Thursday, January 17, 2013

Evolution is False - Irreducible Order of Life


Chipmunk
Someone decided to list 10 reasons why evolution is false. I decided to go through them. Here's my list addressing them so far:

10. Pagan Origins of Evolution
9. Planetary Habitability of Earth
8. Hoaxes

Here's today's argument as to why evolution is false.


7. The Irreducible Order of Life: The complex order of each part within the cell makes up an amazing machine. The wonder of motor proteins like kinesins walking on cytoskeleton leaves evolutionists conjecturing how these proteins could happen by accident. Imagining the processes of the cell reveals a complex order equal from within by its genetic code. These are a few examples of the irreducible order of life.

Okay... there's some things in evolution that scientists are still working on figuring out... so therefore, evolution is false? 

There's something wrong with this argument. No, don't tell me. It's on the tip of my tongue... oh! Right. It's an Argument from Ignorance - a gloriously blatant one.

How about this? - We're still trying to figure out how God could have just happened by accident, therefore, God isn't real. No? Doesn't fly? I'm finding it amusing that most of these arguments for why evolution is false also apply to his god.

I really don't know that there's much more to say on this one. It doesn't have a whole lot of meat to it. 

conjecturing how these proteins could happen by accident
I only have high praise for the loaded language. This is a pet peeve of mine - "by accident?"

"Accidents" are things that normally shouldn't happen, such as car accidents. The way the author phrases this, he's presupposing that the evolution of these proteins wouldn't normally happen. 

We don't say that it's an "accident" that Maine gets snowfall every year. No, that's to be expected given how the universe/planet works. Likewise, we have no reason to believe that these motor proteins wouldn't be inevitable given how chemistry works. I don't know whether they are inevitable, but at least I'm not presuming they aren't.

Further, the scope of this argument doesn't affect evolution. For instance, we don't have to know how gasoline forms or where it originates to understand how a gasoline engine works. We don't have to know where God came from in order to demonstrate he exists. It's out of scope. It could be that God started life, and let evolution happen, as we know it, on its own. He could have established some rudimentary basics of life, including the production of these proteins, and then stood back and watched. 

The fact is, evolution itself is a demonstrable phenomenon, whether abiogenesis came from a god or not. With that in mind, there's little logical connection between the argument and the theory of evolution.

It helps to understand that evolution is about the "diversification of life over time", which has nothing to do with abiogenesis, or how it happened. This author may gain more traction if he started actually addressing evolutionary theory.

I don't think he's arguing against evolution. It's more like he's trying to prove why natural mechanisms in general couldn't account for life/diversity of life.

Lastly, what is this "irreducible order of life"? It sounds like "irreducible complexity", but is some kind of deformed cousin that has no resemblance. Where does the "irreducible" come in? We may never know.

----

Since the core of the argument is a logical fallacy, it scores no points in terms of the logical connection. It scores no points in terms of addressing evolutionary theory, and it certainly scores no points in terms of being successful as an argument.

Argument score: 0 out of 10
Total score: 1.5 out of 40

Apparently, these are his "top ten" reasons. The mind boggles.