Creationism only flourishes amidst Ignorance

I found the following example of ignorance amongst the comments on an article about the museum-of-delusion constructed by oxymoronically labelled Answers in Genesis. Those who are so ignorant as to believe in creationism are not really interested in answers, but I want to vent!

"To all of those evolutionists out there: Can you tell me ONE instance of an organism that proves that NEW information was ADDED to its DNA? NOT a LOSS of genetic info that leads to an environmental advantage, but an actual ADDITION of NEW information to the DNA?"

First, there can be no proof outside special philosophical syllogisms and mathematics. Only the ignorant or emotionally-uncertain demand proof. However, there is abundant evidence, throughout organisms from prokaryotes to humans of the addition/alteration of segments of DNA. There is so much evidence that one could not list it all. See for yourself – running a PubMed search for "DNA evolution" yielded 53983 hits (5/27/07). Of course, not all of these scientific articles will directly address this creationist challenge, so I Googled "DNA evolution" and got 47,100,000 hits. Some of these will be websites set up by creationists as ignorant as the author of that stupid question, but many will provide an accurate answer.

Creationist are correct in stating that DNA contains information, so any alteration of a DNA sequence, even if it is only a single nucleotide polymorphism (point mutation), comprises evidence of the addition of new information to DNA. To ask for "proof" of the addition of new information to DNA is beyond ridiculous. Any organism that develops a malignancy does so because of alterations in their DNA. Childrens' DNA is not identical to that of either parent because of an alteration in their DNA. The diversity of DNA, which is demonstrably currently continuing to evolve, is evidence of addition of information to DNA. No need to go on–there are billions of examples.

"Answers in Genesis' website explains that this is the big obstacle for evolutionary belief. What mechanism could possibly have added all the extra genetic information required to change a one-celled creature into a multicelled organism, then other more "complex" organisms?"

This, of course, is why Answers in Genesis is misnamed. (There are no accurate answers to questions in Genesis, which was, is, and always will be an allegorical creation myth. Nor are there any answers in AiG–merely delusions.)

Again, science has documented abundant evidence regarding mechanisms, which include prokaryotic gene-swapping mechanisms (HGT), serial endosymbiotic transfers, and a variety of internal-mutation mechanisms (duplication, etc.). The very first soft-bodied multicellular organisms died without leaving any fossil trace around 1 billion years ago. It is utterly unreasonable to expect that this step in evolution can ever be exactly replicated. However, the molecular biological mechanisms of cellular adhesion that exist today were likely the same mechanisms that allowed the first co-operative assemblages of specialized cells (the colonial theory providing the likeliest explanation). Serial endosymbiotic transfers rendered this step possible, and the oxygen produced by the first prokaryotes to practice oxygenic photosynthesis both drove and enabled such assemblages.

"Natural selection can’t explain it as natural selection involves getting rid of information."

Natural selection operates to increase the frequency of favourable alleles and reduce unfavourable alleles in populations. The amount of information is much the same following selection for the organisms best equipped to survive and produce viable progeny within a particular environment. Only utterly unfavourable mutations will be removed, while neutral and favourable mutations will persist. Natural selection has never been regarded as a mechanism for the alteration of DNA itself.

"A group of animals might become more adapted to the heat by the elimination of those which carry the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to make thick or thin fur."

Nor, as above, do any evolutionary biologists claim that natural selection, which can only operate on already existent alleles, is the mechanism for producing the genes.

"As a Biological Sciences major in college . . . "

Now this is truly very sad! This poser-of-stupid-questions is better educated than your average creationist, yet clearly does not comprehend even the basics of molecular or population genetics. This sort of ignorance is the reason that critics decry anti-science, deceptive-pseudoscience displays that merely entrench such ignorance.

"I was also disappointed and angry to discover that several of the big "evidences" for evoution given to us in school were NOT true, and that these are still taught to students today as truth."

Where did this person attend college? Presumably a small southern college and not one of the better universities. The above is a truly ridiculous statement. Evidence is evidence is evidence. Scientific theories are formulated on the basis of evidence, which translates to saying that scientific theories begin with the facts. The evidences for biological evolution are FACTS. Whether or not a particular theory best explains the facts is a different question, and this is the entire point of the scientific method.

"It is time students were taught all the facts about evolution, not just the ones that fit the THEORY best! I pray the AiG museum will open a lot of eyes to the deception carried on by the biologists promoting evolution."

The voluminous facts about biological evolution are conveniently ignored by those who believe in creation, in biblical literacy, and in some non-existent necessary-connection between morality and religious dogmatism. The author of the ridiculous comment that I have quoted is clearly incapable of comprehending the facts. As to manipulating information to fit theories, the AiG museum is a transparent example of the sort of distortion of facts that is necessary in order to support an utterly ridiculous two- thousand-plus-year old theory (YEC). Although they do not admit this explicitly, creationist attacks on science implicitly indicate that they are aware that scientific facts disprove the claims in Genesis–proof may not be possible, but disproof is possible. Genesis IS disproven. Dinosaurs did not coexist with hominids, rather the dinosaurs predated hominids by 60 million years. No number of deceptive lie-orama displays will ever alter that fact.

I'd further suggest to the author of the stupid-question that his or her inability to understand something does not render that thing invalid. It merely means that he or she really ought to obtain some education. Given that an ABC News poll indicates that "60 percent of Americans believe God created the world in six days" (a fallacious argumentum ad numeram argument for creationism, incidentally), then it is clear that far too may Americans exhibit a lamentably low standard of science education.

More mutterings about the stupidity that is creationism:
ɷ Myths Revered and Myths Exposed
ɷ un-designed intelligences
ɷ Judge Jones Rules
ɷ The Wedge Document

Elsewhere: Gallup Poll on Evolution, which reveals that the overwhelming majority of religious fundamentalists are ignorant of evolution : comment on Pharyngula : Religion—our maelstrom of ignorance: "Maybe we need to start picketing fundamentalist churches. Maybe it's about time that we recognize religious miseducation as child abuse."

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Fistians and Fuzzy Illogic

Fundamentalist Christians have taken to calling themselves evangelical Christians because "fundamentalism" excites deservedly negative sentiments. The name may have changed, but the problems remain the same.

I have decided to refer to rigid, right-wing, bigoted, Biblical literalist creationists as Fistians. These are the Christians who give Christianity a bad name because of their unJesusian lack of compassion and their obstinate ignorance in opposition to knowledge. (I considered coining the term Fustians, but opted to rhyme with Christians. I reserve 'fundamentalists' for anti-modernist movements in various religions. Besottism refers to a subset of zealots.)

Fistians and pseudointellectual advocates of intelligent design creationism share the religiosity-motivated credulity that typifies LAME thinking in the Misinformation Explosion Age.

David Colquhoun addresses this problem of intellectual dishonesty and fuzzy illogic in a Guardian Unlimited article entitled the age of endarkenment.

The past 30 years or so have been an age of endarkenment. It has been a period in which truth ceased to matter very much, and dogma and irrationality became once more respectable.

Colquhoun is author of the Improbable Science blog in which he expands upon his exposition of the reasons that we should be concerned about the "New Credulity.":

This matters when people delude themselves into believing that we could be endangered at 45 minutes' notice by non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

It matters when reputable accountants delude themselves into thinking that Enron-style accounting is acceptable. It matters when people are deluded into thinking that they will be rewarded in paradise for killing themselves and others. It matters when bishops attribute floods to a deity whose evident vengefulness and malevolence leave one reeling. And it matters when science teachers start to believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.

In my opinion, the root causes of this problem of fashionable ignorance lies in a number of failures:
● the failure of educational systems to teach critical thinking skills and to instil a love of learning and truth-seeking.
● the failure of the media to make it clear which competing position is valid, rather than boosting ratings by pumping up the volume on issues that supposedly have no clear right side and wrong side.
● the failure of experts to insist that expert knowledge should not be discarded simply because it is opposed by a vociferous, jeering, ignorant rabble of the religiously motivated.
● the failure of those in power – such as Giorgio Dubaya Bush – to eschew endorsement of religiously motivated ignorance.
● the failure of polite liberals to point out the deluded and deceptive content of creationist pseudoscience and unfounded attacks on scientific knowledge.
● the failure of the lay public to doubt popular bandwagons and to realize that they must be cautious about what or whom to believe in this Misinformation Explosion Age.

And, very difficult or impossible to remedy:
● the failure of religious organizations to ensure that their ministers are well educated and not highly prejudiced.
● the failure of political organizations to ensure that those ministries that are tax exempt are not the religions that preach hatred, lies, and intolerance.
● the failure of search engines, websites providers, and publishers to assess the value of content (for example, search engines can determine whether a site is contaminated by spam and phishing, yet do not provide warning that content is false or unreliable.

Because peer pressure is not confined to teenagers, the public, as Madison Avenue well knows, will respond to that side of an argument that is presented flashily, passionately, repeatedly, and with the appearance of certainty.

The public, particularly that in America, has been deluged with messages from religion, which is treated with dare-not-criticize protection. As a result, America ranks alongside Iraq in its level of religiosity despite its position as the standard population (IQ=100) against which IQ scores are standardized.

However, the price paid for holding religious belief sacrosanct (if you will excuse the pun) includes the confusion of students, the deterioration of educational standards, and the near demise of critical thinking, knowledge, and rationality.

Most people reduce their efforts to the minimum necessary to meet expectations. So, if we permit continued dumbing down of standards and lowering of educational expectations so as to protect self-esteem, intellectual standards will fall still further. So long as we present the implicit and explicit message that truth does not matter and that every opinion counts, we will maintain the ever decreasing standards.

In nations that value education and intellectuals, politicians who live down to the "average guy" image are not elected to the most powerful executive positions. As the world has recognized with disdain, Giorgio, purchased Ivy League degree or not, would not have appealed to voters. More particularly, he would not have appealed a second time to voters were they able to detect executive deceptions.

...section index...

: Social bookmark this page :
..

One Evolution, Many Creationisms

Like so much else connected to invented religious belief, creationism comes in a variety of guises in which invented beliefs range from the sublimely ridiculous (flat earthers, geocentrists, and YEC), through the pretentious (intelligent [sick] design theory). The variety of religious and creationist beliefs is directly attributable to the contrived, invented nature of all religious beliefs, none of which comprises an internally consistent logical system based on evidence.

Typically, creationists are theists who cling to religious views with varying levels of dogmatism whilst ignorantly choosing to deny or distort most or part of scientific knowledge. Such ignorance is religiously motivated, substituting varying levels of Biblical literalism and insistence on Special Creation for scientific fact.

At the most realistic, scientific end of this spectrum comes philosophical materialism. The following list is from TalkOrigins:

CREATION
Flat Earthers
Geocentrists
Young Earth Creationists
... (Omphalos)
Old Earth Creationists
...(Gap Creationism)
...(Day-Age Creationism)
...(Progressive Creationism)
...(Intelligent Design Creationism)
Evolutionary Creationists
Theistic Evolutionists
Methodological Materialistic Evolutionists
Philosophical Materialistic Evolutionists
EVOLUTION

Evolutionary science is complex because it includes information from so many areas of science. However, the fact of biological evolution is acknowledged by the majority of scientists and denied only by religiously-biased individuals, most of who are not qualified in the relevant areas.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Red Herring

Red Herring, Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase

The red herring is a diversionary tactic that distracts the opponent away from the real point under discussion. Red herring topics are irrelevant to the point under discussion, and serve to take the heat off an already weak argument.

Creation versus evolution discussion groups provide many examples of creationists tossing red herrings into debate. The smoke screens are very often other fallacies of logic that serve to distract the evolutionist. For this reason, creationists consistently provide abundant examples of illogic for those who wish to practice spotting fallacious debate.

Whatever the red herring, debaters are best advised not to take the bait.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Shifting the Burden of Proof

Shifting the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the arguer, creationist or evolutionist, who is making an assertion. The difficulty for creationists lies in making logical arguments against evidence, and for evolutionists in sifting through voluminous evidence for a pertinent example to illustrate their point. [searching for "biological evolution" on PubMed produced 117942 hits on 5/1/07]

The construction of a cogent deductive/inductive argument begins with acceptable premises (supported by evidence) and proceeds according to the laws of deductive/inductive reasoning to a conclusion supported by the premises.

Shifting the burden of proof is a subtype of the argument from ignorance fallacy that shifts the burden of proof onto the person whose argument is attacked. This is the "prove it, or I am correct!" challenge that underlies many creationist taunts.

The source of the fallacy in arguments from ignorance is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. The implied conclusion of creationist demands is that unless the evolutionist can provide an adequate explanation for specifically selected creationist questions, then evolutionary theory is false, biological evolution is no longer a fact, and the existence of God is proven (at another level of implication).

The argument runs like this:
creationist challenge: demonstrate exactly how the bacterial flagellum evolved!
premise: the bacterial flagellum is a functional multi-component system
premise: if scientists cannot demonstrate exactly how the bacterial flagellum evolved, then (implied or stated fallacious conclusions)
conclusion E: Biological complexity cannot have evolved
conclusion T: evolutionary theory fails
conclusion G: God must have designed the flagellum
conclusion X: God exists
conclusion M: We are the products of special creation, are not related to apes, and must possess innate moral absolutes

The argument above demonstrates the fallacious argumentum ad ignorantiam because the conclusions, in employing a false dichotomy, are not supported by the premise. That is, even if scientists could never demonstrate exactly how the bacterial flagellum evolved, it would not necessarily follow that evolutionary processes were not responsible for the structure. Further,
even if this structure arose by some mechanism other than evolution, this mechanism need not by necessity have been designed by some mythical supernatural intelligence.

In fact, on the basis of the fallacious, not to mention devious, reasoning behind creationist demands for specific scientific explanations, "irreducible complexity" demands fail because the claims of scientific merit regarding questions of divine design behooves the creationists to demonstrated exactly how God designed the apparatus. If creationists wish to make the claim that God designed the bacterial flagellum, then the claimers must provide experimental or empirical verification for the hypothesis of divine design. This is particularly so when creationist are demanding inclusion of these speculations within the science curriculum.

Creationists' earlier demands for an explanation of the evolution of the eye have been abandoned because much more research has been devoted to the evolution of vision, and evolutionary scientists can provided an account for the reducible complexity of the eye. That ploy did not work, so creationist demands have moved to the microscopic bacterial flagellum because much less funding has been devoted to microbiology.

If one follows 'creation vs evolution' debates, one will quickly observe that creationists do claim to prove the existence of God, while evolutionists do not attempt to disprove the existence of God. Evolutionists merely defend the experimental support for evolutionary theory. Creationists mistakenly assume that because modern science provides much more probable explanations for natural phenomena than does the God of the Gaps then the aim of science is to disprove the existence of God. Mainstream science does not concern itself with questions concerning the existence or nonexistence of purported supernatural phenomena.

On the other hand, scientists investigate the physical world and defend, to other scientists, their conclusions based upon experimental results. Scientific reports follow a format of introduction to ideas based upon past research, the question to be addressed, experimental methods, experimental results, and conclusions based upon both current scientific understanding and experimental results. Science proceeds by incremental gains in understanding. It is the very nature of science that conclusions are acknowledged not to be the final word upon explanation, and that, once a scientific theory is widely accepted, research will move on to yet unanswered questions. Scientists also recognize something of which creationists appear to be unaware – that inductive reasoning cannot, by the rules of logic, yield proof. This impossibility applies to scientific inductive reasoning and to theological induction from any misinterpreted facts.

Creationists utilize, in their religiously-motivated attacks on science, one of the chief virtues of science – the reluctance of the community of scientists to accept any hypothesis or theory until burden of 'proof' (probability) moves to the level of general acceptance.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Atheism versus Theism

Commentary on the backlash:

Theists frightened and confused by Atheism.

Atheistic Aspies?

Atheists frustrated with religionists and creationists.