........Incredulity 2

[Joe Cummings]

I've had a look at ANN's "incredulity" argument, and it would be
useful to look at the later claim that s/he hadn't developed a theory
yet.

But , of course, there are "theories" opposed to evolution, and it
behoves us to have a look at them. I refer to "Intelligent design,"
and "directed panspermia." One of them making the "inelligent
designer" the barely concealed god of the Bible, the other making the
"designer" extra-terrestrial.

I might say in passing that when I was in Navy many years ago we
jokingly called the chaplains "sky pilots."

We could say that the two "theories" were the property of either sky
pilots or space pilots.

The theories have two things in common - incredulity that abiogenesis
on earth and evolution could account for existing species, and the
unsubstantiated claim that there was an "agent" or "agents" who
designed organic life.

One argument used by our religious creationists is "irreducible
cmplexity;" usually illustrated by the analogy of a mousetrap.
The mousetrap was put forward because of the claim that if any one
part of the pousetrap was removed, it would cease to operate as a
mousetrap. Silmilarly, in living organisms there we systems whose
finctions depended on all the components being created together at the
same time.

All of the examples cited by the creationists have been questioned,
and pathways suggested for their development.

(Years ago I presented in TO an alternative, simpler, and more
efficient design for a mousetrap which also addressed the question
of the disposal of the mice. I was disappointed that none of the
pest control firms took up my suggestion. Ah, well.)
r
The "directed panspermia" theory again assumes intalligent agency -
"directed " by whom?

The vagueness of the claim can be shortly addressed: Life didn't
originate on earth, but somewhere else, possibly another planet. It
does separate origin of life from evolution of species.

So, if the origin of life can't be investigated here- no reason given,
just the bare assertion from incredulity, and if it came from another
panet, how did life start there? The same reason arises, it must hve
come from a third planet. We have the prospect of a regress: life
came here from planet A, and it got to planet A from planet B etc;,
etc;, all the way to planet Z and beyond . It might be better to use
the set of natural numbers rather than the letters of the alphabet,
after all, the set of natural numbers is unending and well suited to
deaing with an infinite regress.

Both theories are weaker than the scientific program of trying to work
out how life began here - on the only place we know for sure life
exists.

And both of these theories arise from the difficulties some religious
people have - not all of them by any means - in realising that the
Genesis myth is just that - a myth.

One of the leading influences in trying to make the Genesis myth
"scientific" was a gentleman by the name of Walter E.Lammerts
(1904 - 1996), a successful rose breeders and horticulturalist.
He felt that the Creationist causewould be strengthened if, instead of
lay preachers and physical scientists - geologists, for example -
there could be trained biologists fighting alongside the believers in
Genesis;

(At one time he was associated with thr American Scientific
Affiliation, which started of as a creationist outfit but later many
of its members adopted a stance of theistic evolution.)

He helped foundThe Creation Research Society which has as its staement
of beliefs:


"The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired
throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically
true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means
that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of
simple historical truths.

"All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct
creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis.
Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have
accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the
Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and
effect.

"We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who
accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special
creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent
fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior
for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting
Jesus Christ as our Savior."

You will note that all other religions are ignored, and that the
belivers claim to speak for all mankind Very ambitious,


A cursory look at the Bible will show it to have plenty of errors:
To give on example, find out who the Gospel writers reported to be
present at the tomb of Jesus after his crucifixion.

Four writers, four different accounts.
Yet "All its assertions are historically and scientifically true."
The creationists then seem to realise they have problems and they
refer to "the original autographs."

Where are they? Why aren't they quoted?

Note I'm not attacking religion; the Catholic interpretation of the
Bible is more sensible.
5The Bible is viewed as having many aspects - poetry, narrative,
historical fiction, allegory, parables,apocalyptic vision, wisdom,
etc., etc.

Whereas our evangelical friends behave as if the Bible was dictated
wored by word over some spiritual telephone by the Almighty.

In their polemics against the theory of evolution, it is commonly held
the science is a "belief system," and it is anti-religious. Neitherr
of these claims are true. But if we examine their concept of "belief
system," must we conclude that if science is such a system, does it
have the same excuse for lying as Luther's Christianity? To get out
of an awkward corner?

Along with this idea of science as a belief, is the binary concept of
just two competing sets of belief, and to abandon one necessarily
leads one to acceptr the other.
Again, wrong. Science is explicitly not a belief system. As
Lavoisier's discussion of an element whowed, science moves from
examinaton of the empirical evidence through theories back to
empirical research.

It has been called "organised scepticism," and this was well
illustrated recently in the furore over "cold fusion"claims made, in
one of the US universities: the general reaction was of scepticism,
but it did not stop there as it would have done if creationists had
been involved; the claimed experipent was repeated, and the results
were not the same as the ones claimed.

Next time; I'll show at least one of the results of creationist
interference in educational matters, with a glaring example of
dishonesty in the good old UK.


Have fun,

Joe Cummings

PS -For a good read on the history of the creationist movement, read
3The Creationists," by Ronald Numbers, (Harvard, 1992, 2006)