Creationism vs Evolution (Part I)

The Creationist Periodic Table of Elements. There's no doubt, creationism, or intelligent design (ID) is reaching new levels of popularity (and hilarity) in today's world. In fact, just last week I recieved an unwanted snail-mailed publication called "Last Generation" which has a substaintial creationist bent.

Even fellow bloggers have went to bat in support for this "alternative theory". Such as Volokh.

In any case, many supporters of "ID" claim that: "it posits something that may or may not be true (organisms "look like they were designed because they were designed," to quote one proponent of the intelligent design school, UC Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson) -- and that is in fact more plausible to many people than evolution is."

Now, however tempted I am to go on a diatribe pointing out this is a law professor, not a professor in the sciences, I won't. I'll just leave it at that.

Should we decide whether to teach things because they're "plausible" to people? Of course not. Most people think it's plausible that "F=mv", (That is, Force=motion * velocity) because they need to exert a constant force to keep a body in motion on a frictional surface. We disabuse them of this notion because we've learned by hard experience that, actually, "F=ma", (That is, Force=motion * acceleration) and that "F=mv" only seems to explain the case of a block on a frictional surface. The difference between "F=ma" and "F=mv" is the difference between a bridge that collapses and a bridge that stands.

Evolution, like physics and all other sciences has mathematics at its core. As we all know mathematics is based on a system of axioms that are (in principle) independent of the outside world, while ID is a statement about the outside world.

ID is analogous to this same misconception that produced "F=mv". Like "F=mv", it is manifestly false because it provides no explanatory value. What does the "theory" of ID predict? NOTHING - it simply provides a post facto rationalization for some of the processes observed in biology. Just like "F=mv" vs. "F=ma", ID chokes on those cases that are explained elegantly by the theory of evolution. ID's "answer" is always the same:

1. Observe overwhelming sequence similarity at the molecular scale? The designer put it there.
2. Observe a convoluted molecular mechanism that seems to waste energy? The designer put it there.
3. Observe the same process implemented in hundreds of different ways? The designer put it there.

Contrast these to the explanations offered by biology:

1. Observe overwhelming sequence similarity at the molecular scale? Molecular Phylogenetics.
2. Observe a convoluted molecular mechanism that seems to waste energy? Explantion of photorespiration.
3. Observe the same process implemented in hundreds of different ways? Convergent Evolution.

Even supporters of ID must admit that the only reason it is clung to like a dog on a milkbone is to keep from sinking into a sense of nihilism when they realize that God may very well not be in control - and indeed regulated to the level of superstition.

A New Look

Well, I've decided to revamp the look of this humble blogging-project.

If you don't like it; then too bad, because I do. ; )

Minor Freakout

Take a long, hard look at that image.

Yes.

I know.

It's nasty.

But that's the result what I have to look foward to with my upcoming tonsillectomy. That's of course, after the the scabs fall out - and apparently all blood drains from ones mouth.

Why am I getting the vague feeling that this whole tonsillectomy venture may not be worth it?

Don't get me wrong, I'll still do it, I'll man up, and won't even ask for directions to the hospital.

Which brings us to todays topic: manliness.

What defines it in todays shifting culture?

Well, according to Harvey Mansfeld, the appropriately named author of the book "Mannliness" essentially defines manliness as confidence in the face of risk. He also makes the assersation that feminism has hijacked this very essence. "Men are still free to be manly; but there's no justification for it, no welcome for it, no respect for it."

He may be right. Yet, at the very core of feminism isn't an anti-masculine approach, its simply working from a hypothesis of gender-equality. Thus, the shrinkage of manhood may not be due to the ideals of feminism, but the practices. Which, by and large, are based on rejecting "traditional" feminine roles in favor of more masculine ones - from occupations to the family.

Of course, I'm not suggesting women be turned away from high positions in business or elsewhere. However, one must ask themselves why adopting the traits of say, a more powerful "group A" over a less powerful"group B" empowers that "group B". Is it so much of a "man's-world" that women must, at least in some form, become men? Is it, alternately, so much of a "straight's-world" that gay couples must marry?

I would say, in an ideal world, all groups and individuals could simply affirm their equality and move on. Yet, that's hardly, if ever, the case. Can "Group A" so overpower a culture's practices that there seems no other way besides their way? Could the overwhelming desire to adopt a more powerful groups practices stem from a need to "legitimize" oneself, or does it just stem from a lack of creativity?

Just some stream-of-consciousness thoughts for you. :)