The Uncomfortable Truth

When I was a young boy I had a horrible and haunting experience. It was a few days after my seventh birthday, and I was awoken by the sound of my Grandad calling my Nan from the bottom of the stairs. I ran to see what I could do. 

He was stood there with blood all down his lips, neck and chest. To my innocent eyes it looked like a very bad nosebleed. I ran to tell my Nan about the nosebleed, and it was this fact which she took at face value. Grandad was having a nosebleed. The tissues were in the kitchen. I should go off to tell him. She would follow on in a bit. No big deal.

A few minutes later I was kneeling on the blood-soaked floor of the kitchen, cradling my beloved Grandad, as he died. His eyes were begging me to help him. There was nothing I could do but hold him.

I finally came to terms with this in my late thirties.

When I was 19, I met with a psychologist who explained how my tendency to run the incident through in my mind could have been shut off by grief therapy, had it existed when I was seven. Later still, another counsellor asked me to honestly ask myself what a seven-year-old me could have done... really? The honest answer was nothing, but that fact took a while to sink in.

You see, the problem is that as I got older, and studied more about first aid, First Response & pre-hospital emergency care, in these increasing levels of complexity, I saw that incident from a more and more informed perspective. I lost sight of the fact that I was only a seven year old kid, with none of the knowledge I gained as I grew up.

This 'Grandad's Death Apologism' ultimately led me to have some serious delusions about how his demise was my fault, because I didn't perform some, now, routine actions which may have saved him. Such as recognizing that it wasn't an epistaxis for starters!

An astute reader will already know where this story is headed. This is a blog about religions and their follies after all. So, where do we usually find events recorded by ill-informed, scientifically ignorant authors whose stories are later retold from more modern and complex perspectives as more information becomes available?

Yes... The Holy Bible.

The job of the Christian Apologist is to deny the actual words of the authors, the stories within the text as seen through primitive eyes, and make up new ideas to explain what they meant, and why the stories actually meant something other than what they say.

Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a text by Aaronid "Priestly" scribes of the 6-5th centuries BCE, writing around the time of or just after the Jewish exile in Babylon, whose Yahweh speaks everything into being from some pre-existing materials, such as space, water and soil. Meanwhile, Gen 2:4b-Gen 3:24 is a text two hundred years older, written by Elohists who were following their tradition of Yahweh moulding humans, animals and plants out of the earth, clearly more from an agricultural perspective.

These texts actually have messages all of their own, but modern Creationists cannot bear to accept that these are from two traditions, which if taken at face value, clearly demonstrate that Yahweh is a human literary construction, used as 'Priestly Propaganda'! Instead, they have to find a way to construct a narrative that explains how the second, older story is a clarification of a period within the first, younger story, and tells us that they are both, in fact, telling a single story.

They are rewriting the story from a point of view of having both an agenda and a new set of data. Just as I did with my Grandad's death.

When you fail to take a story, or an account of an event, at face value, and forget the knowledge level of its author(s), or participants, you diminish your ability to objectively analyse the truth of it. If you're not 100% honest in your dealing with Bible texts, you relinquish any claim you have of understanding some 'arcane knowledge' or 'hidden truths' held within the text.

I didn't know about pulmonary pathologies, traumatic cardiac events, haemostatic techniques, CPR, or Stroke management when I was seven. I had to be honest about that before I could recognize the truth of my Grandad's death. If you're honest about the Creation myths of the Bible, you must accept that they inadvertently undermine the veracity of your god claim... in short, they explain the circumstances in which you can be certain your god isn't real... and never was. 

This is the uncomfortable truth!

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.

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.

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.