A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic according to Arthur C. Clarke. This statement sums up the current situation with science. As a populace we consider science as magic, carried out by a select few who can understand the arcane secrets of this discipline.
Terry Pratchett along with Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart have also noticed this trend and satirises it in a series of science novels called “The Science of the Discworld”. Set on Pratchett’s Discworld, the novels feature the adventures of the wizards as they try and understand the Roundworld (our world) which they created in a magical accident along with some science lessons provided by Cohen and Stewart. The novels deliberately draw parallels with scientists and wizards as well as the university structure that many research scientists work within.
When considering this idea, it does not seem so far-fetched. A lot of scientific disciplines derive from studies that could be considered a form of magic in origins. For example, Astrology, with its magical abilities to predict the future produced the modern science of Astronomy. Alchemy paved the way for Chemistry and it was a theologically trained Natural Scientist (Charles Darwin) who overthrew the Church’s teachings of Creationism and wrote Origin of Species, producing the science of Evolution. It does seem apparent then that science and magic have common origins. Both try and influence our perceived reality.
However, as most students of science will probably be thinking now, science relies on something that separates it from magic. Science relies on observable reality and the concept of repeatability. A psychic radio presenter may have been able to entice a cat to her home (probably due to luck more than any powers she might have), however, it is unlikely that she would be able to perform this feat again, unless her neighbours regularly lose their cats. Magic, or anything that invokes a supernatural (i.e. unobservable) force is not subjected to the same rigour in any shape or form.
Unfortunately, not everyone is aware of the rigour, or if they are, they assume that their particular brand of mysticism is subject to the same scrutiny as a scientific paper, running the gauntlet of peer review. This has led to a popular following amongst the Pseudo-sciences, creationism, homeopathy, psychics, etc, who refer to half-baked “scientific tests” that they have been subjected to and found to have “worked”. As there is a lack of criticism sometimes for these people, their followers can use their mystique to ape science, effectively blurring the line for the general populace between what is science and what is magic.
The lack of knowledge in how science works has led to pseudosciences being considered on par with actual science. People are unable to distinguish our advanced technology from the magic of detox baths and ear candles which are touted as scientific. In essence, science has become too “hard” for the layman. All the explanations we learn at school are inadequate and seem unrelated to real life. This is why scientific theory and the scientific method are the most important aspects of science as it is a useful framework which produces far more benefits that memorising ligand colour changes as they react (an activity I was required to do for my A2 chemistry and has thankfully been dropped). Science is indeed a kinda of magic to people, especially with the effects you can get from some special experiments like Old Nassau (a fairly impressive colour change experiment). However, it is not magic, it is how the world works.
Hello and I am back again from another vacation from the blog. Currently I am working as an intern for a museum and I hope to share some of the experiences with you at a later date. Firstly though, I wish to start off discussing stereotypes.
Here are a few letters I have noticed from the Metro newspaper that I’ve been reading on my way to work.
Andrew McRae claimed atheism is not based on faith. However, it is equally impossible to scientifically disprove the existence of God as to prove it; belief is required to get to either conclusion, so therefore atheism is as much a faith as any other. Except, of course, that it does far less good for society as a whole. Has anyone ever heard of Atheist Aid or Atheists Against Poverty? No, I didn’t think so.
by Jeremy Clack
All the swans on my lake are white. There has never been a swan on the lake that was not white; therefore all swans are white. To an Australian, the arrogance and illogicality of this assertion would be breathtaking and yet it is the standard of argument advanced by atheist correspondents. If your neighbour were to win the lottery several weeks in a row, you would suspect something was amiss, yet the atheist assertion that life arose by random chance is many more times less likely than this. To deny that this requires faith is questionable at best.
by Jonathan Youdan
Now to me I’ve noted several untrue stereotypes and strawmen in these arguments:
Atheists are arrogant.
Atheists don’t give to charity.
Atheism is illogical.
Atheism states that life is random chance.
Atheism says there is no God, for certain.
Australians find atheists arrogant (which of course calls into question the existence of Tim Minchin).
Now as someone who has some understanding of what atheism and science is, I find the letters puzzling. They make several assumptions that are ignorant. Let’s go through why this is the case.
1. Atheists are arrogant
Again I disagree. In fact, someone like myself, who only postulates that as there is no evidence for any deity then there is no point in worshipping one, I find this bewildering. I’m not saying I am definitely correct, I am simply applying a logical argument. It is arrogant to state for certain any way and the atheists that do this could be considered arrogant in their beliefs. If we consider the case of Darwin, who turned away from the traditional Christian God due his life experiences, would anyone consider him arrogant?
2. Atheists don’t give to charity (or be involved with them).
Again, I used to regularly give money to the NSPCC and I have walked dogs for two charities. Furthermore during the Haiti earthquake, the British Humanist Association (a registered atheist charity) set up an organisation to allow people to donate to secular charities that were assisting the aid for Haiti. This initiative actually came under criticism from atheists as they felt that this was un-necessary and that they were just giving to any reputable charity. I honestly cannot see how being religious in this case makes someone a better person.
3. Atheism is illogical
Atheism is the simple lack of belief in any deity as there is no evidence. As someone pointed out in the Metro, not believing in unicorns is considered logical.
4. Atheism states that life is random chance.
This one is partially true, if we ignore the fact that atheism is not science. It is chance that life exists on Earth in its present form, but as we understand Evolution is not completely random since there is some form of selection, natural selection. As we are unaware of the exact circumstances surrounding the start of life, it is a bold claim. Until we can produce a living cell from elements without artificial intervention and tinkering like Craig Venter did, we cannot say for certain how random a chance life is. It could be that with the huge amount of space and time in the universe, life is certain.
5. Atheism says there is no God for certain
Again a fictitious claim. Especially as the BHA bus slogan was “There probably is no God”.
6. Australians find atheists arrogant
A very bold claim considering there are Australian atheists such as Tim Minchin who would have a field day with this bloke.
In all, this article shows that the people here are writing from ignorance. They have picked upon a general stereotype generated by people about atheists. Now this stereotype is very unpopular which is a pity as it prejudices people against those without any religious convictions and helps create inequality. Now I could ruin this point completely and act in a manner which confirms some of these beliefs in atheists right here. I could slate religion completely and as such completely invalidate myself. But I will not simply to prove otherwise. I consider Quakers as a very open-minded sect and I enjoyed the time I spent at Bootham School as the values mirrored my own and I suspect the values of many atheists. Now as Quakers are very individualised, this means that I cannot stereotype them, however, the values that they preach at places like Bootham School and the Quaker societies in York, mean that I can label some of the Quaker groups that show the thoughtfulness of some religious people.
Stereotyping in essence is something we’ve produced from our instincts. Spotting patterns is an intrinsic part of being human and this predictive “software” can be faulty. Instead, careful thought is required in order to avoid this.
Recently I've come across a rather peculiar argument from the creationists which is the subject of my last post.
From Answers in Genesis:
Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.
Operational science is the type of science that allows us to understand how DNA codes for proteins in cells. It is the type of science that has allowed us to cure and treat diseases, put a man on the moon, build satellites and telescopes, and make products that are useful to humans. Biblical creationists believe that God has created a universe that uses a set of natural laws that operate consistently in the universe. Understanding how those laws operate is the basis for scientific thinking.
Some events defy natural laws. Christians refer to these things as miracles, but naturalistic science must find a way to explain these occurrences naturally. This approach rejects miracles in the Bible because they cannot be explained using natural laws. Such scientists occasionally try to explain the miracles in the Bible as natural phenomena, but this ultimately undermines the authority of God and His Word. Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.
The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science. Neither creation nor evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Each is based on certain philosophical assumptions about how the earth began. Naturalistic evolution assumes that there was no God, and biblical creation assumes that there was a God who created everything in the universe. Starting from two opposite presuppositions and looking at the same evidence, the explanations of the history of the universe are very different. The argument is not over the evidence—the evidence is the same—it is over the way the evidence should be interpreted.
Evolutionists often claim that people misuse the word “theory” when discussing science and don’t make a distinction between a scientific theory and the common use of the word “theory.” You may say, “I have a theory about why Mr. Jones’ hair looks funny” but that theory has never been compared to a broad set of observations. This is not the sense of a theory in science.
I included the first part for comprehension and whilst its wrong, as creationist literature is, it is the second part that puzzles me. The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable or falsifiable according to AIG. From this they extrapolate that the science used to study the Big Bang and Evolution is flawed, subject to interpretation. Which of course, is bullshit and twisting historical studies.
I cannot deny that our perception of the past is often interpretation. Stand two archaeologists in front of an excavation and more often and not they will produce different interpretations of what is going on. And so far, creationists look to have understood this part. However, what they have failed to grasp is that this is due to variables that require direct observation. In a court case, this argument would be pretty weak if the defendant's fingerprints were on a gun used to shoot and kill someone which was found in his possession after he was seen running away from the scene. It is very unlikely that someone else killed them (despite the stories in Luther and Life on Mars). Even then, you could more or less guarantee that the murder weapon was a gun. People are often unpredictable elements requiring observation to guarantee their actions. Other things aren't always as whimsical. If I looked at a skeleton and saw an arm like this:
I can guarantee that the individual suffered from an infection around his ankles. This is undeniable and the message behind my previous post. Evolution relies on the same type of evidence, using the same techniques which have been tested throughly on modern samples and then adjusted for possible rates of decay/error. It also uses more than just physical objects but molecules as it looks at DNA and the current evolution of species. Answers in Genesis have ignored this in their pretty little hypothesis and it has led them to formulate a deception.
Hopefully next week I shall also look at why people practice these deceptions....
A new discovery made by scientists has shown that scientific evidence has a sell-by date as a controlled collection of skeletons has disappeared from the Manchester Museum.
The scientists set up the experiment to falsify a claim made by the Creationist group, Answers in Genesis, that historical scientific theories are interpretations rather than objective concepts of scientific evidence. In order to do this, they demonstrated that this meant the scientific evidence such as human remains would have a sell-by date. They attempted to demonstrate this by seeing if any evidence would change under observation.
"As we came in one morning the bones were found to be missing. We would normally suspect somebody stealing these remains, due to their value, however, since they were part of this test, we suspect that the people in Answers in Genesis were right and that the open window is a concidence."
Answers in Genesis spokesperson commented:
"This highlights the problems with historical theories such as Evolution and shows how we should treat Creationism on par with Evolution."
Doctors have released a new wonder drug today which they state has a 60% effectiveness against all known illnesses. The drug known as the Placebo is a little white pill which doctors claim has the same impact as homeopathy and other alternative medicines. A leader doctor had this to say.
The great thing about this new drug is that there are no side-effects, unless needed, it is extremely cheap to make, will reduce the dependency on antibiotics that people have and it is based upon observable medical trials. Currently we are advising doctors in the best ways in which they can present the medicine in order to assist the success rate.
The drug's ingrediants are being kept under strict secrecy at the moment, but from the display of different products, it seems that it has a wide variety of uses as well as being able to be dispensed in a variety of ways. However, some alternative medical practioners have other ideas.
This is mocking our ideas and concepts. They are using our own methods and practices but merely using sugar to try and treat people. It is outrageous they would do this.
And I'm back. I apologise for the lack of posts, but it has been a very busy two months.
Last month I withdrew from the teacher training course I was on as I felt it wasn't for me. Towards the end I was working constantly day and night trying to keep up with the workload. With that in mind, I'm glad I left the course as it has considerably improved my life. However, I have been left with the utmost respect towards teachers with their considerable workload. So if you ever see one of your old teachers in the pub, buy them a pint. After all, they spent hours trying to drill into you, knowledge that you need for later life, thinking of the best ways to do it, whilst coping with political demands for how they should run their jobs and losing a lot of social time during it. Especially as you may have been taught by them during puberty, a period of development that most parents dread, nevermind the less respected teacher...
I would go through the news, however, I feel places such as Bad Science which are mentioned on my blog, give far more detail than I could manage here.
However, I thought I would have fun with a dissection of idiotic drivel and a humorous post making fun of the concept of Pascal's Wager. Please note dear reader (in case you are one of the people unable to read the motto) this is only a satire and I do not think these highly respected and elderly individuals would get up to such energetic disputes. They might have a heart attack!
Here is an email my girlfriend got at work. If you receive this email, you may wish to write back with the following criticisms.
Sorry, i was wrong!
In the age of fifty years Mohammed married a six years old girl (Aisha bint Abu Bakr), the apostle of the Islam started to sexually abuse the child when it was nine years old. Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr and one day when Mohammed visited Abu Bakr's house, he got to know her. Aisha was a cheerful, liveliest small girl and Mohammed was very impressed of her kind, so he started joking with her . . . Sahih Bukhari 7,62,64: Aisha told that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death) (1). Mohammed was a friend of slavery and was caught by one of his many wifes, when he had sexual intercourse with his slave Maria al-Qibtiyya. Maria herself was a present of someone . . . The holy Quran (24:33): "If your slave girls desire to keep chaste, you shall not force them to prostitution. And whoever forces them, then Allah, seeing that they are forced, surely is Forgiving, Merciful."
Muslim 8,3371: Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri: 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wifes, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them . . . But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born (1). Muslim 8,3432: Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger seemed to refrain from having sexual intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, sent down regarding that: "And all married women (are forbidden unto you), except those whom your right hands possess" (Quran Sure 4:24). This means that Mohammed, the apostle of the Islam, and his friends have raped defenseless, married women and that Mohammed really tried to justify this through religion (1)! Rape of married women, child abuse through an over fifty years old man and a live full of blood, fear, violence, oppression, massmurder, dispossession and slavery, Mohammed surly had also many good ideas, but of course he wasn't one of the holy messengers of God, it never has given a need for five Islamic prayers a day, for Ramadan, to wear a headscarf . . .
There are two different opinions regarding to the emergence of this world, some people think, that this world with all live and all events would be a tiny part of the logical causal chain which started with the big bang, the others are convinced of it, that it is finally the fault of Adam and Eve because they have not observed the one holy law of God: "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her . . ." According to the religious view the big bang is a willfully deception of God, a scientific explanation for the emergence of this world which was given, because without the doubt in God, it wouldn't be possible to test the faith and unbelief of mankind and the sense of this world would get lost. On the other hand, a causal chain out of cause and effect can not have a beginning respectively emerge out of nothing, this contradicts to the laws of science, therewith there's not only no cause before or for the big bang, but also no energy which would have been necessary for the big bang, even not a tiny disbalance between anything. If two fingers are pressed together, is nothing between them or rather no matter, thrust therein that the universe, the human himself and the bright world which surrounds the human not emerged out of the completely harmless nothing between two fingers or without God, this is simply an imagination which was invented by some humans and which is finally impossible. In the first states of the USA such stories were deleted already successfully from the curriculum, so that they weren't taught any more to the children in the schools. Depriving children of their faith is a serious crime, it's in the hands of our generation to stop the systematic and unfair education of many million children to the unbelieve!
If the big bang could have happened without God, practically everything could have emerged out of this, but this universe was build exactly so, that the suppositions for live are given, for example without voltage no brainwaves could flow, without radiation this world would be dark and ice-cold, without atoms and the possibility to build molecules live would be impossible, the same would be without many other chemical properties and reactions or without elements like oxygen or carbon or hydrogen or . . ., also the lost of continuity or time or space or matter or the three states of matter or movement or physical or chemical energy or different agencies or . . . would make live finally impossible. Without intelligence something absolute senseless would have emerged out of the big bang or out of nothing, but of course no live. Yes, the frightening recognition is, that the universe was constructed deliberately exactly so, that the suppositions for live and higher live are given!
For the alleged chemical evolution of live, a first living and survivable unicellular organism would have been necessary, but a just 10 µm large cell, a very complex, perfectly compound, three-dimensional puzzle or a survivable machine out of at least 10 quadrillion pieces (16 g/mol), atoms of different kind and attribute, impossibly could be washed together in an unrealistic puddle out of cytoplasm, be bound together in the same second by many different chemical processes into a flexible unit and get enliven also in the same moment, to start to breathe, to eat, to grow . . . and to produce randomly complete and living self-copies, which will grow up some day to intelligent structured humans. If we are honest we must admit, that even not only one single dead DNA strand could be washed together in a liquid. Already the DNA strands of the first survivable cell must randomly have conformed exactly to the cell construction, beside this DNA strands are written in a very high programming language, until today nobody can understand how or by which encoding systems this codes get transcribed into commands, movements and material constructions. For the DNA strands and for every of the different cell organelles of the first survivable cell must also have been directly there the belonging to copysystems or already the first cell division would have been impossible, the human even wouldn't be able to build the technology of only one material system which could copy itself, try to build a computer which could copy itself!
The functions of cells partially happen on the molecular and atomic level, if the dateless old atoms, out of which we and the cells are set together, would be as big as table tennis balls, an average human brain with 1250 to 1375 g would take in a little bit more space than the whole planet earth with its diameter of 12700 km (13,5 g/mol, the volume of a table tennis ball is 33,5 cm^3), it's a wonder that a grown thinking machine of such complexity ever could work without going defect. If the 10 quadrillion atoms of a 10 µm large unicellular organism would be as big as table tennis balls, this unicellular organism would take in the whole city Tokyo by a hight of more than 500 meters. If God would build a machine out of 10 quadrillion atoms of different kind and attribute, this machine wouldn't die any more after its commissioning, because it really would start to breathe, to eat, to grow, to move . . . to survive independently in its world and to divide itself many trillion times, to conquer the planet and to travel to the moon. If God would construct a machine with such properties, it would be so small, that we even couldn't see it with our multicellular eyes. We have got no idea about the intelligence of God, the creator out of nothing, but surly it's not grateful to use the by God constructed brain to say, that a dirty puddle was the inventor of live.
A just 10 µm large unicellular organism is a very complex, perfectly compound, three-dimensional puzzle out of at least 10 quadrillion pieces of different kind and attribute, but a chemical evolution even wouldn't be able to wash correctly together a DNA string or a two-dimensional computer program character string out of 1000 signs, which is written with only 10 different letters, because with every sign, which will be attached after the first sign, the probability that the program was written correctly sinks by the factor 10, so the probability that a computer program out of 1000 signs will be written correctly by random or will be washed together in a dirty puddle is 10^1000 (a 1 with one thousand 0). In contrast to this, today we know, that the whole universe contains less than 10^100 atoms totally and that it is less than 10^18 seconds old. If the universe would be 100 times smaller or younger, the chance that the chemical evolution really happened would be 100 times less, if the 1000 sign computer program would be 100 times shorter, the chance that the chemical evolution really happened would be 100 times bigger, so we can stroke out the zeros: 10^1000 - 10^100 - 10^18 = 10^882. We have reduced the whole universe to one atom and an age of one second through only 118 letters! So the iron proof for the absolute impossibility of a chemical evolution was written down!
A long time ago was created a world which seems to be produced and controlled by random and in which we can decide without the fear of God, so it would be good to decide just like Jesus would have done (1,2). Even if this world seems to be produced and controlled by random, Jesus told us that God decides about everything, even on which side a coin will fall or when a bird will die. Jesus said that whatever a man sows, this he will also reap, so the good and the bad that we effect, in any way will also be our own destiny. It was also said that the good what we can reach for God in this world, will be our own richness in the eternal Paradise. The live in this world seems to be real and its existence is also only a wonder, so are we the causal chain out of nothing, a network in the dark which thinks about itself and starts to believe in God or are we made by an insidious and everything-observing intelligence? Some humans will be happy for 100 years and some will be sad for 100 years, but when this life ends the eternity will begin, so why to life for a worthless dust particle when it comes about the entire universe.
This chain letter was sent to millions of people worldwide and can also be published or forwarded.
This email was sent over an anonym remailer string and can't be answered.
1. Whilst Islam may have its faults, so does Christianity. I will not go into details trying to refute any points as I know next to nothing about this religion, however, I feel that when we look at the behaviour and apparent justifications of some Christians, it is extremely hypocritical to even consider pointing out the flaws of Islam from a fundie perspective which considers us all sinners because someone in our mythical ancestry ate an apple.
2. The author of the email does not know anything about the science behind the Big Bang. Physicists have been pondering what caused this sudden expansion and have derived a number of scenarios including string theory. The problem is testing these ideas, however, Turok has some interesting ideas on how to do this...
The great thing here is that it underlines the whole beauty of science. Fundies, such as the author of the email, have an answer. They stick to this answer because it explains things very neatly to them, however, it does not answer a lot of questions nor does it become useful in any particular way. Science on the other hand, demands some way of testing these answer, to attempt objectivity and restrict personal bias. It allows people to think and question interpretations and in general, make people aware of how brilliant things are as well as keeping us humble with what little we know.
3. So before I was even conceived of as an idea, never mind my parents or grandparents or great grandparents, two people condemned us to be sinners because they were told by the ultimate power not to eat some fruit? Shouldn't this power have already anticipated and expected this? To me it seems rather sadistical. And lacking in evidence.
4.
If two fingers are pressed together, is nothing between them or rather no matter, thrust therein that the universe, the human himself and the bright world which surrounds the human not emerged out of the completely harmless nothing between two fingers or without God, this is simply an imagination which was invented by some humans and which is finally impossible.
If anyone can interpret this sentence I would be grateful. I honestly don't understand it. All I can say is that there is loads of space if we consider it, between the fingers. The electrons in the atoms are repelling each other apart, this means nothing ever touches each other.
5. In the United States, the founders intended to separate Church from State, to ensure that no religion is able to be more influential than the other. This First Amendment protects this fundies rights along with everyone else in this country. I feel it is a justified law which goes far in respecting a child's right to learn about other ways of life and not be blindly indoctrinated as the author suggests.
6. The author makes the mistake of assuming that because the conditions are right on this planet for Earth, God exists. This is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy which equates this to firing three shots and drawing bullseyes around them before declaring yourself an expert marksmen. A dose of Douglas Adams is highly recommended.
. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
Furthermore, I have just read Stephen Jay Gould's amazing book: Wonderful Life which argues against this idea that everything is set in stone in elegant prose. I recommend it to everyone.
7. The author then mistakes Evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution simply explains the diversity of life and how it evolved from one cell. Abiogenesis is the field which examines how life arose. This is not relevant and many theists believe that Evolution works.
8. This paragraph is a bit of a Gish Gallop, so this might take some time. The author makes the argument from design using irreducible complexity. This idea is flawed in many ways, not at least as scientists look at structures, they often find that IC is disproven. This idea stems from lack of knowledge, we don't know how this happened at the moment, so we won't find out later. This is what science should always avoid as it is clear that given enough time, something new will be found out. Abiogenesis is a fairly new science and extremely exciting. It has been proven very recently that we can create artificial life, i.e., using scientific equipment and methods to construct a cell, see this exciting article for more. With this and the research carried out on abiogenesis, it shows that it is possible to produce good ideas of how life arose.
9. Now the author says that DNA is too hard for us to understand therefore, life could not arise naturally. I find this extremely arrogant and amusing. I spent a minute on wiki before finding a relevant article which shows how DNA works, suggesting the author is making arguments from personal ignorance. Considering we have only had knowledge about how DNA works for less than 60 years, I think this is an "I dunno" argument. This should be ignored or extra information asked for.
10. Besides the usual, "this is so complex it couldn't have happened naturally" argument, the author begins to discuss chance. Now the problem is, as most people know about Evolution, it isn't chance. Evolution has natural selection selecting positive traits with some neutral mutations also occurring. So if something is advantageous, it will be fixed into the DNA because of the principle that if you can survive to breed, it is passed on. Richard Dawkins discusses this in the Blind Watchmaker, using the computer program generating random letters to form the words "Methinks it is like a weasel". I'll let Dawkins explain the rest:
We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.
By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation. The sequences progress through each generation:
The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.
In essence what Dawkins is saying is that natural selection decreases the time taken significantly in this program. This highlights the flaw in the author's argument, Evolution and abiogenesis are not random, if something works just slightly better than the rest, it will be selected. Change is gradual, not sudden.
11. The author finally ends up with a meaningless paragraph stating that God controls everything. So why did he make two humans that were without choice, eat an apple that he knew they would do and controlled them to do so before punishing them? Furthermore, how does the author know he is right, or for that matter, how does he know the Bible is God's word?
I feel that this is required and furthermore, accurately demolishes the author's illogical argument.
Any comments or any requests to gain access to Craig Venter's paper just email.
Pascal's Wager causes riot amongst religious leaders
Today religious leaders had to be separated as a theological discussion turned into a argument of might.
Since Darwin produced his ideas on natural selection, religious leaders have been attempting to combat this idea with worked out creation stories, suggesting that you should believe in religion due to Pascal's Wager. However, one of the key criticisms presented by scientists was that there are too many religions to determine which creation story should be taught.
With this thought in mind, religious leaders including the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, some senior rabbis and imams, proceeded to organise an event to determine which faith should be represented.
During the three day event, leaders of every faith proceeded to make arguments for their cause. However, this turned violent as the arguments began to focus on the negative qualities of each religion.
"Well, it really began when one senior Muslim official heard a Jewish rabbi refer to Mohammed as a paedophile. Then it turned nasty" said one anonymous source. There was a lot of name calling, then pushing and shoving before finally, someone nearly pushed the Pope over. Then, the Archbishop of Canterbury used his mace to crack a few heads open. Last thing I saw was the Archbishop in a headlock with a cardinal shouting something about Henry the Eighth..."
Atheist observers were extremely amused at the scene and helped restrain some of the more violent religious officials.
"I thought we weren't meant to have the moral high ground here..." one atheist chortled. "At least it shows that no matter what religion, people are generally the same....
Posts
