Evolution, Creationism and the Argument From Authority Fallacy

Hello again. I'm writing this post because of another chat I had recently with a Creationist on twitter. It seems this keeps on happening.

The conversation took many strands, which is never ideal, but I'll try to summarize each one as best I can. 

One of the strands included a look at the Argument From Authority Fallacy (AFAF). The chap kindly directed me to a site which details the whole fallacy in detail.

The AFAF goes like this:

1. Person A is (or is assumed/claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes a claim C about S.
3. Therefore C must be true.

Unfortunately the chap I was chatting to failed to acknowledge much of the fallacy's components in his own argument.

One of the sites included a refutation of vestigiality. According to Dr. Jerry A Coyne, who is an authority on evolution, vestigiality is "diagnosed not by its usefulness, but because it no longer has the function for which it originally evolved" ['Why Evolution Is True' (2009)] 

Dr Coyne goes on to describe the fact that humans still have an extensor coccygis muscle attached to our coccyx. This is the exact same muscle which is found in monkeys and other mammals which have tails. In humans the muscle has no function despite it still being attached to our skeleton.

In the article on the Creationist site highlighted above, written by Dr Don Batten and Dr Jonathan Sarfati they state that: "it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future." This is clearly not true of the extensor coccygis muscle, unless of course humans have yet to grow tails. To be honest I wasn't sure I was inclined to read any more of this article, but I struggled on.

The next point to be raised was about why emus and ostriches are flightless despite having wings. The article suggests that: 

1. they derived from smaller birds which could once fly (which is one form of evolution the Drs claim is acceptable within the Creationist model.)
2. they do have a function other than flight.
3. the Creator uses the same model for all birds regardless, and therefore all birds have wings.

Dr Coyne does not disagree with the second point at all. In fact he explains the exact same thing from an evolutionary standpoint. Ostriches use their wings in courtship displays (as do other birds), and to maintain balance, (as do other birds), and to threaten its enemies, (as do other birds.) So in fact the ostrich has wings which perform all of the function of other birds' wings except flight... perhaps then  the problem isn't that the wings are badly adapted for flight, but that the rest of the bird isn't... but that's just my wacky idea!

All flightless birds have wings, but the kiwi has only tiny wings buried deep under its feathers which are just remnants of their flying ancestors' wings. Totally useless for any of the above adaptations.

When Drs Batten and Sarfati try to claim that the fact that a vestigial organ, or limb, undermines evolutionary theory they miss the point entirely. "Evolutionary theory doesn't say that vestigial characters have no function" says Dr Coyne, " It is vestigial not because it's functionless, but because it no longer performs the function for which it evolved... Indeed we expect that ancestral features will evolve new uses: that's just what happens when evolution builds new traits from old ones."

When you admit, as the Creationists do that the wings of the ostrich now have new functions besides flight aren't they saying that these changes are adaptations, and aren't adaptations part of the evolutionary process?

Further in the article the Creationists claim that it is only possible to devolve and not evolve. That means that in the Creationist model it is only possible for organisms to lose function and not evolve new traits which gain function. They argue that once a bird has devolved to become flightless it cannot re-evolve to regain its flight. This is possibly true. I personally don't think I know of any animal which has regained past lost abilities, but then I know that the process of evolution only works in the direction of conferring an advantage to the organism within its current surroundings. So if a bird needs to feed on the ground then it is likely to become flightless. Unless its source of food learns to live arboreally, or fly, the bird is unlikely to ever need to go back to flying! That's just how evolution works.

It's worth going back to the AFAF for a second and take a look at the two sides I've presented here. Dr Jerry Coyne holds a PhD in Evolutionary Biology which he gained from Harvard, one of the USA's premier universities and has authored over 115 refereed scientific papers. He is an authority on evolutionary biology. Now let's see what the other side looks like shall we?

Well... Dr Batten is a horticulturalist, and Dr Sarfati is a physical chemist. Neither of them have any qualifications in evolutionary biology and so are not authorities in the field of evolutionary biology.

So to quote the AFAF web page sent to me by the Creationist on twitter:

"This sort of reasoning (AFAF) is only fallacious when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context... If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable. It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on morality or politics." [my emphasis]

So the Creationist has already fallen foul of his own accusation aimed at me that, since I accept the truth of evolution I am committing the Argument From Authority Fallacy, and yet in actual fact, since the authorities I accept my information from are experts in their field I am not committing that fallacy at all... I am merely accepting the word of someone whose accomplishments in the context I am defending are beyond doubt. This is a valid exercise.

I was sent another link to an Answers In Genesis page the author  Dr David Menton (an anatomist not a paleornithologist - see above AFAF notes on relevant authorities) writes that Alan Feduccia, a noted paleornithologist has refuted the idea that birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs but if you go back a bit in the article you'll find this:"While evolutionists now agree that birds are related in some way to dinosaurs, they are divided over whether birds evolved from some early shared ancestor of the dinosaurs within the archosauria (which includes alligators, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, and thecodonts) or directly from advanced theropod dinosaurs (bipedal meat-eating dinosaurs, such as the wellknown Tyrannosaurus rex). " [my emphasis]

So... the article goes on to refute the line of thinking which brings us to an evolution from therapods, and does so quite eloquently and rather convincingly I have to say. Me being no expert and all that. However, I can read, and I noticed that the AIG writer rather skimmed over the line of thinking proposed by one, Alan Feduccia... where have we seen that name?... that birds are evolved from archosaurs. In fact, Prof Feduccia's inclusion in the AIG article is a classic tactic of the Creationist movement. They find the current widely accepted theories and find the one person amongst the throng who disagrees, then elevates them to great heights as the ultimate authority on the issue at hand. Feduccia is in the minority, but his ideas might have merit. Unfortunately for the Creationists Feduccia's main argument is that therapods and birds have a common ancestor in the archosaur, so that means whichever way you look at it modern dinosaurs (birds) did evolve from earlier species, the only contention is which one?

Several times during the AIG article we are told that dinosaurs are reptiles, which is actually a misleading statement, since most of them did not exhibit characteristics that are particularly reptilian at all. It makes you think of scaly, cold-blooded creatures with four legs and flicking tongues. However, most dinosaurs had skin, not scales, walked on two limbs not four and were likely warm-blooded and highly socialized. So comparisons between reptile lungs and avian lungs, and between scales and feathers are invalid. Birds are recognized today as being bona fide dinosaurs by the vast majority of ornithologists and paleontologists. The evidence is there for those who truly want to find it.

So, atheists/skeptics beware when looking at sites such as Answers In Genesis, because the tactics are to seem very technical and scientific, but what they don't tell you is more important than what they do tell you.. and more important still is who is telling you! When talking about the Argument From Authority Fallacy the theists' side of the fence are almost certain to be the biggest culprits, so when they tell you that you are the fallacious one, remember that you are far more likely to find sources appropriate to the argument/discussion than they are.

Thanks for reading. Please comment on this if I've missed anything or made any obvious mistakes.

                                                           ______________________

"Why Evolution Is True" by Dr Jerry A. Coyne was published in 2009 and is available at all good book shops.

Discussing Some Arguments For God

In this post I'd like to take a look at two arguments in the God-debate, the a posteriori argument from contingency and the a priori argument from necessity.

If you believe God exists you may be asking yourself why many other people do not notice him. So we should look at what there is about God which could reasonably lead us to notice him.

God is said to be an omnipotent being, so we could argue that not only should he just happen to exist, but he should have to exist. If his existence is happenstance (a contingency) then his existence is dependent on other factors, or is a freak one-off event, whereas if he is all-powerful and eternal then his existence rests solely on his own nature so that he must exist or everything else fails.

What is the essential difference between a contingent truth and a necessary truth?

Well, as the above statement about God shows, a contingent truth relies on other factors being true. For instance, you and I are contingent truths. For us to exist we rely on our parents bringing us into existence, and they on their parents in turn. When we look all the way back through history we see that even the Earth is reliant on several billion prior events for its formation to have occurred. It is a contingent truth. A necessary truth is different. The fact that the number 19 falls between 18 and 20 is a necessary truth, as is the fact that it is a prime number.

As a rule we do not encounter necessary truths in our day-to-day lives. They tend to be more abstract entities such as numbers which by themselves can have no direct impact on our world. God is not supposed to be an abstract entity. He is supposed to completely different to everything else we experience in our lives. He is an "other". Yet some people claim that such a being must exist against all the evidence to the contrary.


The Argument from Contingency

In the 17th Century there lived a German mathematician and philosopher named Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz is famously thought to have developed calculus at the same time, yet separately, as Sir Isaac Newton. and invented component parts to the world's first calculators, As part of his work in philosophy however, Leibniz developed seven principles promoted by Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Anaximander, one of which was the Principle of Sufficient Reason which states that "there must be a sufficient reason for anything to exist, for any event to occur , for any truth to obtain." Nothing is, therefore, without reason.

Leibniz admitted contingent truths on the basis of there being an infinite series of events to which God alone had knowledge of all but the final event, since the series is infinite after all. God, he said, must exist in order to explain the sequence of contingent truths leading up to the cause of our existence and beyond.

Leibniz was never tasked to answer whether his model included many gods working together, or a creator of the God he claimed must exist for us to, or whether the God continued to exist after we came to be, or whether the God he had in mind had any of the characteristics of the gods we have imagined over our species' lifetime.

Also, if the Universe's contents are contingent is there a reason to believe that the Universe itself is contingent? After all a car's parts cannot move along the road themselves, but together they can. Even further, if it is true that the Universe is in fact contingent why should we assume that the reason it exists is anything other than an accident?


The Argument from Necessity (the Ontological Argument)

The argument from necessity is ontological; it centers around what we know must exist. We do not need to prove the nature of everything in the world to prove the existence of God in the same way that we do not need to examine all of our surroundings to define the necessary properties of triangles. René Descartes, the philosopher famous for the line "I think, therefore I am" put forward an argument from necessity for the existence of God. Put simply this is it:

1. God has all of the perfections.
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore God must exist.

In order to decide whether the conclusion of an argument is true we usually have to make certain that the first and second premises of the syllogism are themselves true. In this case the first assumption is true and one could argue that the second is also, therefore we must conclude, must we not, that the conclusion is also true. So, why does this feel wrong?

Because it is.

What if you were to substitute "God" in the first line for "The Perfect Dragon", would the same conclusion, that of its existence not also be true? Since we all know that dragons do not exist*, and perfect ones most certainly do not, we know immediately that this argument is flawed.

Modern atheists will be familiar with the "work" of William Lane Craig, possibly our most famous proponent of the ontological argument. His more long-winded version of it goes something like this:

1. It is possible for a maximally great being to exist.
2. If a maximally great being does exist then it exists in a possible world.
3. If 2 is true then it exists in every possible world.
4. If 3 is true then it is possible that it exists in our world.
5. If 4 is true then it exists in our world.
6. Therefore a maximally great being exists.
7. God is a maximally great being, therefore God exists.

Why does Craig assume that this "maximally great being" is God? Well, this comes from the work of St Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. Anselm proposed that if one could conceive of the greatest ever being, then that being would be God. Whatever our imaginations could cope with, at the extreme edge of our thoughts of greatness would lie the essence of what God is. If we imagine another yet greater being then that being would be God.

The one flaw (among many) that is immediately obvious in Anselm's argument is it relies on what we can conceive as being the greatest ever  being, but as with all things which we can think of as the greatest ever, such as numbers, we can always add a bit more to the equation to gain a yet greater whole. It is therefore possible for a "greatest conceivable being" to exist in our Universe, but a greater being of which we cannot conceive, to exist in another yet greater Universe. If our Universe is an accidental by-product of the bigger Universe the whole thing falls apart.

Hence Craig's replacement of "greatest ever conceivable" with "maximally great". Craig's argument is no stronger than Descartes' original. In fact if anything, with the new parameters it seems to fall even flatter. Yes, it is possible for a god to exist, and yes it could exist in a possible world, but not necessarily in all worlds, nor in ours... so are we done here yet?

In neither argument for the existence of God presented here is the case proven conclusively, so the arguments only propose possibilities in a nice-sounding philosophical package. One says that a contingent Universe must have a central non-contingent overseer, or cause, whilst the other assumes the possibility of there being a God as proof that there is one.

So are we convinced by either of these? Personally, I would have to say no. So it's back to the drawing-board for you Mr Craig.

                                                         ____________________        

Neither of these arguments make an ounce of sense when you spend a few minutes reading this blog about it... although, that could be down to my inability to properly present the arguments in the first place of course. As always, feel free to send any corrections. Thank you for taking the time to read my blog... it means a great deal to me.



*Discounting Komodo Dragons of course.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Argument

In a recent chat with a Creationist he attempted to use the age old, and incorrect, assumption that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) renders Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (evolution) false. I did not engage with him because I wanted to think about my response, except to point out that the 2LoT applies only to closed systems, and the Earth is not closed. I suppose this blog article is my response. So...

It's probably a good idea to start with a brief explanation of what the 2LoT is and what it means for us before going too far into things.

The 2LoT states that the entropy of a closed thermodynamic system will always increase over time.

The Creationist argument stems from both a false definition of the word "entropy" and the incorrect idea that the Earth is a closed system.

The correct definition of entropy, with regards the science of thermodynamics, is that it is a quantitative measure of the total amount of energy not available to do work. So the 2LoT has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It simply deals with the transfer of heat energy. However Creationists use a different definition which applies to the science of statistics and probabilities, which is that entropy is a measure of the randomness, or disorder, in a closed system. Whether they do this in an attempt to deceive, or mislead followers is uncertain, but I'm sure that is the case.

Using the Creationist definition along with their incorrect assertion that the Earth is a closed system, we are told that randomness and disorder, of all the systems on the Earth, increases over time. Well, what does this mean for their argument?

Creationists believe that the 2LoT shows that the universe could not have appeared by chance from nothing*, and that likewise animate life could not have sprung up from inanimate, non-life. They think that the Law prevents this because as the entropy increases these new organisms would be wiped out before they had a chance to mature and diversify.

However, let's look at the argument the Creationists are putting forward...

1. God created the universe out of nothing, or from his "Word".
2. God created every animal we see around us today in their mature form, from nothing... including humans and no form of evolution has ever taken place.

It looks very much to me like the 2LoT argument they put forward to counter evolution is destructive to their own mythology.

As I mentioned above, the Earth is not a closed system. It receives heat and light energy (along with other sources of radiation) from the Sun, and radiates heat and light back out into space, not to mention the stuff we send up into orbit and beyond and the stuff which occasionally crashes onto its surface from deep space. So the 2LoT does not apply to the Earth directly. However, the idea that the universe as a whole is a closed system may have some merit. Even if the Earth were a closed system the idea that such systems always fall into disorder is inaccurate because we observe random dust clouds settling in space to form planets and all of us have seen what happens when you shake a snow-globe, right? Eventually it settles down and becomes orderly.

So the argument put forward by the Creationists not only refutes their own beliefs but it is also untrue with regards the nature of the Earth and its inhabitants, by their own (incorrect) definition.

It only remains to point out that if the Earth is a closed system as per the Creationists' argument I believe that the 2LoT goes on to support evolution. They simply haven't thought it through.

In a system with a constant increase in disorderliness the transfer of DNA from one organism to its offspring would result in ever increasing changes and errors, which perhaps could wipe out a species (and therefore all species) pretty quickly, but at any rate would alter the next animal down the line each time they procreated. This means that the offspring of any animal would be changed slightly, so the animal which stepped onto the Ark would have descendants which are very much different to it today. It would be relatively difficult to argue that the lineage has remained stable in the face of the Law, once you've stated that the Law dictates that a state of chaos is the result of time passing. Even if you were to argue that the disorderliness had some sort of pattern to it you would be in the same boat of having to explain why your theory of increased chaos doesn't apply to organisms.

This change over time is the very definition of evolution... the only difference is that science states that the mechanism for evolutionary change is not simply random, due to occasional disorderliness in the DNA transfer process, but it is also driven by the need to survive and pass on genetic information to offspring.

So the next time a Creationist suggests using the 2LoT as an argument against evolution there are two things to bear in mind. Firstly, that their definition of entropy has nothing to do with thermodynamics, and secondly that their definition (if the Earth were a closed system) seems to support the concept of evolution more than it refutes it.

I hope this has made some sense, and is useful to you should you ever come across the 2LoT argument yourself.

___________________

I must insist that if you find any errors in this article that you point them out to me publicly on twitter, using @UBlasphemist, or using the comments section. I don't get offended or precious over my work, so feel free to make your point known to me. I'll happily credit any corrections which pass muster.

I used a variety of books and online sources to write this piece, but the most important was IronChariots.org, the marvellous brainchild of members of the Atheist Community of Austin, home of Matt Dillahunty and the Atheist Experience TV Show.

* It is important to point out that the Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of the universe, or any lifeforms which may develop within it. It has nothing whatsoever to say about either of these two things.

Fundamentalists Are Confusing

Have you ever wondered why Fundamentalists go around making other people believe the way they do, often at the point of a sword, or the barrel of a gun?

Why is this?

If you believe that your god is the four-Os then this has to be what you think:

1. Your god is omniscient therefore it/he/she knows everything there is to know about everything... including ALL of your thoughts, aspirations, dreams, ideas and beliefs - good and bad.

2. Your god is omnibenevolent so everything that happens will eventually, even if you can't see it from your limited perspective as a human being, turn out for the best, according to your god's grand plan.*

3. Your god is omnipresent, so that along with his omniscience he is everywhere, at all times in the present, future and past. Your god is in everything, everywhere all at once.

4. Your god is omnipotent so nothing at all can ever happen without it's knowing about it, and it can create anything at any time, move whatever needs moving effortlessly, and bend the laws of science to its will.

If you don't believe these things with all your heart then you're not a Fundamentalist and in essence you are some watered down version of the ideal follower of your god.

So, let's break this down a bit more. The Fundamentalist believes that her god is omnipresent and omniscient, yet she still prays to it. Why? If the god is truly all-knowing and ever-present there'd be no need whatsoever to utter a word of praise (if you cherished it truly), or utter a wish, or voice a thought, desire, need or idea. A god who literally knows everything you think, at all times and in all possible timelines, knows everything you could possibly think or say... so a prayer is, or can be interpreted as, a demonstration that you do not trust your god implicitly.

Further to that, if you think your god is perfect and all-powerful (omnipotent), then you must believe that everything is exactly the way your god wants it to be. Your god wants the Earth to be 4.54 billion years old. He wants it to be full of evolving organisms. He wants us to be sentient of our sentience. He wants a quarter of our population to be homosexuals, and he wants other people to have their own beliefs and ideas. So if you, for one second, think that any of these things are not true or not correct (sinful) then you are essentially telling your god that you, yes you, know better than him!

Given that Fundamentalists do still go around telling people that this and that is blasphemous and that their god dictates such and such, with absolutely no idea of what a god would even look like, never mind what it wants, then these people are not true believers at all! In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they believe the dogma, but reject the idea of their god entirely in favour of their own system of beliefs.

So the next time you see the work of one extremist group or another on the TV and someone says that they don't represent the particular religion they claim to represent, they might just have a point. If they were true Fundamentalists, then they'd be sitting at home with their children without a care in the world, minding their own business and looking after their friends and families. They'd be safe in the knowledge that everything was precisely the way their god wanted it to be and everything would turn out just fine as long as they were true to themselves and good to others.

That is a true Fundamentalist.


*I will cede that not everyone agrees that a god needs to be benevolent.

Let's say God created everything...

How many times have you heard Christians claim that their god, Yahweh, created everything?

Well, for the sake of argument, let's say their god did create the universe. How many alternatives can you think of to the standard scriptural model of a god who is still present and looking after it?

I can think of quite a few, and I'd challenge any theist to find evidence to disprove me (since they insist we disprove their ideas.)

1. God created the universe and everything in it... but died in the process.
2. God created the universe etc... but moved on to design and build another one, leaving this one to fend for itself.
3. God created etc...  but gave it to his younger brother to look after.
4. God etc... but cannot interact with it because he moved onto a different plane of existence.
5. God etc... but it was considered a failed experiment and is currently in a room somewhere awaiting destruction.
6. God etc... but was part of a research and development team working for a corporation which is using it to power their offices.
7. God etc... but the universe is a component of a much larger machine.
8. God etc... but the universe is the result of a weapon which he activated as part of a multidimensional war.
9. God etc... created it by accident... whilst cooking a Victoria Sponge in his new quantum oven. (courtesy of @CrispySea)

In all of these scenarios the same god created the same universe but is not interacting with it anymore.

Which brings us to the other claim made by Christians that we have to worship their god by way of thanks for creating us... If any of these scenarios are correct, why are they worshiping the absentee? Clearly there is nobody there to make any changes, or answer prayers, or cast anyone to a fiery hell.

The failure of the theist isn't so much believing the nonsense he got sold by his church pastors... it's not imagining the range of alternatives open to him.

Hello... and welcome to my new blog!

Hi... my name is Universal Blasphemist. So-called because as an atheist, and staunch anti-theist, I would be considered a blasphemer in all religions. This is my new blog.

A few things you should know ahead of time.

1. I like bullet-pointed lists.
2. I like the term atheist and consider labels to be important. I don't care if you don't.
3. I err towards changing minds rather than insulting people.
5. I like to maintain an air of mystery.
6. I write sporadically and often miss weeks on end, simply because I have too much going on.
7. I am Welsh and revert to speaking in Welsh when I'm angry with someone, or something.
8. I am in my 40s, overweight and a fibromyalgia experientialist.
9. I prefer people who spotted there's no number 4 in this list and are bothered by it.

That's all I feel I should explain at this point. So, if, as time goes on, you want to know more, I suggest coming back to find out... or just ask me at @UBlasphemist on twitter.

I'm currently writing a really long blog post on street epistemology... but it's taking absolutely ages, so in the meantime, to save me having to write it at all you could just go out and buy, rent, loan, steal (maybe not steal) a copy of Dr Peter Boghossian's book "A Manual For Creating Atheists" or check out Anthony Magnabosco's delicious videos on YouTube.  The consumption of both is time well spent.

I'll also be aiming to get all philosophical about other subjects which might help in debates with theists such as the Biblical Creation, logical problems with the Christian god(s) and the existence of Jesus. I'll also hit the bell on subjects such as Islam and Buddhism and even a few pages on pseudoscience, tarot reading, my favourite podcasts, people from the atheist movement and some interesting books I've found along the way.

On that note, if you're there thinking that everything you read these days is the same old shit and everyone seems to be writing vampire stories, or teen-angst crap, or books about the trials of shopping and want a new, intelligent and often disturbing book which might keep you up all night because the act of putting it down will seem dirty and sinful you should try "21 days in May" by CrispySea... it'll turn your blue eyes brown again... or some shade of black that Dulux hasn't gotten round to describing yet.

I'm not all about the plug... but since I do like it when other people get to like the stuff I like I'd feel remiss if I didn't tell you all where to go... in a manner of speaking!

Cheers

Use the links to the right of your screen to navigate my posts, alternatively use the archive at the bottom of each page. Bye.

Come back soon... miss you already...

:)