Saturday, March 28, 2009

Tips for Debating Creationists

I've been debating creationists for nearly 20 years now. I've learned a few things.

The next few BLOG entries will discuss my recommendations for how to win such debates (or, at least, how to have fun in those debates).

My first recommendation is to not engage in an oral debate. In general creationists might tend to throw questions at you for which you don't have answers. But since creationism is totally fraudulent, rest assured that there are answers. But often a little research is required. Engaging in a written debate allows such research to be performed. Learn how to do such research.

The first place that I typically look when I'm challenged with a claim that I have never seen before, is the talkorigins web site. Do a search there. I'm confident that well over 90% of all creationist claims have been refuted on that site.

Good luck and have fun! I know that I've had a lot of fun debating creationists.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Radiometric Dating and Creationist Fraud

This is a post I provided to refute some arguments made by a YEC.
(This one helps with the Creationwiki web site.)
>> YEC:
>> No, Pasha. It is not disheartening at all. Not
>> when we already know that radiometric dating is
>> based on circular reasoning...
Randy:
It's not circular reasoning at all!
Radioactive elements decay with a fixed half-life. Carbon-14, which has a relatively short half-life has been quite successfully correlated with tree rings. Certainly tests such as that confirm the validity of radiometric dating.
Moreover, radiometric half-lives don't change> in elements even when they are exposed to excessive heat, or even explosions.
Wikipedia explains it like this:
"In refutation of young-Earth claims of inconstant decay rates affecting the reliability of radiometric dating, Roger C. Wiens, a physicist specialising in isotope dating states:
"There are only three quite technical instances where a half-life changes, and these do not affect the dating methods [under discussion]":
"1. Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating. ... The artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7 has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment. ... [H]eavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent.
"2. ... Another case is material inside of stars, which is in a plasma state where electrons are not bound to atoms. In the extremely hot stellar environment, a completely different kind of decay can occur. 'Bound-state beta decay' occurs when the nucleus emits an electron into a bound electronic state close to the nucleus. ... All normal matter, such as everything on Earth, the Moon, meteorites, etc. has electrons in normal positions, so these instances never apply to rocks, or anything colder than several hundred thousand degrees. ...
"3. The last case also involves very fast-moving matter. It has been demonstrated by atomic clocks in very fast spacecraft. These atomic clocks slow down very slightly (only a second or so per year) as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. No rocks in our solar system are going fast enough to make a noticeable change in their dates. ..."
>> ...and an appalling lack of quality control that
>> would get a hospital laboratory shut down for
>> its pains.
Nonsense.
Nearly all radiometric dating testing is done under very rigorous laboratory conditions.
As usual, you don't provide a reference but my guess is that you or some "creation-scientist" found one or a small handful of examples where the proper quality control procedures weren't followed and have assumed that ALL such testing> is flawed.
If so, that is a fallacious argument.
If you are going to make a valid argument, you must get a copy of the testing procedures from a reputable laboratory and show how they are flawed or show that they are typically not followed.
Of course you can't do that.
>> Steven A. Austin's "Excess Argon" paper told me
>> all I needed to know about radiometric dating
>> in current practice.
Typical fraudulent creationist argument noted.
First we need a little backgrond.
The Potassium - Argon radioactive decay sequence> has a half-life of 1.25 billion years. That's BILLION - 1,000,000,000 - years.
Any measurement system has an inherent error, generally based on the mechanism being used.
According to the University of Santa Barbara> at http://tinyurl.com/KARDATING, "the standard deviations for K-Ar dates are so large that resolution higher than about a million years is almost impossible to achieve."
So that's about a million years of variation based on a half-life of 1.25 BILLION years.
That's actually pretty good. It means that the error is less than 0.1% of the half-life. If you use this dating method in the way in which it is intended - VERY old rocks - and> you measure a rock of, say, 4.000 billion years you can be confident that the actual age falls between 3.999 and 4.001 billion years.
Note what happens if this error percentage is applied to dating methods using a different half-life. For example, C-14 has a half-life> of 5700 years. An error of 0.1% of that half-life would give an expected error of plus-or-minus only 5 to 6 years.
Radioactive decay is a process based on quantum mechanics it is therefore a random process. In large quantities, you can make quite accurate predictions. But that is not necessarily the case with small samples.
It's like what happens at a gambling casino. If you ask a casino owner to estimate the casino's gross profits over a long period of time such as a week or a month or more, the owner can do a surprisingly accurate job of that even if everything, including the slot machines, really are honest and yield truly random results.
But if you ask the owner of the casino if they will make a profit in the next five minutes, the answer is more problematic. The casino PROBABLY will make money over even such a short period of time, but it is a real possibility that a major payout due to a customer hitting a jackpot may have a significant impact over those few minutes. Over longer periods of time such things even out.
That's effectively the argument being made by these "creation-scientists". K-Ar dating has a half-life of 1.25 BILLION years. With a very young rock, even a few atoms can throw off the reading by hundreds of thousands of years or more.
With that background, let's look at Austin's> argument.
It is described in the article at> http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/blind_leading_blind_kh.htm titled "Blind Leading the Blind: Austin, Snelling and Swenson Misinterpret Dalrymple's K-Ar Dating of Historical Volcanics".
In summary the paper you cite relates to some data collected by G. Brent Dalrymple, a well-known geochronologist with 40 years experience, who is a pioneer in the identification of excess argon in igneous samples, and an outspoken critic of young-Earth creationism. As part of his seminal work on excess argon, Dalrymple (1969) dated 26 historical lava flows with K-Ar to determine whether excess argon was present. ("Historical" meaning> that they occurred within human history.) Of the 26 lava flows that were sampled and analyzed, 18 of them gave expected results - effectively an age of zero. That is, no excess 40Ar or 36Ar were present. Eight rocks yielded unrealistic dates, which were either too old because of the presence of excess 40Ar (5 of them) or too young (negative ages) because of the presence of excess > 36Ar (3 of them).
In seven of the eight cases, the error was on the> order of 100,000 years - hardly significant and well within the expected error of K-AR dating.
Only ONE reading had a larger error larger than that - 1.19 million years. That fell somewhat outside of the error expected for K-AR dating.
Even that one rock with the most significant error had very noticeable xenoliths (older rock contaminants that were incorporated into the magma as it rose through the Earth to the surface). These would be easily recognized by a trained geologist. Once the xenoliths were removed, the remaining matrix provided the expected date.
Note also that 3/8 of the errors resulted in readings that gave dates that were too YOUNG. Errors such as that would tend to favor YEC.
The fraud is evident. The conclusion of the paper, if anything, is that K-AR dating is BETTER than expected. After compensating for the xenoliths in the single anamolous rock, all of the rocks fell well within the expected error range for K-AR dating.
But, most people don't understand the expected error margin for K-AR dating. So if you tell them that some rocks relatively recently formed from volcanic eruptions had dates measured up to a MILLION years, they are astounded and immediately question the integrity of that testing.
Apparently YOU were fooled as well.
But, as they say, everything is relative.
The web site I referenced points to another example of the sort of carelessness so typical of "creation-scientists". It compared the papers from Snelling and Austin to the orginal data from Dalrymple and found numerous mistakes in both. For example, the rock with the largest error was listed at 1.19 million years in the original paper but at 1.4 million years in both "creation-science" papers.
As the article concludes:
"Because Austin's essay is older, we can probably assume that these copying errors originated with him. Rather than checking the accuracy and relevancy of Austin's quotations from Dalrymple (1969), Snelling and Swenson simply uncritically parroted and perpetuated Austin's mistakes in their later web essays. This is truly a case of the blind leading the blind!!"
I suggest that you find better resources to support your arguments.
"Creation-scientists" can be trusted to be frauds.
>> In case anyone has forgotten, or haven't read about
>> it yet, they sent five samples of dacite from the
>> Mount Saint Helens lava dome to Geochron Laboratories
>> and asked for a potassium-argon date. Geochron said
>> that those five samples were anywhere from five
>> hundred thousand to two point eight million years
>> old. Preposterous, of course; that dacite was ten
>> years old if it was a day.
You really need to provide specific references.
But the article that I believe you are referring to is refuted at> http://ncseweb.org/book/export/html/2519
The article identifies problems with Austin's work.
First, Austin sent young, low-potassium rocks to Geochron Laboratories. Such samples are very low in radiogenic argon, which is the isotope responsible for the radioactive decay that is the basis of the dating techniques. (This has already been explained above.) Although Geochron specifically stated that it did not want to deal with young, low-potassium samples, Austin sent them anyway and specifically stated in his paper that he did not reveal the origin of the samples. This "omission" can result in potentially large ranges of error in the results and also opens his research to ethical questions.
More importantly, Austin apparently dated some of the solid material that came up with the lava rather than the lava itself. Austin had mentioned that the lava contained xenoliths—pieces of solid rock that came up with the lava. As with the previous example cited above, such older rocks mixed in with young lava will,, unsurprisingly, skew the results to make them appear older than they really are.
>> But Austin didn't stop there.
He should have. He hasn't proven anything yet.
>> He and Humphreys and Vardiman and Snelling and
>> several other workers formed the "Radioisotopes
>> and the Age of The Earth" (RATE) Group. They
>> have published two volumes of their work. Now
>> if anyone here is genuinely interested in what
>> they found, you can buy those volumes at any
>> time from the online store at the Northwest
>> Creation Network.
Wikipedia has an article that refutes the claimsin this book as well. (See> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_geophysics)
Here's how it summarizes things:
"The scientific community points to numerous flaws in these experiments, to the fact that their results have not been accepted for publication by any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and to the fact that the creationist scientists conducting them were untrained in experimental geochronology.
The RATE project is seriously flawed in many other ways. The web site http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html provides a detailed, if technical, refutation of each and every one of their claims.
>> For everyone's information, 770,000 years is not
>> much older than the apparently "youngest" rock
>> that the US Geological Survey has records of.
>> Haven't I already shared with everybody Snelling's
>> paper about the finding of the fossilized tree
>> buried in basalt in the Crinum Coal Mine
>> in Australia? Snelling and his team sent samples
>> of the wood to one lab and samples of the basalt
>> to two other labs (including Geochron). Guess
>> what? The tree "dated" at 40,000 years, and
>> the rock "dated" at over a million years.
Typical fraudulent creationist argument noted.
Here we have a common sense answer: lava comes out of the ground typically at 2000 degrees F. It has to be at LEAST 1500 degrees because that is the temperature at which basalt melts. If such lava surrounded a living tree, then the tree would not just instantly burn up, it would vaporize.
If you watch movies of Hawaiian and other lava flows, you see this sort of thing happen all of the time. When the lava hits the tree, it instantly bursts into flames and the tree is destroyed by that fire in a very short period of time.
Lava can't surround a living tree!! It simply isn't possible.
Clearly the only explanation is that the tree grew from a seed some time after the lava cooled. We should certainly expect the tree to be younger (and possibly MUCH younger) than the lava.
Note that the tree MUST be younger than the lava. There is no other rational explanation.
Without pictures or anything else to refer to it is difficult to surmise precisely what happened. But it is surely not impossible for a million-year old lava flow to have a hole in it through which a tree couldgrow. Clearly that is what happened.
>> Again for everyone's information, Geochron doesn't
>> do potassium-argon dating anymore. I'll let
>> everyone guess why.
I doubt that it has anything to do with these examples of creationist fraudulence.
>> More to the point: no one has ever, and I mean
>> ever, reported the date of any rock younger
>> than 700,000 years. As far as I'm concerned,
>> conventional radiometric dating methods would
>> not be able to give a reliable date for the
>> eruption of Mount Vesuvius and the destruction
>> of Pompeii and Herculaneum, did we not have
>> the eyewitness account of Pliny the Younger
>> to go by.
Well...duhh.
Measuring the age of rocks just a few hundred thousand years old would be sort of like using a yardstick to measure the width of a human hair.
People don't do that. But that is not because yardsticks aren't accurate. Instead it is because they are not that PRECISE.
You really should check out the different definitions of "accuracy" and "precision" some time.
Would a reading of 770,000 plus-or-minus 1 million years mean much to anyone?
That's the problem with all of your examples. They try to measure very, very young rocks with a procedure known ahead of time to have an error of plus-or-minus a million years. Then when the error falls within the expected million years, they cry "foul".
It really is like trying to measure a very small things with a yardstick.
But that doesn't demonstrate that there are errors when calculating the age of rocks that are BILLIONS of years old. A yardstick, properly used, can measure distances of a football field or longer with relatively small error percentages.
>> Disheartened? No. Disappointed, yes. Disappointed
>> that what we call science has now been
>> thoroughly politicized.
Disheartened? No.
Surprised? Not that either.
Creationists ALWAYS engage in fraud in order to make their points.
Your examples provide excellent supporting evidence for those claims.
There is NO evidence supporting a young Earth.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Deal with it.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Biblical Endorsement of Killing

The Bible routinely endorses the murder of people for MANY different reasons. A partiallist is shown below.
The list comes from http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

Some of these reasons shown, of course, were used to justify the Inquisition, witch burnings and other atrocities.

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel."
- Deuteronomy 17:12

Kill Witches

You should not let a sorceress live.
- Exodus 22:17

Kill Homosexuals

If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.
- Leviticus 20:13

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.
- Leviticus 20:27

Death for Hitting Dad

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.
- Exodus 21:15

Death for Cursing Parents

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness.
- Proverbs 20:20

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.
- Leviticus 20:9

Death for Adultery

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.
- Leviticus 20:10

Death for Fornication

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her fatheralso, shall be burned to death.
- Leviticus 21:9

Death to Followers of Other Religions

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed.
- Exodus 22:19

Kill Nonbelievers

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
- 2 Chronicles 15:12-13

Kill False Prophets

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through.
- Zechariah 13:3

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if youobey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."
- Deuteronomy 13:13-19

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girl's virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.
- Deuteronomy 22:20-21

Kill Followers of Other Religions.

1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or your intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.
- Deuteronomy 13:7-12

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.
- Deuteronomy 17:2-5

Death for Blasphemy

One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. AnyIsraelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die.
- Leviticus 24:10-16

Kill False Prophets

1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you.
- Deuteronomy 13:1-5

2) But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared.
- Deuteronomy 18:20-22

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

ID is not Intellectually rigorous

According to http://tinyurl.com/idnotsciencethe Catholic Church has realized that ID isnot intellectually rigorous science.
Here is a news report:
"A Vatican-backed conference on evolution is under attack from people who weren't invited to participate: those espousingcreationism and intelligent design...
"Organizers of the five-day conferenceat the Pontifical Gregorian University said Thursday that they barred intelligent design proponents because they wanted an intellectually rigorous conference on science, theology and philosophy to mark the 150th anniversary of CharlesDarwin's 'The Origin of Species.'"
The Discovery Institute has responded to that decision:
"The Discovery Institute, the main organizationsupporting intelligent design research,says it was shut out from presenting its views because the meeting was funded in part by the John Templeton Foundation, a major U.S. non-profit that has criticized the intelligent design movement."
The John Templeton Foundation is really dedicated to reconciling science and theology. Each year the Foundation awards the $1.6 million Templeton Prize to a `living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works'. Note the phrase "spiritual dimension'.
The goals of the John Templeton Foundation would seem to be perfectly aligned with ID. In fact, the Foundation USED to fund ID projects. They did so for a number of years.
But now that foundation, as well as the Catholic Church, have come to the realization that ID is an intellectual and scientfic backwater and they are now opposed to it.

Friday, March 6, 2009

Specified Complexity

“Specified Complexity” is, of course, the phrase that William Dembski uses to describe his method for discovering Intelligent Design.


William Dembski defines it with these words[1]:


“A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex (i.e., it conforms to an independently given pattern but is simple). A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified (i.e., it requires a complicated instruction-set to characterize but conforms to no independently given pattern). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.”


Note here that Dembski uses “complex” as “intricate”. A single letter is not “complex” but a long string of letters is complex.


Of course that is really the dictionary definition of “complex”. As evidence, here is the first definition of the word “complex” at http://www.dictionary.com[2/[2]:


“an intricate or complicated association or assemblage of related things, parts, units, etc.:”


But, Dembski also uses a different definition for “complex”. He says that it is a synonym for “improbable”. Here’s an example[3]:


“Something that is specified and complex is highly improbable with respect to all causal mechanisms currently known. Consequently, for a causal mechanism to come along and explain something that previously was regarded as specified and complex means that the item in question is in fact no longer specified and complex with respect to the newly found causal mechanism.” [emphasis added]


Also when giving examples of ways to recognize specified complexity, he uses examples that come from probability calculations. Here is another reference where he explains “complexity” as a type of probability[4]:


Probabilistic Complexity


Probability can be viewed as a form of complexity. To see this consider a combination lock. The more possible combinations of the lock, the more complex the mechanism and, correspondingly, the more improbable that the mechanism can be opened by chance....Complexity and probability therefore vary inversely; the greater the complexity, the smaller the probability. The complexity in specified complexity refers to improbability.


Here’s how one creationist explained it:


>> Within ID, the complexity of an object or an
>> event is a function of:

>> 1) Probability: the more improbable a thing is,
>> the more complex it is.
>> ...

A combination lock is indeed an example of a case where additional complexity adds additional improbability. But “improbable” things do not necessarily lack “intricacy”.

A perfectly blue sky is certainly less intricate than one filled with clouds. Yet in many places on Earth, the sky is rarely perfectly blue – in those places it is quite improbable to see a perfectly blue sky. I’ve been lucky enough to visit the Hawaiian Islands a dozen times. I don’t recall a single time when there weren’t a few clouds in the sky which cause additional intricacy. (Those clouds contribute to the beautiful sunsets that the Islands are so justifiably famous for.)

So at least in that example, improbability is actually the opposite of intricacy. There are a number of other examples.

The two definitions don’t really have anything to do with each other. Sometimes they are consistent with each other. Other times they are very inconsistent with each other.

So what’s going on?

What’s going on is that the ID advocates prefer that no one notice this inconsistency. They can use one definition when it is convenient and use the other definition when that alternative is more convenient.

In general “improbability” is used as the definition of “complexity” when trying to show examples of when and how we can recognize ID. But in other areas they arbitrarily decide to use “intricacy” as the definition of “complexity”.
First, here is an example from William Dembski where “improbability” is the definition of “complexity”[5]:

Rare events are a cause for surprise only if the timing is right. Imagine, for instance, that before you is a large, grassy field. You have 100 stones and 100 flags each marked from 1 to 100. With a helicopter you fly over the field, releasing the stones indiscriminately. After you have dropped your last stone, you land the helicopter safely away from the field, leave the helicopter on foot, and examine where your stones have landed, placing next to each stone a flag with the corresponding number. There are an exceedingly large number of ways the stones could have landed. They had to land in some one way. You are looking at it. You are not surprised or shocked. You don't think a miracle has occurred because you are witnessing an event of exceedingly small probability. Some improbable event had to occur. Placing the flags next to the stones after the stones have fallen does not change these conclusions.

Now modify the situation. As before you have a field, stones, flags, and a helicopter. As before you take your helicopter and stones, and fly over the field, dropping the stones indiscriminately. But before you take off you first walk around your field and stick the flags in the ground at will. Having dropped the stones, you land the helicopter and now examine the field. Lo and behold, all the stones are next to their matching flags. Do you have a right to be surprised? Absolutely. When an extremely unlikely event matches a preset pattern, there is cause for surprise. In fact when such an event becomes too unlikely, one looks for non-probabilistic factors to account for it.

Because the event is improbable it is, therefore, “complex” according to Dembski.

Then consider this example: ID advocates say that ID is science because it can make predictions. Here is an example of one “prediction” made by ID[6]:

Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).

There are a number of points that could be made about this “prediction”. It lacks any (dare I say it?) specificity. It also is basically an after-the-fact prediction. The prediction was made fairly recently and certainly it has been known for a very long time that DNA, as one example, “contains many parts arranged in intricate patterns”.

But most importantly to the purpose of this post, they use the word “intricate” as in “intricate patterns”.

The “bait-and-switch” fraud is very evident. They use a single word in two very different ways depending on the point that they are trying to make.

Just another reason to reject ID as an explanation for anything.

[1] http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html, referenced on March 5, 2009
[2] Referenced on March 5, 2009
[3] William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield, 2002, p. 330
[4] Willian Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design, Intervarsity Press, 2004, p. 82
[5] William A Dembski, "Randomness By Design", p. 4
[6] http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/becbd98b35e8e07260d4e8e92784cbbb/miscdocs/thepositivecasefordesign_v3.pdf, referenced on March 6, 2009

Specified Complexity - part 2

“Specified Complexity” is, of course, the phrase that William Dembski uses to describe his method for discovering Intelligent Design.


William Dembski defines it with these words[1]:


“A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex (i.e., it conforms to an independently given pattern but is simple). A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified (i.e., it requires a complicated instruction-set to characterize but conforms to no independently given pattern). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.”


Note here that Dembski uses “complex” as “intricate”. A single letter is not “complex” but a long string of letters is complex.


Of course that is really the dictionary definition of “complex”. As evidence, here is the first definition of the word “complex” at http://www.dictionary.com[2/[2]:


“an intricate or complicated association or assemblage of related things, parts, units, etc.:”


But, Dembski also uses a different definition for “complex”. He says that it is a synonym for “improbable”. Here’s an example[3]:


“Something that is specified and complex is highly improbable with respect to all causal mechanisms currently known. Consequently, for a causal mechanism to come along and explain something that previously was regarded as specified and complex means that the item in question is in fact no longer specified and complex with respect to the newly found causal mechanism.” [emphasis added]


Also when giving examples of ways to recognize specified complexity, he uses examples that come from probability calculations. Here is another reference where he explains “complexity” as a type of probability[4]:


Probabilistic Complexity


Probability can be viewed as a form of complexity. To see this consider a combination lock. The more possible combinations of the lock, the more complex the mechanism and, correspondingly, the more improbable that the mechanism can be opened by chance....Complexity and probability therefore vary inversely; the greater the complexity, the smaller the probability. The complexity in specified complexity refers to improbability.


Here’s how one creationist explained it:


>> Within ID, the complexity of an object or an
>> event is a function of:

>> 1) Probability: the more improbable a thing is,
>> the more complex it is.
>> ...

A combination lock is indeed an example of a case where additional complexity adds additional improbability. But “improbable” things do not necessarily lack “intricacy”.

A perfectly blue sky is certainly less intricate than one filled with clouds. Yet in many places on Earth, the sky is rarely perfectly blue – in those places it is quite improbable to see a perfectly blue sky. I’ve been lucky enough to visit the Hawaiian Islands a dozen times. I don’t recall a single time when there weren’t a few clouds in the sky which cause additional intricacy. (Those clouds contribute to the beautiful sunsets that the Islands are so justifiably famous for.)

So at least in that example, improbability is actually the opposite of intricacy. There are a number of other examples.

The two definitions don’t really have anything to do with each other. Sometimes they are consistent with each other. Other times they are very inconsistent with each other.

So what’s going on?

What’s going on is that the ID advocates prefer that no one notice this inconsistency. They can use one definition when it is convenient and use the other definition when that alternative is more convenient.

In general “improbability” is used as the definition of “complexity” when trying to show examples of when and how we can recognize ID. But in other areas they arbitrarily decide to use “intricacy” as the definition of “complexity”.
First, here is an example from William Dembski where “improbability” is the definition of “complexity”[5]:

Rare events are a cause for surprise only if the timing is right. Imagine, for instance, that before you is a large, grassy field. You have 100 stones and 100 flags each marked from 1 to 100. With a helicopter you fly over the field, releasing the stones indiscriminately. After you have dropped your last stone, you land the helicopter safely away from the field, leave the helicopter on foot, and examine where your stones have landed, placing next to each stone a flag with the corresponding number. There are an exceedingly large number of ways the stones could have landed. They had to land in some one way. You are looking at it. You are not surprised or shocked. You don't think a miracle has occurred because you are witnessing an event of exceedingly small probability. Some improbable event had to occur. Placing the flags next to the stones after the stones have fallen does not change these conclusions.

Now modify the situation. As before you have a field, stones, flags, and a helicopter. As before you take your helicopter and stones, and fly over the field, dropping the stones indiscriminately. But before you take off you first walk around your field and stick the flags in the ground at will. Having dropped the stones, you land the helicopter and now examine the field. Lo and behold, all the stones are next to their matching flags. Do you have a right to be surprised? Absolutely. When an extremely unlikely event matches a preset pattern, there is cause for surprise. In fact when such an event becomes too unlikely, one looks for non-probabilistic factors to account for it.

Because the event is improbable it is, therefore, “complex” according to Dembski.

Then consider this example: ID advocates say that ID is science because it can make predictions. Here is an example of one “prediction” made by ID[6]:

Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).

There are a number of points that could be made about this “prediction”. It lacks any (dare I say it?) specificity. It also is basically an after-the-fact prediction. The prediction was made fairly recently and certainly it has been known for a very long time that DNA, as one example, “contains many parts arranged in intricate patterns”.

But most importantly to the purpose of this post, they use the word “intricate” as in “intricate patterns”.

The “bait-and-switch” fraud is very evident. They use a single word in two very different ways depending on the point that they are trying to make.

Just another reason to reject ID as an explanation for anything.

[1] http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html, referenced on March 5, 2009
[2] Referenced on March 5, 2009
[3] William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield, 2002, p. 330
[4] Willian Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design, Intervarsity Press, 2004, p. 82
[5] William A Dembski, "Randomness By Design", p. 4
[6] http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/becbd98b35e8e07260d4e8e92784cbbb/miscdocs/thepositivecasefordesign_v3.pdf, referenced on March 6, 2009

Specified Complexity - part 2

“Specified Complexity” is, of course, the phrase that William Dembski uses to describe his method for discovering Intelligent Design.

William Dembski defines it with these words[1]:

“A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex (i.e., it conforms to an independently given pattern but is simple). A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified (i.e., it requires a complicated instruction-set to characterize but conforms to no independently given pattern). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.”

Note here that Dembski uses “complex” as “intricate”. A single letter is not “complex” but a long string of letters is complex.

Of course that is really the dictionary definition of “complex”. As evidence, here is the first definition of the word “complex” at www.dictionary.com[2]:

“an intricate or complicated association or assemblage of related things, parts, units, etc.:”

But, Dembski also uses a different definition for “complex”. He says that it is a synonym for “improbable”. Here’s an example[3]:

“Something that is specified and complex is highly improbable with respect to all causal mechanisms currently known. Consequently, for a causal mechanism to come along and explain something that previously was regarded as specified and complex means that the item in question is in fact no longer specified and complex with respect to the newly found causal mechanism.” [emphasis added]

Also when giving examples of ways to recognize specified complexity, he uses examples that come from probability calculations. Here is another reference where he explains “complexity” as a type of probability[4]:

Probabilistic Complexity

Probability can be viewed as a form of complexity. To see this consider a combination lock. The more possible combinations of the lock, the more complex the mechanism and, correspondingly, the more improbable that the mechanism can be opened by chance....Complexity and probability therefore vary inversely; the greater the complexity, the smaller the probability. The complexity in specified complexity refers to improbability.

Here’s how one creationist explained it:

>> Within ID, the complexity of an object or an
>> event is a function of:

>> 1) Probability: the more improbable a thing is,
>> the more complex it is.
>> ...

A combination lock is indeed an example of a case where additional complexity adds additional improbability. But “improbable” things do not necessarily lack “intricacy”.

A perfectly blue sky is certainly less intricate than one filled with clouds. Yet in many places on Earth, the sky is rarely perfectly blue – in those places it is quite improbable to see a perfectly blue sky. I’ve been lucky enough to visit the Hawaiian Islands a dozen times. I don’t recall a single time when there weren’t a few clouds in the sky which cause additional intricacy. (Those clouds contribute to the beautiful sunsets that the Islands are so justifiably famous for.)

So at least in that example, improbability is actually the opposite of intricacy. There are a number of other examples.

The two definitions don’t really have anything to do with each other. Sometimes they are consistent with each other. Other times they are very inconsistent with each other.

So what’s going on?

What’s going on is that the ID advocates prefer that no one notice this inconsistency. They can use one definition when it is convenient and use the other definition when that alternative is more convenient.

In general “improbability” is used as the definition of “complexity” when trying to show examples of when and how we can recognize ID. But in other areas they arbitrarily decide to use “intricacy” as the definition of “complexity”.
First, here is an example from William Dembski where “improbability” is the definition of “complexity”[5]:

Rare events are a cause for surprise only if the timing is right. Imagine, for instance, that before you is a large, grassy field. You have 100 stones and 100 flags each marked from 1 to 100. With a helicopter you fly over the field, releasing the stones indiscriminately. After you have dropped your last stone, you land the helicopter safely away from the field, leave the helicopter on foot, and examine where your stones have landed, placing next to each stone a flag with the corresponding number. There are an exceedingly large number of ways the stones could have landed. They had to land in some one way. You are looking at it. You are not surprised or shocked. You don't think a miracle has occurred because you are witnessing an event of exceedingly small probability. Some improbable event had to occur. Placing the flags next to the stones after the stones have fallen does not change these conclusions.

Now modify the situation. As before you have a field, stones, flags, and a helicopter. As before you take your helicopter and stones, and fly over the field, dropping the stones indiscriminately. But before you take off you first walk around your field and stick the flags in the ground at will. Having dropped the stones, you land the helicopter and now examine the field. Lo and behold, all the stones are next to their matching flags. Do you have a right to be surprised? Absolutely. When an extremely unlikely event matches a preset pattern, there is cause for surprise. In fact when such an event becomes too unlikely, one looks for non-probabilistic factors to account for it.

Because the event is improbable it is, therefore, “complex” according to Dembski.

Then consider this example: ID advocates say that ID is science because it can make predictions. Here is an example of one “prediction” made by ID[6]:

Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).

There are a number of points that could be made about this “prediction”. It lacks any (dare I say it?) specificity. It also is basically an after-the-fact prediction. The prediction was made fairly recently and certainly it has been known for a very long time that DNA, as one example, “contains many parts arranged in intricate patterns”.

But most importantly to the purpose of this post, they use the word “intricate” as in “intricate patterns”.

The “bait-and-switch” fraud is very evident. They use a single word in two very different ways depending on the point that they are trying to make.

Just another reason to reject ID as an explanation for anything.

[1] http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html, referenced on March 5, 2009
[2] Referenced on March 5, 2009
[3] William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield, 2002, p. 330
[4] Willian Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design, Intervarsity Press, 2004, p. 82
[5] William A Dembski, "Randomness By Design", p. 4
[6] http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/becbd98b35e8e07260d4e8e92784cbbb/miscdocs/thepositivecasefordesign_v3.pdf, referenced on March 6, 2009

Monday, March 2, 2009

Religion 101 - Final Exam

The web page at http://tinyurl.com/yrctgf has alist of questions with the same subject as this post.

I will copy-and-paste the questions here.

1) Which of the following is the most compelling evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer?

a. A Caribbean sunset
b. The screams of a baby seal as it is torn apart by a shark
c. The first time your perfect new baby smiles at you
d. The speed of the Ebola virus converting an African child's organs into liquid

2) A deeply devout Catholic couple has just returned from their fiftieth anniversary celebration, when suddenly the husband falls to the ground, clutching his chest. What is the most productive action for the wife to take?

a. Call 911
b. Put him in the car and race to the hospital herself
c. Administer CPR
d. Fall on her knees and pray to the Lord to spare his life

3) You are a product tester and frequently bring your work home. Yesterday, while dressed in a flame resistant suit (up to 3,000 degrees) and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher, you discover your neighbor's house is on fire. As the flames quickly spread, you stand and watch your neighbor's new baby burn to death. Which of the following best describes your behavior?

a. All-powerful
b. All-knowing
c. All-loving
d. Mysterious

4) One day while jogging in the park, you see a maniac with a butcher knife about to attack a six-year old girl. Which would be the most morally proper action to take?

a. Grab the nearest rock and beat off the attacker
b. Call the police on your cell phone
c. Yell "POLICE!" and run toward the attacker in a threatening manner
d. Calmly walk away, because God works in mysterious ways, and what appears "evil" to our finite human mind, may in fact be part of a vaster plan in God's infinite mind, so it's best not to interfere

5) You are the incarnated Son of the all-powerful and all-loving Creator of the universe. What would be a good way to demonstrate your compassion and power?

a. Cure cancer forever
b. Cause all the earth's deserts to bloom with food crops
c. Unite the world with a common language and an end to poverty
d. Conjure up a jug of wine and follow it up by walking on water

6) Since we can never "know" whether or not a God exists - it is fundamentally a matter of "faith" - it's best to be a believer since you have nothing to lose, but everything to lose if your disbelief is incorrect. Keeping in mind that the fate of your soul depends on the right choice, in which God should you place your belief? For extra credit, include a brief essay justifying your choice, along with the reasons why you reject the other three.

a. Zeus
b. Quetzalcoatl
c. Vishnu
d. The Holy Trinity (*Note: Choice D assumes you were born around 400 A.D. or later, after the invention of the Trinity)

7) You are the Creator of the universe. Your chosen people are a tribe of nomadic herdsmen, presently in bondage on one of the millions of your planets. Their ruler is being quite obstinate. Keeping in mind that you possess not only infinite power but also infinite love, your best course of action would be to:

a. Cause the ruler to drop dead of a heart attack
b. Cause the ruler to fall off a cliff
c. Visit the ruler in a dream and persuade him to let your people go
c. Slaughter a great number of innocent babies who had nothing to do with the ruler's policies

8) You are a Starfleet Federation explorer in the process of cataloging two newly discovered planets. The majority of the inhabitants of each planet believe in a deity, but they are two different deities. Deity "X" is said to be not only all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing, but the designer of a marvelously complex and ordered world. Deity "Y" is said to be indifferent, absent, unconcerned with the affairs of his planet, and some even say evil. Which god rules over which planet?

Planet A: Has apparently achieved a state of advanced benign equilibrium in which there are no viruses or diseases, and only a very small number of natural disasters, which, when they do strike, always eliminate only the sinful and evil. The inhabitants, both plant and animal, have learned to maintain their existence through photosynthesis, and thus do not have to kill and eat each other in order to survive. There are no "birth defects;" every inhabitant comes into existence perfectly formed and equipped for a long and productive life.

Deity X_____
Deity Y_____

Planet B: Adorned with many examples of beauty and order, it is also constantly beset by hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, volcanoes, lightning bolts, viruses, disfiguring diseases, parasites, leeches, flies, crop-destroying pests and many other phenomena which afflict both the innocent and the evil. Every life form on the planet can only sustain its existence through the destruction and consumption of other life forms. Some of the inhabitants are born with a crippling condition called a "birth defect", which condemns them to living extremely limited, short, or painful lives.

Deity X_____
Deity Y_____

9) What is the number of children born without arms or legs that have been miraculously restored by a visit to the shrine at Lourdes, France?

a. Too many to count
b. Over 1,000
c. Several dozen
d. Zero, but only because their faith was not strong enough

10) As we all know, there is only one true religion. What is the one true religion in each of the following circumstances?

a. You are born in Karnak in 3000 B.C.
b. You are born in Bombay in 300 B.C.
c. You are born in Baghdad in 900 A.D.
d. You are born in Mexico City in 1956 A.D.

11) Although you are new at golf, you have just hit a beautiful 200-yard drive and your ball has landed on a blade of grass near the cup at Hole 3. The green contains ten million blades of grass. The odds of your ball landing on that blade of grass are 10,000,000 to one against, too improbable to have happened by mere chance. What's the explanation?

a. The wind guided it
b. Your muscles guided it
c. There is no need for an explanation
d. You consciously designed your shot to land on that particular blade

12) Which of the following is most likely to be true, and why?

a. Romulus was the son of God, born to a mortal human virgin
b. Dionysus turned water into wine
c. Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from the dead
d. Jesus Christ was the son of God, born to a mortal virgin, turned water into wine, and raised a man from the dead

13) Conceding that torture is permissible under certain conditions, which of the following would be the best justification?

a. Your prisoner is the only one who knows the date and time of an assassination attempt on the Pope
b. Your prisoner is the only one who knows where a nuclear device has been planted in Washington, D.C.
c. Your prisoner is the only one who knows where a vial of nerve gas has been placed in the London water supply system
d. Your prisoner has announced that the earth revolves around the sun

14) We know that Christianity is true because the Gospel writers, inspired by God who can make no error, recorded the founding events. For example, on the first Easter morning, the visitors to the tomb were greeted by which of the following:

a. A young man (Mark 16:5)
b. No, no, it was no man, it was an angel (Matthew 28:2-5)
c. You're both wrong, it was two men (Luke 24:4)
d. Damn it, there was nobody there (John 20:1-2)

15) According to inerrant Scripture, the Savior prayed alone in the garden while the three disciples who accompanied him had fallen asleep. How did the gospel writer know the words of that prayer?

a. Jesus left them written down under a rock
b. They were recorded on a primitive taping device
c. The gospel writer was psychic
d. The three disciples were later hypnotized and asked to recall the prayer

16) According to at least one sainted church father, one of the pleasures of the saved will be to behold the agony of the damned. What would be the best time of day in heaven for a mother to behold the agony of her only son?

a. Early in the morning before it gets too crowded
b. Mid-day when she can compare notes and share the celebration with other mothers
c. Late at night when she can enjoy the flames in starker contrast

17) In the Judeo-Christian tradition, we always look to the Bible as a guide. In this example, your teenage son has returned home from the prom intoxicated. The Bible's instruction is:

a. Sit him down for a heart to heart talk
b. Enroll him in AA
c. Take away his driving privilege for one month
d. Smash his head in with rocks

18) In this example, your son-in-law, returned from his honeymoon, has just told you he suspects your daughter was not a virgin on their wedding night. Wishing to abide by God's holy rules as laid out in the Bible, you should:

a. Ask him if he was a virgin before you do anything
b. Advise him to forgive her
c. Talk to your daughter
d. Go find those rocks

19) You are eating lunch at a crowded fast food restaurant, occupied mostly by children, when suddenly a gunman bursts in, screams "Do not question or test me," and sprays the room with bullets. Ten people are killed instantly, many more grievously wounded, but somehow you escape unharmed. His ammunition expended, the gunman collapses to the floor. What should you do?

a. Call the police and wait for them to arrive
b. Call the police and leave
c. Risk death by asking the gunman why he did it, even though he told you not to
d. Fall on your knees and give thanks and praise to the gunman for sparing your life

20) Why did God show his backside to Moses, as described in Holy Scripture, Ex.33:23?

a. He invented everything, and this was simply the first mooning
b. He was really ticked off when Moses dropped the tablets
c. He was piqued, having just discovered His almighty powers were useless against chariots of iron (Judges I:19)
d. Moses was too serious and needed to lighten up a little

21) Jesus was God, and God knows all things, including all the medical knowledge that will ever be known. Why did Jesus blame demons for the case of epilepsy he cured?

a. He was suffering from a temporary case of "brain freeze"
b. The Aramaic word for "demon" is the same as the word for "cranial malfunction"
c. Neurology was not his specialty
d. In first-century Palestine, demons really did cause epilepsy. This affliction only began to be caused by electrochemical brain activity after about 1850 A.D.

21) This morning's paper carries a story about a suburban father who became so enraged with his disobedient children that he carried them both to the backyard pool where he drowned them, along with their puppy, their kitten, and their hamster. How should this father be treated?

a. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law
b. He should be banished from the town
c. He should be lynched to save the taxpayers' money
d. The townspeople should gather together to sing hymns of praise to him

22) This morning I started my day by insulting my mother in public, then punched out my father, my brother, and my sister. Then I gathered up all my clothes, sold them to a second-hand store, and with the proceeds bought a used Uzi and 50 rounds of ammunition. Next, I went down to the animal shelter and injected all the dogs with a drug that caused them to go insane and dive into the nearby canal where they all drowned. By this time I was hungry, so I went over to my neighbor's apple orchard and burned it down, because I wanted an orange and there weren't any. On the way home, I stopped at the local steel mill to discuss my philosophy of life with some of the guys. They laughed at me and said to stow it, so I tossed them all into the blast furnace. That night I discovered my son looking at a copy of Playboy. Concerned for his future welfare, I cut off his right hand. What historical character did my activities today most resemble?

a. Genghis Khan
b. Charles Manson
c. Adolph Hitler
d. Jesus Christ

23) Down through the ages, who has been most responsible for the medical discoveries that have relieved untold amounts of suffering and pain, and extended the length of that most sacred of creations, human life?

a. Medical doctors
b. Research biologists
c. Chemists
d. The Catholic Church

24) A great sadness has come into your life which you feel you cannot bear. A friend informs you of a free counseling service which has never failed to aid and comfort many others. You call the counselor; the phone rings and rings with no answer; you finally hang up. What is the most likely explanation?

a. The counselor is sitting by the phone but not answering in order to test your faith in him
b. The counselor always stands ready to hear your pleas for help, but sometimes the answer is "no"
c. The counselor will not answer because he wants you to profit by the spiritual strength that only comes through suffering
d. The counselor is not home

25) ESSAY QUESTION
While it is true that there have been and still are many different gods and many different religions, they are really just the various names by which various cultures approach the same God. Explain how and why each of the following is the same God:

- Quetzalcoatl, who wants you to skin a young virgin alive, then put on the skin and dance;
- Shiva, who wants you to pray over his penis;
- Allah, who wants you to fly airliners into buildings;
- Catholic God; who speaks directly through the Pope;
- Baptist God, who most definitely does not;
- Jesus, who wants you to castrate yourself to ensure arrival in heaven
- Jehovah, who any day now, is going to kill everyone on the earth except for his Witnesses