Dazzling the innumerate

I was sent the following argument by email.

A new breed of ID is in the process of supplanting the former fact-free versions on U.S. university
campuses. The new breed looks like this (from recent lectures on several University of California
campuses):

The following design argument does not require evolution to produce a specific result. It calculates the probability that evolution reaches a certain level of biological complexity (measured in terms of the number of protein-coding genes) and compares this probability with the number of trials available for evolution to that level.

Any of the thousands of extant vertebrate species possesses at least 10,000 more protein-coding genes than the primordial single-celled organism from which all these vertebrate species evolved. Thus, at least 10,000 protein-coding genes must have been added during the course of vertebrate evolution. Assuming that the probability is 10-3 that a new gene useful for vertebrate evolution came into existence, the probability that evolution just happened to produce any one of the vertebrate species is 10-3 multiplied by itself 10,000 times, which equals 10-30,000.

To avoid concluding that God exists, 1030,000 evolution-supporting planets must now exist or have existed in the past, which requires: (A) a single large universe with that many planets, each of which exhibits some stage of evolution from the primordial soup up to vertebrates, or (B) nearly that many small universes, each of which has a few such planets, or (C) a small universe with a few such planets that had undergone nearly that many Big Crunches and subsequent Big Bangs. Regarding (A), only a few hundred extra-solar planets have been detected so far. Since it becomes more difficult to detect a planet the further from the earth it is, we can safely conclude that there is no way that even an insignificant fraction of 1030,000 evolution-supporting planets will be detected within the next few decades. The speed at which light reaches us and the speed at which electrons move through semiconductors in our computers impose fundamental limits on the speed at which even the best equipment can operate. Suppose this equipment can identify a new planet every pico-second (10-12 seconds), which is an outrageous rate far beyond present or conceivable technology. This still means that we must wait 1029,980 years to identify the number of planets needed for the chance hypothesis. Regarding (B), the unambiguous detection of a few other universes is presently considered difficult work, if it can be done at all, not to mention observing life on planets within those universes (Aguirre A. et al, “Towards Observable Signatures of Other Bubble Universes,” E-published 20 September 2007, Physical Review D.). Even if we had equipment capable of identifying a suitable planet in another universe every pico-second, we would still have to wait 1029,980 years to verify the existence of the number of evolution-supporting planets required for the chance hypothesis. Regarding (C), even if each pico-second we could verify that our universe had, in the past, undergone a cycle of Big Crunch and subsequent Big Bang, we would still have to wait 1029,980 years to verify the existence of the number of cycles required for the chance hypothesis. This means that the chance hypothesis is effectively unverifiable.

It’s pathetically bogus. Shall we take it apart?

[Read more…]

What I hear when creationists speak

I like it. This is a perfect analogy to creationist argument.

The theory of childhood, also known as child origin, is a damnable, loathsome and indefensible lie. How can any thinking person suppose all humans used to be babies once?
There is no development path from babies to adults, no transitional forms between these two species. Show me even one baby with the head of a grown man on his body. Can you? No? Not even a bearded toddler? No adults with unfused skullbones, outside unfortunate disorders? Not even a tiny little newborn girl suddenly sprouting a respectable bosom? You can’t find them, because they don’t exist. There isn’t a single transitional form between children and adults, and you will never find one because the theory simply is an unscientific lie.

The development of children has been well-researched in our six-month study following a sample of one thousand children and adults of various ages. We have conclusively proven that while there are minor changes in features like height and body fat, and replacement of deciduous teeth with permanent teeth, incontravertibly still every creature in the study that started out as a child had only slightly more adult features at the end of the observation period than at its beginning. Children and adults are separate kinds and there will never be sufficient changes to change one into the other. We reject any evidence from longer-term studies as we believe the laws of physics have changed within the last year.

To claim people come from children is demeaning and morally degrading. We have observed how children behave. If we acted like small children we’d all be demanding and impatient, and we’d be cheating, lying, and stealing from each other all the time. If the theory of childhood were true there would be no morality, and with no morality to build one on, no society. Childhood is a wicked lie used by charlatans to justify evils such as public schools.

There is no consensus on the theory of childhood in the scientific community. We should teach the controversy. Our children will be served well to learn that the prospect of them becoming adults is merely a theoretical idea. Many children come from families that do not subscribe to the theory of childhood, and they could be disturbed if the theory were taught as fact.

(via)

A story, continued

When we last saw our intrepid (and inebriated) pair of godless ladies in Seattle, they had just buzzed the Discovery Institute’s door and been admitted by the ever-eager Casey Luskin. Now read about how Luskin protects them from the Terrible Annika, and then, after getting loaded down with free propaganda, learn a deep dark secret from Luskin: Judge Jones, the infamous trial judge in the Dover case, wasn’t a real Christian. Lordy. No wonder he was in the pocket of the ACLU, the devil’s own lawyers.

Poll…but you’ll have to see Ken Ham’s homely face to do it

This is a danged ugly poll, accompanying an interview with the slimy Ken Ham. It asks,

Regarding creation and evolution, I believe:

The universe was created in six days as described in Genesis.

Evolution is true, but God began and/or directs it.

Evolution is true, and religion has nothing to do with it.

Answer 2 is winning, with answer 3 dead last. Can you all fix that, please?

And the right-wing calliope plays on…

Cindy McCain is not running for high office, fortunately…but this still seems to be the predominant attitude among the Republican leadership.

Couric: How do you feel about creationism? Do you think it should be taught in schools?

McCain: I think both sides should be taught in schools. I think the more children have a frame of reference and an opportunity to read and know and make better decisions and judgments when they are adults. So, I think you know I don’t have any problem with education of any kind.

What about miseducation, Ms McCain? Do you have a problem with that? Apparently not.

(via Atheist Media Blog)

Where did people come from?

It’s a common question, and it isn’t easy to explain, since much of it is complicated while the simple parts are often counter-intuitive. But here’s a
comic that tries and illustrates the problem.

Here’s the correct explanation, that actually jibes with the evidence.

i-21e2b62194f014d7419036970dec9d93-evo_expl.gif

Here’s the ID/creationist explanation:

i-8a02472dae64cdcc5793b0964fc80f26-god_expl.gif

Then, of course, in the competition of ideas, the two hash it out and…well, you’ll have to read the whole thing yourself. Sad to say, the ending rings true, too.

Englishman offended!

Some Christian schnook visited a museum, read a sign, and complained to the museum. So what did the museum do?

An information sign, which is part of Abington Park Museum’s display about Charles Darwin and fossils, was covered up after a visitor’s complaint.

Two parts of the sign, concerning ‘Changing Attitudes to Evolution’, are obscured with black paper, but only four lines of text are actually covered over.

It details how Charles Darwin used the study of fossils to help formulate his theory of evolution, set out in On the Origin of Species, which angered fundamental Christians and Creationists.

But following a complaint to the museum, part of the sign was covered over to avoid giving offence and to conceal the poor prose.

Here’s the offending paragraph:

He used the same layers of fossils that had supported the Genesis view of evolution to show the slow changes that are taking place over the millennia of earth history, each small change enabling a species to the rigours of it’s (sic) environment – the struggle for survival through natural selection leading to the survival of the fittest.

Dang. Those apostrophe nazis sure are fierce.

Engineers aren’t all bad

If you’ve got the 29 August issue of Chemical & Engineering News, there’s an interesting editorial inside. It seems there has been a flurry of activity on C&EN on the issue of evolution; the editor dismissed the whole idea of intelligent design creationism back in February, saying that it was not an acceptable alternative to the theory of evolution and should not be taught in the schools. He got hammered with forceful complaints from pro-ID engineers, and many letters were published in the April issue. Uh-oh, I hear all the engineers out there groaning, here comes the Salem hypothesis again…

However, here’s the cool thing: those pro-creationism letters spurred an even greater response from the C&EN readership, a wonderful colossal roar of disapproval against the vocal subset who were endorsing ID, and a small fraction of the letters are published in the latest issue (I’ve got the print copy; the online edition is a bit behind, but keep an eye open for it.)

It’s reassuring. A noisy few cranks in engineering occasionally get all the news, but give them a chance and a voice and the majority do favor good science.