Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Discussing Creationism and Evolution with @Andrew_X_Thomas

Recently on Twitter, @Andrew_X_Thomas and I had a disagreement--I think there is more evidence for creationism and he thinks evolution has more evidence. Instead of hurling insults like children we decided to have a civil and polite discussion on the matter here. So, I believe I have the privilege of making the opening statement.

What is Creationism?


First let me clear up exactly what I mean by creationism. A simple definition may be that God created organisms divided into kinds which may speciate, but may never change kind (eg. human kind, fish kind, dog kind, etc.) Taxonomically kinds may be defined as somewhere between class and family. As opposed to the "tree of life" used in evolutionary biology, a creationist would see the progress of life as below.
The what is commonly called "micro evolution" or speciation is not unique to the theory of evolution since creationism employs it as well.

The Problem with Abiogenesis


The major fundamental flaw with evolution is that there is no explanation for the origin of life. According to the theory of evolution there must be an abiogenetic method by which life has arisen. In the 50's, Miller and Urey did experiments in which a mixture of water and the gasses thought to be within the early atmosphere were passed through a system such as below which used electric discharges to simulate lightening on the early Earth.



The experiment yielded a mixture of amino acids and other organic molecules and the mechanism by which life arose was thought to be found.

But the experiment has serious flaws.

The mixture of gasses used were those that would be found in a reductive atmostphere, yet there is ample evidence that the early atmosphere was oxidative instead. This means that any amino acids or organic molecules produced would be oxidated shortly after they were formed and would not be usable as a building block of life. It is actually for this reason that the mixture of gasses used was reductive, because only a reductive atmosphere would be conducive to life.

Further, there is also a problem with the chirality of amino acids, DNA, RNA and sugars. All amino acids in the vast majority of species on Earth are homochiral left handed (with the exception of a handful of other species) and all DNA, RNA and sugars in all species on Earth are homochiral right handed (again with the few exceptions.) However, all organisms on Earth to have these same chiralities poses a problem since the results of Miller-Urey type experiments yield equal amounts of each handedness of molecule. Since the current evolutionary idea is that there was a "ring of life" in which life arose simultaneously in many areas one would expect there to be 4 distinct types of organisms with each possible combination of chiralities. However, only 1 combination (amino left handed and carbohydrate right handed) exists. This would either point to the idea that a single organism gave rise to all life (which science has rejected) or that life could not have arisen in its current form if Miller-Urey type pathways are responsible for the abiogenesis of life.


There are many more problems with Miller-Urey type experiments including the effects of Brownian motion, the origin of DNA and RNA, the concentration of organic molecules in primordial soup, etc. but the former two are the most succinct and immediate problems with this method of abiogenesis.

However, the major problem arises when one considers that if Miller-Urey type pathways of abiogenesis are discarded, there is no valid alternative to the problem with the origin of life. Some argue transpermia as an alternative, but all this explanation does is move the problem of abiogenesis to another planet. Since there is no viable, well supported theory of the origin of life; the naturalistic view of abiogenesis is essentially faith: Scientists know life arose by chemical means without the intervention of a God without any evidence or proof to support this position.

Due to technical difficulties you can read the debate on @Andrew_X_Thomas's website.

Friday, August 9, 2013

Rand Paul's Question

Yesterday I attended a meet and greet even in my hometown in south eastern Kentucky by Rand Paul. The event was short; he gave a ten minute speech about how the EPA and Obama's war on coal have destroyed the economy of this part of Kentucky and how many families have sunk into poverty because of the lost mining jobs. He spoke about how coal is the most economically viable and efficient means of energy production and is vital if the US seeks energy independence. He concluded his speech by showing how even when the government subsidizes "green" energy jobs (eg. Solyndra) these jobs are economic nightmares.

Rand Paul may have only spoke for a few minutes, but in those few minutes he spoke about economic viability, pragmatism, and true energy independence--essentially things liberals hate to talk about. This showed very clearly at the end when Paul asked if there were any questions. There was only time for three questions (sorry Virgil Edwards, I didn't get to ask.) The first of these three questions, however, showed me more than the answer to any question I could ask could have. It went like this:

PAUL: "So we have time for three questions or comments. Anyone?"
LADY: "Mr. Rand, you said that the EPA and Obama are causing miners to lose jobs, but that is untrue! It's because coal is harder to mine now so they have to mechanize the process and the people are losing jobs to the machines. The EPA regulations don't affect the mines."
PAUL: "Right...so the comment was that jobs are being lost because of machines, not regulation; but the coal industry is like every other industry: when they become mechanized there are more jobs created, not fewer. They become more efficient and can mine more coal, people work on the machines as mechanics, there are factories producing machines; but this isn't what is happening. Entire mines are being closed down because they're taxed to death....[Continues with a very thorough and concise argument]
LADY: [A frown permanently freezes on her face]

If you know anything at all about coal, this lady's argument is absurd. Coal mining has been mechanized for decades. From the early days when carts were used to rush coal to the surface to today when giant augers and drills are used, machines have always been inextricably linked to coal mining. This dissonance between the lady's perception of reality and how things actually are is (sadly) very common among liberals. They don't care about things like economics, reason, or even logic. They invent reasons why things are the way they are and ignore the facts.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Stereotypical Republican

DISCLAIMER: I am abundantly aware that conservative and republican do not mean the same thing. After all, if they did they would have the same spelling. However, it is true that in the US there is no conservative party (yet) so most conservatives vote republican.

Ask any person what a stereotypical Republican is and two polar opposites invariably are the answer. Either they are fat cat CEO's who, being the robber barons of industry, will do any unscrupulous thing to make a buck; or they are the uneducated, uncivilized country hicks who thump their Bibles while insisting they "don't need no education."

These two common perceptions of Republicans show some of the more serious flaws of liberal propaganda and even highlight the integrity of conservatives.

Whatever They Are, It's Bad!


This seems to be the common theme of ingrained societal stereotypes of Republicans. The image of an uncaring, fat cat is one of a person that, although intelligent and wealthy, has no moral character and is a slave to the love of money. The image of a country bumpkin is one of a person that, although moral and honest, is unintelligent and destitute (presumably because of their disregard for education.) The common themes in both these images are that Republicans are bad. That sounds pretty obvious, but due to the overarching failure of these stereotypes to be consistent, it is clear that there is no immediate flaws with the ideology, so instead invented personae have been constructed as straw men in order to be knocked down.

What We Really Are


So, what are Republicans really? Of course there are people who act exactly like the stereotypes, but these people are only an unimaginably small percent of all Conservative-Republicans. The true image? It is you, the average person. Republicans are the everyday, average people who want what is best for everybody. They are the critical thinkers and evaluators of history, science, and reason. They are those who have a stronger moral fiber and act accordingly. They are charitable, kind and generous. That is why any sane person would covet the title "conservative" and vote Republican.

Final Thoughts


There are stereotypes of every group of people imaginable. That includes liberals. However, stereotypes of liberals are based on legitimate flaws in their ideology and are universally consistent (unlike the Republican stereotypes.) While I in no way condone the labeling of people on stereotypes, it is interesting to see the disconnect between the image of Republicans and the way they really are.