lit up when she pulled the chain, then she must go back to her first hypothesis that the switch might still be the culprit. Or try another bulb because the first replacement bulb might be back as well"

As the story indicated, the bad switch hypothesis was only rendered invalid once the bad bulb hypothesis was validated. The bad bulb hypothesis remains valid until a known good bulb fails to work or some other cause of the lamp’s failure is determined. Your argument is logical fallacy… it goes without saying…

“Twelves years old...she wouldn't be home alone anyway ”

Here is where assumption rears its ugly head. You may have missed it, but I indicated in my tale that one of the possible reasons for the lamp’s failure might be “Charlie Brown had forgotten to pay the bill.” If Lucy were twelve, then CB would be twelve as well. We can hypothesize that a 12-year old probably wouldn’t be paying the bills. Furthermore, according to Charles Schultz, at age twelve CB and Lucy lived in different houses. My story is written with the intent to lead one to the hypothesis that CB and Lucy, at the time of the story, share domicile. From that hypothesis one could extrapolate that this story is staged at a time when CB and Lucy were of an age to share domicile, and possibly even a last name.

The age twelve hypothesis is rendered invalid.

…but you are free to jerk my chain some more if you wish...

…

Snoopy sez...

It was a dark and stormy night

Lucy is alone in the house. As the wind howls outside the door, Lucy feels her way to the lamp she knows to be on the table. She pulls the chain to switch it on. Nothing happens. Frantically she tries pulling the chain a few more times. Still nothing. Obviously, something sinister was afoot.

With only the faint glow of lightning flashing occasionally through the curtained windows, Lucy feels her way to the cupboard where spare bulbs are stored. She retrieves one and makes her way back to the recalcitrant lamp. In the eerie darkness Lucy unscrews the bulb from the lamp and replaces it with the fresh one from the cupboard.

With bated breath Lucy pulls the lamp chain. Suddenly the room is awash with the welcome, warm glow of light. Lucy smiles as she relaxes in her easy chair to finish that Brad Pitt article in her copy of People Magazine.


End of a silly story, but lets tell it from a slightly different perspective:

1. Lucy observed an event in the real world.

2. Upon reflection and by deduction, Lucy formed an hypothesis: i.e.: the switch is bad.

3. Lucy performed an experiment to test her hypothesis by pulling the switch several times without success, which proved the original hypothesis invalid.

4. Lucy rejected the invalid hypothesis and formed another: i.e.: The bulb is bad.

5. Lucy performed an experiment by replacing the bulb, which worked, proving the new hypothesis valid.

6. Life is good.

Had the light still failed, Lucy could have posed other hypotheses, (faulty wall plug, tripped breakers, Charlie Brown had forgotten to pay the bill, etc.) and performed more experiments until finally solving the problem...

...or perhaps never solving it. Not all problems have easy solutions, and neither is it necessary that they all be immediately solved. It is only necessary that we continue the experiment.

This is the slow, plodding method of deduction and experimentation that has provided us with the great bulk of valid data we call science. That which has not been fully explained by science does not require an answer by superstition. We simply continue the experimentation.

What could be more simple?

…