Understanding the Creationist and Explanation
Iain
scientifically minded to be dishonest, are honestly _inspired_ by
personal incredulity. They are aware they are not being scientific, but
are secretly convinced that they do not need to be scientific. The
Creationist may be half-aware that his own individual claim will not
stand up to scrutiny, but he is labouring under the sincere belief that
he is stating the obviously true.
A Creationist today is someone who looks upon evolutionary theory as if
it is an M.C. Escher picture, like the Impossible Waterfall. They are
struck by the certainty that there must be something wrong with it, but
at what point?
"We don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", is
the unspoken attitude of the Creationist. "I don't know exactly how
you are wrong, but I know from common sense that you are, somewhere."
Evidence _that_ evolution is a reality, is worthless when facing an
overpowering pre-conception that it is a self-contained impossibility.
However impeccable evidence is, if it is against what is thought to be
blatantly obvious, it is disregarded, downplayed, denied, or never
reconciled.
Every denier of evolution also claims that it is forbiddingly unlikely
or impossible - Nobody says it is "probable but short on
evidence". Conversely, everyone who appreciates that complex
evolution is theoretically probable, _also_ is satisfied by the
evidence that it is real. Therefore, the problem lies not in the
evidence, but in explanation. To know that evidence is evidence, one
must know what it is evidence for.
Let us return to Escher's Impossible Waterfall. Out first urge, as
soon as we see it, is to find something wrong with it. We know from the
start there is a flaw in the picture, and the game is to find out what.
How do we know that there's a flaw?
Because we know water doesn't flow uphill. And that is where the
problem with Creationisms lies - In taking evolution to be an uphill
process.
Evolution denial is born from the assumption that the great choice lies
between "design" or "chance". It is the "chance' strawman
that is the one with the "uphill" baggage.
This is not the full choice, however. The real choice involves a third
option, namely "formulaicity". "Formulaic" isn't a word I see at
all on these NGs when it is the most useful explanatory word to
describe the process.
Simple mathematical formula by themselves produce intricate, ordered,
beautiful fractal images(ferns and leaves). When influenced by outside
input, they are known to design machinery.
This has been demonstrated as Darwinian formula have incrementally
synthesised designs for patentable inventions. Natural selection is a
simple formulaic process that reacts with the environment to unfold a
synchronised coping reaction.
~Iain
Denis Loubet
"Iain" <iain_i...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133987357.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Damn! Well said.
I suspect your interpretation of the creationist viewpoint is spot on. They
use what they think of as common sense as a shield to deflect any arguments
and evidence that seem to contradict that common sense. Hence they are
stuck.
I don't know if your formulaic approach will do any good, however. It's too
complicated.
What arguments do creationists find convincing for creationism? Perhaps we
must use faulty logic to get our point across. Is there an argument FOR
evolution based on personal incredulity? Let's use that!
Maybe they'll see our point.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
CreateThis
> ... Is there an argument FOR
> evolution based on personal incredulity?
Sure, exactly the same argument being used for ID, except infinitely
stronger:
I can't imagine the existence of an undetectible, irrational god with
human traits, and there is *no* evidence for it (that's the infinitely
stronger part). Evolution is the only credible alternative, so it must
be Da Trut.
CT
rja.ca...@excite.com
Argh! The machine seems to have eaten my sophisticated reply. This
isn't it.
I think some relevant reading is Glenn Morton's essay on "Morton's
Demon" from 2002 at http://www.talkorigins.org . It isn't common sense
that rejects ToE but a mental filter that ignores all contrary
information.
I gather that Richard Dawkins' book _Climbing Mount Improbable_ deals
with how evolution goes about achieving difficult things, in easy
steps. I haven't read it myself and I don''t know if it's a good book
for bringing creationists to sense.
I don't think that stupid logic should be the main used to convert
stupid creationists into stupid evolutionists. "The Creationist
Problem" is that they interfere with science for no good reason, so the
goal should be to inculcate a proper attitude to science instead, based
on an accurate understanding of science and scientists. For another
thing, bad arguments are easily countered. What may be worth doing,
though, is to wrap evolution facts and other science facts in the kind
of bad logic that creationists use - there are samples in Mark Isaak's
"Index to Creationist Claims" - and to try to slip individual facts
with and without that wrapping past "Morton's Demon". When science
gets into a head then it dissolves creationism, and if Morton's demon
develops an allergy to the bad logic that we could pass off, then it'll
have to reject bad creationist arguments as well - we can convert it
into a bad logic filter-outer instead, which everyone should have.
I also found Escher's waterfall picture online. Apparently it's called
"Waterfall".
JWIL
divide.
We have to ask ourselves why there was a resurgence of creationism last
Century in industrialized countries? I think it's because of the
increasingly rapid advance of technology and knowledge. Technology has
simply outpaced the comprehension abilities of many people. And, to
paraphrase Yoda, high technology leads to a lack of understanding,
which leads to doubt, which leads to anger, which leads to a search for
easier answers.
And the easiest answer of all...the one that requires no faith, no
understanding, and no expertise, is the one which simply says it's all
magic.
Cheers,
John
erikc
Have you read Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science"? He argues in favour
of what you call "formulaicity".
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
rja.ca...@excite.com
Argh! The machine seems to have eaten my sophisticated reply. This
John Wilkins
isn't the thing modelled.
What Iain seems to be referring to is something like Dennett's "algorithmic"
view of evolution, which commits the same fallacy I think.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - adapted from Cicero
Robert J. Kolker
> Part of your thesis could be summarized with one phrase: the digital
> divide.
>
> We have to ask ourselves why there was a resurgence of creationism last
> Century in industrialized countries? I think it's because of the
> increasingly rapid advance of technology and knowledge. Technology has
> simply outpaced the comprehension abilities of many people. And, to
> paraphrase Yoda, high technology leads to a lack of understanding,
> which leads to doubt, which leads to anger, which leads to a search for
> easier answers.
Fundementalism is the dark side of the Farce.
Bob Kolker
Iain
I mean "formulaic" in the broad sense of "that comedy is so formulaic"
-- In other words, applying the same standard to varying data.
The difference is that the thing doing the modelling is in response to
the environment, so instead of producing, say, a boring fractal, it
develops goal-oriented machinery.
The primary value of my point is that arguments by intricacy, order and
beauty are all out. We see those things even in the simplest fractal.
~Iain
Alexander
Iain wrote:
> The Creationist and his arguments, although supposed by the
> scientifically minded to be dishonest, are honestly _inspired_ by
> personal incredulity. They are aware they are not being scientific, but
> are secretly convinced that they do not need to be scientific. The
> Creationist may be half-aware that his own individual claim will not
> stand up to scrutiny, but he is labouring under the sincere belief that
> he is stating the obviously true.
Nicely articulated Iain. I think this is the attitude they bring to
their understanding of their world view. It certainly tallies with my
own analysis of the creationist discourse that creationists (of any
stripe) sincerely believe in what they are proposing. I have some
doubts about a number of the leaders in the respective areas but I
think this is the exception rather than the rule. You are certainly
quite correct, as far as I'm concerned (for what it's worth) that they
do not approach the world from a scientific viewpoint and therefore are
approaching the 'controversy' from a completely different perspective.
This is one reason there is such a huge disconnect between the
scientific community and the religious in the US and where
Fundamentalism comes into contact with secular communities worldwide.
>
> A Creationist today is someone who looks upon evolutionary theory as if
> it is an M.C. Escher picture, like the Impossible Waterfall. They are
> struck by the certainty that there must be something wrong with it, but
> at what point?
>
> "We don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", is
> the unspoken attitude of the Creationist. "I don't know exactly how
> you are wrong, but I know from common sense that you are, somewhere."
I do like this analogy.
>
> Evidence _that_ evolution is a reality, is worthless when facing an
> overpowering pre-conception that it is a self-contained impossibility.
> However impeccable evidence is, if it is against what is thought to be
> blatantly obvious, it is disregarded, downplayed, denied, or never
> reconciled.
You also have to remember that it is only an impossibility when faced
with a construct they have carefully formed over a number of years.
It's a challenge to their actual 'self' which is why the situation
rapidly becomes intractable. They can't 'not' challenge evolution
otherwise everything they have believed in is wrong.
>
> Every denier of evolution also claims that it is forbiddingly unlikely
> or impossible - Nobody says it is "probable but short on
> evidence". Conversely, everyone who appreciates that complex
> evolution is theoretically probable, _also_ is satisfied by the
> evidence that it is real. Therefore, the problem lies not in the
> evidence, but in explanation. To know that evidence is evidence, one
> must know what it is evidence for.
Think I see what you're driving at here. We're back to the problem of
absolutism.
>
> Let us return to Escher's Impossible Waterfall. Out first urge, as
> soon as we see it, is to find something wrong with it. We know from the
> start there is a flaw in the picture, and the game is to find out what.
> How do we know that there's a flaw?
>
> Because we know water doesn't flow uphill. And that is where the
> problem with Creationisms lies - In taking evolution to be an uphill
> process.
>
> Evolution denial is born from the assumption that the great choice lies
> between "design" or "chance". It is the "chance' strawman
> that is the one with the "uphill" baggage.
It's a coping strategy at it's most basic. If you frame the problem in
the same terms as you define your own worldview (e.g. evolution is a
belief, atheism is a religion, evolution creates atheists) it's far
easier to deconstruct the 'evidence' in terms of a belief structure.
If evolution is nothing more than a set of ideological constraints then
it is no more valid than any other. As they already possess the
'truth' as far as belief and ideology go then it's just a question of
getting others to 'convert' to their view. As you said earlier,
science has nothing to do with this issue of their own perception of
the problem.
>
> This is not the full choice, however. The real choice involves a third
> option, namely "formulaicity". "Formulaic" isn't a word I see at
> all on these NGs when it is the most useful explanatory word to
> describe the process.
>
> Simple mathematical formula by themselves produce intricate, ordered,
> beautiful fractal images(ferns and leaves). When influenced by outside
> input, they are known to design machinery.
>
> This has been demonstrated as Darwinian formula have incrementally
> synthesised designs for patentable inventions. Natural selection is a
> simple formulaic process that reacts with the environment to unfold a
> synchronised coping reaction.
I'll leave better minds than mine to pick up on this aspect - a little
outside of my specialism. Nice post though.
>
> ~Iain
rja.ca...@excite.com
Martin Kess wrote:
> Creationists are easy to "convert" if you can get them to sit down and
> discuss. Getting them to sit down and discuss is the hard part.
Nope, having three of you in the conversation - including Morton's
Demon - is the hard part.
> But it's like this ... imagine if we found out that the earth was
> really flat and it was just a big government conspiracy. How easy would
> it be for you to convert?
I'd want to know how it was done, and how it affects me. The flat
earth isn't a wonderful example for that. UFOs, though - yeah,
particularly if they abduct and impregnate people. Or The Matrix. Or,
contraceptives have a side-effecof mind control. Or the CIA invented
AIDS...
John Wilkins
One argument about this is whether or not selection is a "mechanism" or
"process" or just a name given to disparate physical causal chains that happen
to match a particular mathematical model (i.e., Fishers Fundamental Theorem
and variations). Sober, in _The Nature of Selection_ (cf. also _Philosophy of
Biology_) suggests that fitness is a supervenient property. I think selection
is a supervenient process.
BruceW
Martin Kess wrote:
> Creationists are easy to "convert" if you can get them to sit down
> and discuss. Getting them to sit down and discuss is the hard part.
> ...
Could you describe how you go about doing the "converting"? In my
experience it aint so easy . . .
-BruceW
thomas p
wrote:
The method is somewhat like catching birds by putting salt on their
tails.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
erikc
I think it is much simpler. Someone scooped all thier brains out, crapped in
thier cranium and welded the lid shut.
What they spout is all they can do. Unless they can get a replacement brain,
then there's no hope.