Pastor Mike Peddles more Palaver

Well, my brother Pastor Mike is at it again, peddling more palaver at his site. Now it seems he intends to set one and all straight about the "real" aims of evolution, and exactly why a preponderance of scientists support it. Let's take a look-see at some of his codswallop in terms of an exercise in critical thinking.

He begins his sermon with:

"The obvious reason that so many scientists endorse the theory of macroevolutionary process as the best explanation for life origins and development here on earth is because they really believe such to be the case . But is that true , really ? Is it possible that there's a lot more to the story than meets the eye ? "


Now, first of all it is not a matter that scientists simply "believe" it. The nature of belief is faith in the absence of evidence, but scientists have tons of it to support evolution. In one of the most powerful ever demonstrations of the validity of evolution, Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy', showed that the human chromosome designated '2' was the result of the telomeric fusion of the two ape chromosomes, 2p and 2q. The effect also saw the reduction from 24 chromosome pairs in apes, to 23 pairs in humans.

Those who wish to avail themselves of comprehensive evidence to show common descent - the keynote concept ot macro-evolution, can go to:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Of course, the problem in teaching evolution, is that most people who comment (like Pastro Mike) or even students - don't grasp it at the molecular or genetic level. Hence, they talk (or write) too much offal and gibberish.

In each of the molecular cases cited in the link material, the particular alteration results in subtle changes in the coding of information, or the transfer of information. These molecular changes therefore act as sources of genetic variation, and ultimately evolution if the change is reinforced by natural selection. And this makes it feasible to trace back species lineages using comparisons at the molecular level, viz. different segments of chromosomes for suspected related species. Thus evolution is observed, and it is fact - not merely "theory" (which most of the ignorant confuse with speculation!)

This also means that "creationism" cannot also be true. Creationism is a pabulum developed for naive minds - such that the elements are simplistic enough for them to grasp at a primitive level. But that doesn't make it "true".

Pastor Mike next quotes a contrarian, and in fact most of his "sermon" amounts to a quote-fest, with very little of his own input (so I will not repeat all of it):

Wayne Friar , Ph.D.,Resource Associate for Science and Origins , says this :

"Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community , especially evolutionary leaders today , hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews , these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life , especially humans.

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator . If one starts with Darwinism , certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God . Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science . "

Of course, atheism doesn't "need" evolution at all to expose religious belief for the non-starter it is. Simple logic can suffice. I’ve often been asked how exactly one rationally arrives at a position of atheism – as opposed to say, agnosticism. The recurring questions set me to the task of identifying rationalist principles and then showing, if they were faithfully applied to most theistic claims, one would be led to a position of implicit atheism. This isn’t the outright “denial” of a God, but rather the simple withholding of belief in such to render the claim and underlying entity redundant.

I’d like to outline this approach here, in terms of four overriding principles:

i) Ockham’s Razor, which inheres at the heart of scientific hypothesizing. That is, given two competing hypotheses the one with the fewest ad hoc assumptions is closest to the truth.

ii) The probability test of philosopher David Hume- that reads: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."

iii) The ignotum per ignotius test for logical fallacy. Ignotum per ignotius means “invoking the LESS well understood to explain the not well understood.”

iv)The fundamental principle for all exotic (or "obscurantist") claims: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”.

Let’s now apply these to a number of cases to see how they work. I will start with the claim for “soul”. Given two hypotheses – one which uses simple observations of consciousness (e.g. See Daniel Dennett’s ‘Consciousness Explained’) and one which posits “soul” in addition, which is to be preferred? Obviously, that which excludes “soul”, since it unnecessarily complicates the issue. In addition, invoking “soul” violates the ignotium per ignotius test. Indeed, religionists have not even offered an operational definition for “soul”, and until they do so there is small likelihood they can provide extraordinary evidence for it!

What about “God”? All the same aspects apply. Consider the question posed by the late astronomer Carl Sagan in the “Cosmos” episode, ‘The Edge of Forever’. He asks: “How did the universe begin?” He interjects, “Some will say ‘God made it’, but then WHO made God?” He argues that rather than inviting an “infinite regress” of cause, the simplest action was simply to leave “God” out of the causal nexus. Thereby we satisfy all the principles (i)- (iii).

Is Sagan justified? Consider that adding “God” into the mix doesn’t enhance cosmological data or predictions one iota. Nor does it refine the tensor equations. Clearly it amounts to a redundancy.

Lastly, consider the claim of a miracle: Jesus “walking on water”. Prof. Hugh Schonfeld has a simple explanation for this: a mistranslation of the Hebrew word “al” which can mean “by” or “on”. So, when a scribe really wrote “walking by the water” it was translated to “walking on the water”.

Now let us apply the Hume test (ii). Is the Schonfeld claim of mistranslation MORE or LESS miraculous than a man actually violating the law of gravity and walking on water? It doesn’t require a lot of thought or effort to see that the mistranslation of a passage of the New Testament is LESS miraculous (or if you prefer, less improbable) than that a man actually, literally walked on water.

Thus, even the most basic atheism doesn't require evolution to "escape" implications reagrding a creator - because there aren't any! Neither Pastor Mike nor his cohort have demonstrated the most meager evidence that such a creator exists. Yes, it is true that now primitive creationsism has been replaced by the more sophisticated Intelligent Design (ID), but even that doesn't get the job done. It is more a non-answer. Or what we call a "Macguffin" in fictional writing.

ID’s claim of “irreducible complexity” or “intelligent design” is actually pseudo-science not genuine science. The central problem of ID, is that though its muddled adherents make multiple fusses about some particulars to do with evolution's evidence - they never come up with ID's presumed unique evidence to support its claimed "irreducible complexity". Any time they do, the real scientist can show a process whereby the same structure, organism can be better explained by a combination of natural selection, adaptation over time.

Ultimately, the problem for ID, when you strip away the scientific jargon and window dressing, is that its base premise comes down to the logical fallacy of: ignotum per ignotius (‘seeking to explain the not understood by the less well understood”). In this case, attempting to account for alleged "failures" of evolution or some claimed aspects not yet fully explained by to totally unknown constructs (e.g. ‘supernatural’ or unknown "designer") .This isn't science, it's hogwash, supernaturalist drivel disguised in the wardrobe of science. As Richard Dawkins points out the fallacy in all ID reasoning:

“This kind of default reasoning leaves completely open the possibility that, if the biological structure or organism is too complex to have evolved, it might also be too complex to have been created.”

Until ID’s proponents establish a base of facts and evidence unique to itself – preferably in the context of publishing in established scientific journals – it will remain rank speculation. Along the lines of little green men surveying the Earth in flying saucers.In the end, “irreducible complexity” (which is the specious basis of ID) inevitably amounts to a cop-out argument from ignorance.

Because a structure (e.g. eardrum) or process (origin of life from inanimate matter) appears difficult from the inferior vantage point of the percipient, it’s automatically assumed that no scientific appeal can be made. No model, however remotely probable, can be offered. Thus “intelligent design” is latched on to as a “god of the gaps”.

But history shows how absurd such an approach is. For example, ball lightning used to be assumed to be a supernatural manifestation until its static electrical nature was exposed. Same thing with ‘St. Elmo’s fire’ appearing near the yard arms of ships. Diseases like plague were believed caused by "malefic influences" or even demons, until the microbial basis of pathogens was revealed by the use of microscopes.

All these and more disclose that a long record of scientific history exists to demonstrate the wisdom of the materialist- physicalist view. And why special, ad hoc causes, exceptions are to be dismissed as unfounded. This is what’s wrong with all “design” or “supernatural” appeals. They preemptively halt inquiry just as it’s beginning to get interesting.

Rather than following the lines of scientific thought, with the objects of scientific inquiry available, the “design” proponent wants to leap to his supernatural Macguffin which, by definition, can never be exposed to verification, falsification, or even the most general hypothesis test. We are simply asked to accept (on faith) this or that structure is "too complex" and had to issue from a (unspecified) "designer".

Though nouveau creationist advocates like Pastor Mike bandy about words like “design” and “designer” they are yet unable to state clearly what this entity is. Is it some kind of deity? (If so, they are definitely in the realm of religious dogma). Is it a space alien from Tau Ceti, or Zeta Reticuli? Is it an invisible, inter-dimensional “essence”? They can’t even specify their “designer” so why should we take it any more seriously than the tooth fairy or elves?

If the proponents of “irreducible complexity” want to be taken as more than religious preachers, let them explicate their designer. In what conditions (or not) does it operate? To have a genuine counter theory, one must provide a positive hypothesis and observational infrastructure – not merely attempt to negate the existing prevailing theory by myriad cheap potshots. That's a cop out. As Robert Shapiro has noted ( ‘Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth’, Bantam, 1986, p. 257):

“Anomalies, artifacts and deficiencies exist in every scientific field. A certain level is expected, as part of the normal practice of science. However, their existence doesn’t mean the entire field or theory is expendable. Nor can the collected anomalies support the Creationists main idea”

The creationist-ID finger-pointing about evolution's deficiencies would be analogous to me finding fault with umpteen aspects of Einstein's general relativity, and then somehow imagining that this recitation of negativity alone constitutes a genuine alternative theory. It doesn't, it only shows I have bones to pick with Einstein's theory. Ditto with the ID naysayers and their ilk in regard to evolution.

Pastor Mike's final bit of claptrap takes the cake:

"Scientists see the evidence for creation , and they see it clearly , but peer pressure, financial considerations , political correctness , and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing. And so , the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself . "

As noted from the earlier discussion, there is NO evidence for creationism or ID, only assorted negative slams against evolution absent of proiducing unique evidence published in peer-reviewed journals. The "peer pressure" gambit is as lame as insisting Bigfoot witnesses are victimized by their poor eyesight. The only peer pressure on qualified professional scientists, indeed, is that they meet the stringent requirements and criteria for publication in the professional journalis. In other words, you can't just write anything based on hunches, you must provide substantive support for claims. This is something creationists like Pastor Mike will never learn.

The final bit of chutzpah to his screed is the assertion that it is rigorous scientific discipline that is responsible for "the illogical origins myth of modern society". However, the real truth is that it is the off the wall irrationality of the believers, and their dedicated obscurantists that is taking us pell-mell into a new dark age.

For a frightening look at what awaits, please read Morris Berman's book, "Dark Ages America".


Of course, to those like Pastor Mike, a New Dark Age would be welcome. After all, his site doesn't even allow powerful responses unless he first vets them to determine if they are consistent with his message. How good does it get? In a new Dark Age, Pastor Mike and his all his close-minded ilk will act as the ultimate gate-keepers for all information, to the extent of determining which books get published and which don't.

Can this really occur? Perhaps not. But the signs are not very hopeful.