It's often funny how creationists try to argue about physics, when they have absolutely no idea about physics. You get all kinds of vague references to different scientific theories (or, more precisely, to small parts of them) to try to argue for a certain claim. For example, some creationists try to argue for the reason why we see even the most distant galaxies by alluding to the general theory of relativity, and how time passes at different speeds depending on the strength of the gravity field. They have absolutely no understanding, nor care, what other (very visible) consequences there would be if the timescale difference between the solar system and the intergalactic space would be that great (the list of such consequences would be quite large, and most of them would be quite evident, and that's assuming we could actually live in such an environment) nor do they even understand how the speed of light in vacuum works.
But never mind that example. One less popular example, but one that's still claimed by several creationists, is that the flood of the Bible was caused by a gigantic ice meteor that crashed on the Earth and cooled it, caused the ice polar caps, and so on. This was one of the favorite hypotheses of the famous Kent Hovind (and it might still be, who knows.) Some other creationists are blindly repeating it.
There is so much wrong about this whole idea that it's outright amusing.
Just for starters, let's forget for a moment the actual collision, and let's just imagine that we place a mountain-sized ice meteor on the surface of the Earth. How much would it cool down the global temperature? I'll leave the calculations to someone else because I'm not a climatologist nor a physicist, but the effect would be quite minor. Nowhere even close to what Hovind is claiming (ie. from basically a worldwide tropical climate to the modern one, with ice caps.)
But that was only a minor thing. The major flaw in this whole thing is the infantile and naive thinking of "an ice meteor is cold, therefore it would freeze the Earth." This is like thinking that if I throw an ice cube at you at bullet speed, you will get colder.
It doesn't matter if the meteor is made of ice or rock. It will have a certain mass, and if it falls on Earth, it will release hundreds, if not thousands, of kilotons of energy. That's thermonuclear bomb quantities. And that's just for a smallish meteor of some metric tons of weight. Hovind is talking about an enormous ice meteor, like mountain-sized. Its impact with the Earth would release the energy equivalent to thousands and thousands of thermonuclear bombs, causing a worldwide inferno. Rather than cooling the Earth down, it would basically scorch it.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Friday, June 14, 2013
New information appearing in organisms
There is a mantra often repeated by creationists: "There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code."
They consider this a scientific fact. Yet, curiously, only creationists say this, not scientists. The actual fact is that this is an invention of creationists. Actual biologists and physicists don't have any problem in understanding how genetic code can become more complex over time without breaking any laws of physics. Only creationists can't understand this. (Or, more precisely, creationists refuse to accept any explanation about this, even if the explanation comes from somebody who actually knows how physics work.)
The amount of information that can be said to exist in a system is, in fact, very closely related to the concept of entropy. The more "information" there is in a system, the less entropy, and vice-versa. (After all, "information" is a form of "order", which is something measured by entropy.)
There is absolutely nothing in the laws of physics, not in thermodynamics nor in any other field, that would forbid entropy from decreasing locally due to physical effects. The only thing that thermodynamics says is that the total amount of energy cannot change, and that the total entropy never decreases. In other words, entropy can freely decrease locally as long as it increases by at least that much somewhere else. Also energy can freely move around as long as its total amount doesn't change. Nothing of this breaks any laws of physics.
As I'm writing this blog post, I'm both decreasing entropy and increasing the amount of information inside certain systems. However, this does not break any laws of physics. By doing this I'm consuming energy, which is released mostly as heat, which increases the universe's entropy more than what this information I'm writing is decreasing it. (Thus, perhaps a bit ironically, by writing this I'm increasing the universe's total entropy, rather than decreasing it, even though it's decreasing locally.)
There isn't much difference compared to living organisms gaining new genetic information. As genetic changes happen over time, the universe's entropy increases (because, basically, a lot of energy is being used for all these changes, and the waste energy produced by this increases entropy.) Some of these changes add new information to the genetic code, which is retained due to natural selection. No laws of physics are being broken by this. As said, producing this new information actually "wasted" a lot more energy overall than the amount of gained information, so the total entropy of the universe has increased overall by this whole process, and no laws of physics are being broken.
And this is not pure speculation. Unlike the creationist mantra claims, such new useful information has been observed to happen spontaneously in living organisms, and the mechanisms for this are very well understood. For example some bacteria have gained the ability to feed on nylon (a material that didn't even exist until the 1950's.) Even some humans have gained immunity to AIDS due to a genetic mutation. And there are many other examples.
None of this breaks any laws of physics. Only creationists say that it does.
They consider this a scientific fact. Yet, curiously, only creationists say this, not scientists. The actual fact is that this is an invention of creationists. Actual biologists and physicists don't have any problem in understanding how genetic code can become more complex over time without breaking any laws of physics. Only creationists can't understand this. (Or, more precisely, creationists refuse to accept any explanation about this, even if the explanation comes from somebody who actually knows how physics work.)
The amount of information that can be said to exist in a system is, in fact, very closely related to the concept of entropy. The more "information" there is in a system, the less entropy, and vice-versa. (After all, "information" is a form of "order", which is something measured by entropy.)
There is absolutely nothing in the laws of physics, not in thermodynamics nor in any other field, that would forbid entropy from decreasing locally due to physical effects. The only thing that thermodynamics says is that the total amount of energy cannot change, and that the total entropy never decreases. In other words, entropy can freely decrease locally as long as it increases by at least that much somewhere else. Also energy can freely move around as long as its total amount doesn't change. Nothing of this breaks any laws of physics.
As I'm writing this blog post, I'm both decreasing entropy and increasing the amount of information inside certain systems. However, this does not break any laws of physics. By doing this I'm consuming energy, which is released mostly as heat, which increases the universe's entropy more than what this information I'm writing is decreasing it. (Thus, perhaps a bit ironically, by writing this I'm increasing the universe's total entropy, rather than decreasing it, even though it's decreasing locally.)
There isn't much difference compared to living organisms gaining new genetic information. As genetic changes happen over time, the universe's entropy increases (because, basically, a lot of energy is being used for all these changes, and the waste energy produced by this increases entropy.) Some of these changes add new information to the genetic code, which is retained due to natural selection. No laws of physics are being broken by this. As said, producing this new information actually "wasted" a lot more energy overall than the amount of gained information, so the total entropy of the universe has increased overall by this whole process, and no laws of physics are being broken.
And this is not pure speculation. Unlike the creationist mantra claims, such new useful information has been observed to happen spontaneously in living organisms, and the mechanisms for this are very well understood. For example some bacteria have gained the ability to feed on nylon (a material that didn't even exist until the 1950's.) Even some humans have gained immunity to AIDS due to a genetic mutation. And there are many other examples.
None of this breaks any laws of physics. Only creationists say that it does.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Creationists vs. aliens
There's a very reasonable argument sometimes made that even if we entertained the idea that life on Earth was "intelligently created", we would have to first rule out natural causes for that before jumping to the conclusion that it must have been a god. The most obvious natural cause for it would be if an alien species from somewhere else had planted life on Earth.
So far there's little reason to believe that life on Earth was caused by an intelligent being or beings, as the vast majority of phenomena causing the diversity of life can be explained by the laws of physics. But as said, even if we did consider the possibility, jumping to a supernatural god is not the only choice, nor is it the most reasonable choice. Before even considering such supernatural explanations (and especially before considering it the most likely explanation), all the natural explanations (such as aliens) should be completely ruled out.
A more fundamental point that this argument is trying to make is that even if the appearance of life on Earth couldn't be explained by simple natural processes, a god is not the only possible explanation. There are other alternatives as well.
But of course creationists, the dishonest liars they are, love to distort this argument and build a straw man out of it. They like to spout things like "Dawkins considers aliens to have created life on Earth", completely (and probably deliberately) missing the point. Basically what they are wanting to say is "ha ha, those silly atheists, they think that aliens created life on Earth! How crazy is that?"
But what else can you expect from such dishonest hypocrites as creationists?
So far there's little reason to believe that life on Earth was caused by an intelligent being or beings, as the vast majority of phenomena causing the diversity of life can be explained by the laws of physics. But as said, even if we did consider the possibility, jumping to a supernatural god is not the only choice, nor is it the most reasonable choice. Before even considering such supernatural explanations (and especially before considering it the most likely explanation), all the natural explanations (such as aliens) should be completely ruled out.
A more fundamental point that this argument is trying to make is that even if the appearance of life on Earth couldn't be explained by simple natural processes, a god is not the only possible explanation. There are other alternatives as well.
But of course creationists, the dishonest liars they are, love to distort this argument and build a straw man out of it. They like to spout things like "Dawkins considers aliens to have created life on Earth", completely (and probably deliberately) missing the point. Basically what they are wanting to say is "ha ha, those silly atheists, they think that aliens created life on Earth! How crazy is that?"
But what else can you expect from such dishonest hypocrites as creationists?
"Science is your religion"
Sometimes religious people will tell to a skeptic/atheist that "science is your religion" (or something to that effect.) In other words, they try to put all "belief systems" at the same level, and trying to give the impression that "believing in science" is no better than believing in gods.
I'm not even going to go to what "religion" actually means. However, from a certain perspective that claim is partially true. For example I tend to believe science significantly more easily and without having personally examined the evidence, than any religious or other supernatural claims. The reason for this is that science has earned my trust.
Unlike religion, science tends to produce actual, tangible and useful applications. Religion does not invent and produce new devices, new technology or new medicine, nor does it help us discover how the universe works, what causes which disease, and so on. It's those scientists doing experiments, building measurement devices, doing countless hours of endless work on their fields of expertise who produce these innovations.
Unlike religion, science is a self-correcting method that constantly seeks to better itself to be more accurate, increase its own knowledge and produce better innovations. Unlike religion, it's science that enables progress.
Unlike religion, science has proven to be right again and again. During the entire history of humanity, whenever there has been an unknown, religion has given a made-up answer that has turned out to be completely incorrect, while science has eventually discovered an answer that actually works. Unlike religion, science has an astounding track record of finding the actual truth about things. And unlike religion, most of these findings end up producing actual useful applications that better our lives.
Having seen how science works, what its methods are, and what kinds of results it produces, it more than deserves my trust. If the worldwide scientific community reaches a consensus about something, I'm more than happy to accept it without studying the evidence for myself.
Does this mean that science is never wrong? Of course not. Science does get things wrong sometimes. However, as already said, science is a self-correcting mechanism. It finds out if its previous conclusions were wrong and corrects them. This means that even if sometimes the wrong conclusions are made, they will be eventually fixed. Besides, science is not completely off the mark very often, and has a quite good track record of being at least close to correct.
This is much unlike religion. Having seen how religion works, what its methods are, and what kinds of results it produces, it deserves no trust whatsoever. There aren't many things in this world that one should distrust more than religion.
I'm not even going to go to what "religion" actually means. However, from a certain perspective that claim is partially true. For example I tend to believe science significantly more easily and without having personally examined the evidence, than any religious or other supernatural claims. The reason for this is that science has earned my trust.
Unlike religion, science tends to produce actual, tangible and useful applications. Religion does not invent and produce new devices, new technology or new medicine, nor does it help us discover how the universe works, what causes which disease, and so on. It's those scientists doing experiments, building measurement devices, doing countless hours of endless work on their fields of expertise who produce these innovations.
Unlike religion, science is a self-correcting method that constantly seeks to better itself to be more accurate, increase its own knowledge and produce better innovations. Unlike religion, it's science that enables progress.
Unlike religion, science has proven to be right again and again. During the entire history of humanity, whenever there has been an unknown, religion has given a made-up answer that has turned out to be completely incorrect, while science has eventually discovered an answer that actually works. Unlike religion, science has an astounding track record of finding the actual truth about things. And unlike religion, most of these findings end up producing actual useful applications that better our lives.
Having seen how science works, what its methods are, and what kinds of results it produces, it more than deserves my trust. If the worldwide scientific community reaches a consensus about something, I'm more than happy to accept it without studying the evidence for myself.
Does this mean that science is never wrong? Of course not. Science does get things wrong sometimes. However, as already said, science is a self-correcting mechanism. It finds out if its previous conclusions were wrong and corrects them. This means that even if sometimes the wrong conclusions are made, they will be eventually fixed. Besides, science is not completely off the mark very often, and has a quite good track record of being at least close to correct.
This is much unlike religion. Having seen how religion works, what its methods are, and what kinds of results it produces, it deserves no trust whatsoever. There aren't many things in this world that one should distrust more than religion.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Another dishonest tactic of creationists
One quite dishonest tactic that many creationists (and other type of religious apologists) use is to take an opinion held by a small minority of atheists/skeptics/scientists, and generalize it and claim that all of them hold said opinion.
For example, many creationists say that the vast majority of scientists are naturalists (the philosophical view that everything can be explained by natural and physical causes) and that naturalists refuse to even consider any alternatives. In other words, because the majority of scientists are naturalists, they must reject even the possibility of supernatural phenomena, out of prejudiced principle.
There probably are some scientists who hold such a strong opinion, ie. that they must reject any supernatural explanations without any consideration or rationale, purely out of principle. However, these are a minority. For the majority of scientists and skeptics naturalism is not a driving principle, but simply a consequence of what they know. In other words, the creationists reverse the cause-and-effect: It's not naturalism that "forces" the scientists to automatically reject non-natural explanations. Rather, they are naturalists because of what they know about the world. And they do not reject supernatural explanations out of stubborness and without even wanting to hear any arguments.
Another example is that some apologists claim that in the modern world "truth" is by far no longer appreciated, and there's a prevalent view that "truth" is subjective and dependent on the person. What's true for one person may not be for another, and it depends on the world view.
This is also a minority view, expanded by apologists to allegedly be a majority one. This may be so mainly for some new-age hippies, but the vast majority of people, especially those with any kind of scientific education, do not hold any such view. The truths about this universe are what they are, and it's not up to anybody's opinion.
For example, many creationists say that the vast majority of scientists are naturalists (the philosophical view that everything can be explained by natural and physical causes) and that naturalists refuse to even consider any alternatives. In other words, because the majority of scientists are naturalists, they must reject even the possibility of supernatural phenomena, out of prejudiced principle.
There probably are some scientists who hold such a strong opinion, ie. that they must reject any supernatural explanations without any consideration or rationale, purely out of principle. However, these are a minority. For the majority of scientists and skeptics naturalism is not a driving principle, but simply a consequence of what they know. In other words, the creationists reverse the cause-and-effect: It's not naturalism that "forces" the scientists to automatically reject non-natural explanations. Rather, they are naturalists because of what they know about the world. And they do not reject supernatural explanations out of stubborness and without even wanting to hear any arguments.
Another example is that some apologists claim that in the modern world "truth" is by far no longer appreciated, and there's a prevalent view that "truth" is subjective and dependent on the person. What's true for one person may not be for another, and it depends on the world view.
This is also a minority view, expanded by apologists to allegedly be a majority one. This may be so mainly for some new-age hippies, but the vast majority of people, especially those with any kind of scientific education, do not hold any such view. The truths about this universe are what they are, and it's not up to anybody's opinion.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
"Atheism cannot be true because..."
Apologists and creationists (what's the difference? I may write another blog post about my views on that some day) really love to give long lists of atheist "claims." Atheists claim this, atheists claim that...
This whole concept that atheism is some kind of world view with a well-defined set of dogmas, beliefs and assertions (that most atheists agree upon) is extremely common, and extremely wrong.
Atheism does not claim that "the universe appeared from nothing" or that "life created itself" or that "we are just the product of random chance" or anything like that. As I have been repeating over and over, theism vs. atheism deals with one question, and one question only: Do you believe in the existence of gods? If you do, then you are a theist, if you don't then you are an atheist. Everything else is completely irrelevant. (It is, in fact, completely possible to be a theist, ie. believe in the existence of a god, and still believe that, for example, life appeared on its own, evolved to its current state by natural laws only, and even that the universe was not created nor fine-tuned by any intelligence. Theism and atheism do not deal with those things at all.)
Another thing that apologists and creationists love to say is that atheism leads to lack of any kind of moral principles. (This argument from morality seems to be almost completely confined to the United States, as it's a very rare argument presented in Europe and other parts of the world. Or should I more accurately say, used to be confined there, because nowadays European creationists are being poisoned by their American counterparts at an increasing rate, and are starting to repeat those arguments in Europe, where it makes even less sense than in America, given that something like 90% of European citizens are secular, and chaos has not ensued.)
I find the moral argument strange not only because it's so obviously false, but also because it seems to be saying that it doesn't really matter what's actually true, but that the only thing that matters is what the consequences of the belief system are. In other words, it doesn't really matter if a god really exists, what matters is that people believe it so that they won't go on a murdering and raping rampage.
This is the same with many of similar arguments. For example, many of them argue that teaching evolution leads to immorality and mass extermination of people. Apparently it doesn't matter whether evolution is true or not; what matters is what its consequences are. Apparently even if it were true, we should censor it so that people won't go in a murdering rampage.
This whole concept that atheism is some kind of world view with a well-defined set of dogmas, beliefs and assertions (that most atheists agree upon) is extremely common, and extremely wrong.
Atheism does not claim that "the universe appeared from nothing" or that "life created itself" or that "we are just the product of random chance" or anything like that. As I have been repeating over and over, theism vs. atheism deals with one question, and one question only: Do you believe in the existence of gods? If you do, then you are a theist, if you don't then you are an atheist. Everything else is completely irrelevant. (It is, in fact, completely possible to be a theist, ie. believe in the existence of a god, and still believe that, for example, life appeared on its own, evolved to its current state by natural laws only, and even that the universe was not created nor fine-tuned by any intelligence. Theism and atheism do not deal with those things at all.)
Another thing that apologists and creationists love to say is that atheism leads to lack of any kind of moral principles. (This argument from morality seems to be almost completely confined to the United States, as it's a very rare argument presented in Europe and other parts of the world. Or should I more accurately say, used to be confined there, because nowadays European creationists are being poisoned by their American counterparts at an increasing rate, and are starting to repeat those arguments in Europe, where it makes even less sense than in America, given that something like 90% of European citizens are secular, and chaos has not ensued.)
I find the moral argument strange not only because it's so obviously false, but also because it seems to be saying that it doesn't really matter what's actually true, but that the only thing that matters is what the consequences of the belief system are. In other words, it doesn't really matter if a god really exists, what matters is that people believe it so that they won't go on a murdering and raping rampage.
This is the same with many of similar arguments. For example, many of them argue that teaching evolution leads to immorality and mass extermination of people. Apparently it doesn't matter whether evolution is true or not; what matters is what its consequences are. Apparently even if it were true, we should censor it so that people won't go in a murdering rampage.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Obsessing about Jesus' existence
Many apologists spend quite a lot of time trying to prove that Jesus really existed, that he wasn't just invented by the New Testament authors, that he wasn't just a fictional character or a myth. They do this as if proving Jesus' existence somehow demonstrated his divinity and the truth of what he said.
This is a very odd type of argumentation. Just put the same kind of argument in a different context to see how ridiculous it is. For example, imagine a Mormon trying to argue that Joseph Smith really was a true prophet of God, by proving that Joseph Smith really existed. I don't think anybody would be convinced that he was any kind of prophet of God by simply him existing.
Yet many apologists make a big deal about trying to prove that Jesus did really, truly exist.
The thing is, most of this is pretty useless. A skeptic doesn't need to argue against the existence of such a person. Ok, let's say that there existed a person named Jesus, and the New Testament are based on him. So what? We can perfectly well grant that argument. It still proves absolutely nothing.
This is nothing strange. There are plenty or examples of myths based on real people. For example captain Blackbeard was a real historical person, but he is surrounded by a lot of mythology that's probably not true. The list of such persons would be quite extensive. Why would Jesus, if he really existed, by any different? Existence in itself demonstrates little, so there's little point in spending so much effort in trying to prove that.
This is a very odd type of argumentation. Just put the same kind of argument in a different context to see how ridiculous it is. For example, imagine a Mormon trying to argue that Joseph Smith really was a true prophet of God, by proving that Joseph Smith really existed. I don't think anybody would be convinced that he was any kind of prophet of God by simply him existing.
Yet many apologists make a big deal about trying to prove that Jesus did really, truly exist.
The thing is, most of this is pretty useless. A skeptic doesn't need to argue against the existence of such a person. Ok, let's say that there existed a person named Jesus, and the New Testament are based on him. So what? We can perfectly well grant that argument. It still proves absolutely nothing.
This is nothing strange. There are plenty or examples of myths based on real people. For example captain Blackbeard was a real historical person, but he is surrounded by a lot of mythology that's probably not true. The list of such persons would be quite extensive. Why would Jesus, if he really existed, by any different? Existence in itself demonstrates little, so there's little point in spending so much effort in trying to prove that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)