One of the arguments that those defending evolution and good science continually have to fend off is the absurdity that is "irreducible complexity," the old argument of Paley that was dusted off and reinvigorated by Michael Behe. This argument has many manifestations, but at heart they are similar forms of the same basic idea. The young earth creationist points to something in nature, such as the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting system in humans or the human brain to give a few examples, and argue that it is too complex to be the product of evolution by natural selection. Therefore it must be, in the mind of the creationist, a fine example of design by a Creator of the young earth/ literal Genesis type. Within the last week or so two more of these so-called examples were brought to my attention by creationists eager to demonstrate that my acceptance of evolution is wrong, wrong, wrong.
A few days ago, I was sent another one of those horrible Creation Moments daily pieces, denying that the whale evolved (even with the wealth of fossils of whale ancestors) because it is "very clear" that they never lived on land. It is implied but not directly stated that the whales are "designed" for life in the sea. But if that were so, what about the fossils demonstrating the evolution of the whale from earlier, land-based mammals? If whales are "designed" for their environment, then why do they need to surface for air? Surely a wise Creator of the young earth variety would give the whale gills like many other denizens of the sea?
I had forgotten that I'd tackled a Creation Moments before dealing with music. I tried to demonstrate that music could have resulted from evolution, just like every other feature of the natural world. I'd forgotten that I'd written it, that is, until someone decided to take issue with it, commenting that my argument is completely wrong, that music is too complex to have evolved for courtship purposes.
Quick! Someone tell the birds that they should stop singing, because music is too complex to have evolved!
Many pieces of music may be very complex; there is no doubt in my mind that playing Chopin on the piano is hard. Trust me, I took piano lessons for a decade, and the rapid motions required of many of Chopin's pieces is beyond my limited skill. That is, however, different from the question as to whether or not music is too complex to have evolved. It isn't.
We see musical ability in humans, in birds, crickets and in whales. It is a method of courtship, akin to the dance of the bird of paradise (also "too complex" to have evolved, I'm sure), a way of communicating and defending one's own territory. But it evolved, and it is not overly complex. Most of us can whistle a tune as we walk; many birds are recognizable by their calls, simple and repetitive. A tune that I whistle when I walk or the call of a bird isn't exactly the same as Handel. The argument is wrong; musical ability in a professional musician is different from music itself.
This brings us back to the central point. Complexity is evolved while design is perceived. As Dawkins puts it, what we see in nature is the illusion of design, not design. Of course dolphins and whales look perfectly designed for their environment, as do reindeer and polar bears. But where creationists perceive design they are really seeing the product of evolution. Organisms are not frozen in time, exactly as they've been for all time. Life is continually evolving in response to changes in environment. When we look at nature, what we are seeing are the winners of the moment, those organisms that have successfully adapted to where they live. The "losers" didn't make it; that is why we see organisms that appear to have been "designed" to perfectly suit their surroundings. The evidence, for those open to it, is so beyond doubt at this point that to continue to insist that all life was "designed" by the Creator god of Genesis within the last six thousand years is foolish at best.
Are there complexities in nature? Yes, absolutely. Does this indicate design in nature, or more aptly is this evidence that the creationists are right? No, absolutely not.
A few days ago, I was sent another one of those horrible Creation Moments daily pieces, denying that the whale evolved (even with the wealth of fossils of whale ancestors) because it is "very clear" that they never lived on land. It is implied but not directly stated that the whales are "designed" for life in the sea. But if that were so, what about the fossils demonstrating the evolution of the whale from earlier, land-based mammals? If whales are "designed" for their environment, then why do they need to surface for air? Surely a wise Creator of the young earth variety would give the whale gills like many other denizens of the sea?
I had forgotten that I'd tackled a Creation Moments before dealing with music. I tried to demonstrate that music could have resulted from evolution, just like every other feature of the natural world. I'd forgotten that I'd written it, that is, until someone decided to take issue with it, commenting that my argument is completely wrong, that music is too complex to have evolved for courtship purposes.
Quick! Someone tell the birds that they should stop singing, because music is too complex to have evolved!
Many pieces of music may be very complex; there is no doubt in my mind that playing Chopin on the piano is hard. Trust me, I took piano lessons for a decade, and the rapid motions required of many of Chopin's pieces is beyond my limited skill. That is, however, different from the question as to whether or not music is too complex to have evolved. It isn't.
We see musical ability in humans, in birds, crickets and in whales. It is a method of courtship, akin to the dance of the bird of paradise (also "too complex" to have evolved, I'm sure), a way of communicating and defending one's own territory. But it evolved, and it is not overly complex. Most of us can whistle a tune as we walk; many birds are recognizable by their calls, simple and repetitive. A tune that I whistle when I walk or the call of a bird isn't exactly the same as Handel. The argument is wrong; musical ability in a professional musician is different from music itself.
This brings us back to the central point. Complexity is evolved while design is perceived. As Dawkins puts it, what we see in nature is the illusion of design, not design. Of course dolphins and whales look perfectly designed for their environment, as do reindeer and polar bears. But where creationists perceive design they are really seeing the product of evolution. Organisms are not frozen in time, exactly as they've been for all time. Life is continually evolving in response to changes in environment. When we look at nature, what we are seeing are the winners of the moment, those organisms that have successfully adapted to where they live. The "losers" didn't make it; that is why we see organisms that appear to have been "designed" to perfectly suit their surroundings. The evidence, for those open to it, is so beyond doubt at this point that to continue to insist that all life was "designed" by the Creator god of Genesis within the last six thousand years is foolish at best.
Are there complexities in nature? Yes, absolutely. Does this indicate design in nature, or more aptly is this evidence that the creationists are right? No, absolutely not.
Maybe we should start explaining everything to them in terms of Quantum-Mechanics and General Relativity? Those two are practical models of the Unified Field Theory (which we have yet to find), and all other theories are merely practical models of their assertions.
ReplyDeleteIf either of the sets of equations allows for something to occur, then it does. If not, then it doesn't happen. This of course being as fare as we have yet tested.
No observation yet exists to the contrary of their assertions (as far as we know), except their contradictions of each other. We can however use Quantum theory to govern the small and general relativity to govern the massive. In this way, we can have an accurate model of the universe that doesn't predict absurdities.
If we can get them to understand the concept of practical models, maybe then they'll understand that evolution is mandated for all things that self replicate.