…and this is a 
Death of science by multiple organ system failure
Category: Academics • Creationism • Science
Posted on: April 14, 2006 10:29 AM, by PZ Myers
Science fairs usually have a few pleasant surprises, a lot of ho-hum projects done by rote with little thought (sometimes clearly done the night before), and a few stinkers that reveal nothing but the student's ignorance. The science teachers are supposed to screen the project proposals to prevent that from happening, though, so the really bad projects usually don't get through. There's also a hierarchy: local to county or regional to state, and only the best are supposed to progress. State science fairs usually have some very impressive work and some that might be naive, but at least the student has enthusiasm. This description of a state level science fair project is disturbing, not just because the student's work was substandard, but because it somehow made it through what should have been multiple levels of screening.
Then I saw it. “Creator or Not? YOU DECIDE”
The title claimed we could decide, but the project left no room for vacillation. It started with a hypothesis that “The universe was created by an intelligent designer.” It went on to make the standard big number argument, and closed with the conclusion, “The universe was created by an intelligent designer.”
The big number argument: there are twenty amino acids. The average human protein has around 460 amino acids in it. Thus the number of possible combinations is a huge number. The age of the universe in seconds likewise is a huge number, but less huge than the number of possible amino acid combinations. Thus you would have to have been randomly generating these protien chains at the rate of bunches every second from the Big Bang to now before you got human protein chains. Clearly that didn’t happen; therefore, an intelligent designer did it. Quod erat demonstratum.
That's extremely distressing. It's sad that some kid has such a poor knowledge of logic and evidence, but it is even more troubling that the educational system has rotted out so much that shoddy work like that can actually advance that far. We should worry about individuals, of course, but this is a sign that the educational infrastructure that leads to good scientists isn't working—there was a complete failure from parents to science teacher to fair judges, and all of those people ought to be ashamed of themselves. This is not how we get kids into the Siemens Westinghouse competition.
(via The Scientific Activist)
Comments
Wouldn't that be "projects done by rote"?
Posted by: Skemono | April 14, 2006 10:39 AM
ugh...
how is it science? He's not proving or disproving anything, just asserting. just like a preacher.
i bet he's got some snake oil to sell you too. and it won't even be something interesting like actual oil made from a snake.
Posted by: garth | April 14, 2006 10:41 AM
Yes, it would. Give me a break, man...I was up until 2AM last night trying to finish my grading, I had an 8:00 class, and I haven't had any caffeine yet.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 14, 2006 10:46 AM
PZ: heh, Skemono's just trying to maintain your high standards. And he beat me to it.
Posted by: garth | April 14, 2006 10:50 AM
Hmm, any ideas for a first science fair project for a kindergartner with a pretty good attention span? (It's a first for Daddy too - didn't go to school in the US).
*Not* a prestige "look at what my daddy did" kind of project, but something she can do and understand herself.
Posted by: Alopex Lagopus | April 14, 2006 10:58 AM
The question is, if you had a chance to discuss the project with the student, how would you approach his reasoning without turning him off to science? The ideas were not his own, so how do you show him how science actually works without grinding him to a pulp and completely embarrassing him?
Posted by: Bruce Thompson | April 14, 2006 11:07 AM
Maybe if teachers stop letting academically-successful-but- ignorant-nonetheless high school students judge science fairs this wouldn't happen. At my school I overheard one of the future student science fair judges say something to the effect of: "If their poster is colorful I'll give them a good grade" in a really self righteous tone.
Also I think my bio teacher is an evolution denier, she keeps mentioning how brief our evolution unit will be and she gave us a warning at the beginning of the year, something like: "Right now we'll just cover the stuff everyone agrees on, like everyone agrees that birds can turn into other birds but does that mean birds came from reptiles? well maybe not we'll cover that when we get to our whole evolution debate."
And she made sure to mention that some people would say carbon dating is not reliable because "we don't know the rates were always constant."
That is all.
Posted by: Ronald Taylor | April 14, 2006 11:10 AM
PZ - why are you so suprised? Folks get big money from think tanks doing work like this at a much higher level than "state science fair". The author doesn't mention the school that the student was from, but it wouldn't suprise me at all to find out they were from somewhere with an agenda and that was why they were sent along to the state level.
(I'm more suprised that it didn't get weeded out at the regional level, but I'm not sure what state the fair was in, so the regional level judges could very well have been similarly sympathetic).
Posted by: NonyNony | April 14, 2006 11:21 AM
It almost sounds like this one was deliberately slipped through, greased with a lot of hidden agenda. It wasn't from my state of Kansas, was it?
Posted by: pablo | April 14, 2006 11:21 AM
The author doesn't mention the school that the student was from, but it wouldn't suprise me at all to find out they were from somewhere with an agenda and that was why they were sent along to the state level.
... no doubt with a backer prepared to scream bloody murder about the "war on Christians" if a teacher or competition judge weeded out the poster from the next round of competition.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | April 14, 2006 11:26 AM
Yecch. I wonder, as others here, if the judges were playing CYA in letting this project in? Better to allow the entry than risk the whole fair being buried in bad publicity when some IDiot cries that the kid is being oppressed by "Darwinists" afraid to "teach the controversy"?
It may be a tough call to risk all the other projects, the worthy ones, getting lost in the cacophany of a mini-Dover flap, but, IMO, the science-defenders, the students who did real science work, would be better served with a rigorous bunch of judges dropping this kid's ID project early on, with a simple explanation of why it was substandard.
It would likely have never become an issue, but even if it did, even if the kid - or, more likely, the kid's blustering ministerial supporters - publicly argued with the decision, it would be a lesson in the notion that scientific work must stand on its own merits, not popularity of an unexamined premise like ID.
Posted by: Skeptyk | April 14, 2006 11:28 AM
Pablo asks:
"It wasn't from my state of Kansas, was it?"
/weep... nope it was from my state of Alabama.
Uncle Don
/sigh
Posted by: Don Culberson | April 14, 2006 11:30 AM
Posted by: wamba | April 14, 2006 11:35 AM
Bunches / Second. Sounds like an excellent new unit of measure! ;)
Posted by: Jason | April 14, 2006 11:36 AM
Here are lots of stats on proteins: average length in the database = 366 aa.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 14, 2006 11:41 AM
I looked up the results of the Alabama Science and Engineering Fair. Most of the winning submissions were as described, typical science fair fare with a few intriguing titles, no abstracts, unfortunately. The project under consideration here doesn't seem to be mentioned, so if the title was correct, it presumably fell at this level, anyway.
There was one in the Junior Division, however, entitled "Divinity vs Man - You Decide" that received an Honorable Mention in the Mathematics Division. This one came from a public middle school. Not sure what it really was about, though it sounds suspiciously like the one blogged above.
Sometimes it's not that easy being from Alabama, especially as a scientist. We live on a diet of "Thank goodness for Mississippi" and, recently, "Thank goodness for Kansas and Dover, PA". Happy to share the occasional dubious scrutiny with other backward places!
But this one... heh... gotta bite the bullet and submit...
/sigh
Uncle Don
Posted by: Don Culberson | April 14, 2006 11:43 AM
I suspect there may be some Texan blood involved. If so, I would like to apologize on behalf of my state.
Posted by: BronzeDog | April 14, 2006 11:45 AM
OK. If it could have happened so easily by chance, set it up!. RUN the experiment!! By golly, if you could get this to come about by "chance" (in a lab setting) just think! Now you REALLY have the evidence in hand.
Posted by: compass | April 14, 2006 11:57 AM
Posted by: BronzeDog | April 14, 2006 12:00 PM
Correction: Poorly written parody. Good parody actually has to contain some grain of truth to it.
Posted by: BronzeDog | April 14, 2006 12:01 PM
Hey, compass... if God could've done it so easily, why don't you get yourself a pile of sterilized mud, stick it an aquarium and start praying.
I promise that if you get God to kick you down any sort of living organisms at all, let alone a female and sans-a-rib male human, I will be first in line to convert.
Posted by: Molly | April 14, 2006 12:03 PM
"Creator or not--you decide!" "Divinity vs. Man--you decide!" These derivate themes having been foisted upon helpless little kids being indoctrinated by doof-duh parents and teachers who watch only a certain cable news channel (which led last night with TWO stories on the "Intolerance of the Left toward Christians" on the O'Reilly Factor)? You decide!
Posted by: Kristine | April 14, 2006 12:03 PM
There was a mini-controversy last year because a university professor in Alaska managed to get a radioactive-dating denying paper published in Journal of Chemical Education (interestingly enough, run out of my graduate alma mater, University of Wisconsin). I don't remember the details, because it's mind-numbingly dull (not my field) but it was an exercise he had his students do that in his mind, somehow, proved that radioactive dating could be wrong.
After the paper came out, a controversy insued and the professor ended up getting some kind of reprimand.
I'm dredging this all out of the recesses of my memory, so my details could be off. I'm just surprised the creationist don't use this triumphantly (a peer-reviewed paper! academic supression!).
As for this science project, is the kid's logic that every amino acid combination must exist and be created on at a time? I guess I really don't see how his paper is evidence of intelligent design at all, what is the "gotcha" he's going for?
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | April 14, 2006 12:04 PM
Someone needs to steer this kid to a polymer chemist, quick. He could perhaps explain how God is really "super super great" by talking about combinations of short chains of various lengths and how that is not really possible either.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | April 14, 2006 12:08 PM
By the apparent logic of this kid and compass, every hand of bridge ever played was designed, instead of the result of random shuffles.
And, of course, the whole thing ignores the big chunks of non-randomness in evolution.
Posted by: BronzeDog | April 14, 2006 12:17 PM
Kindergarten science fair? Good grief, what school is she in?
My kids usually enjoyed science experiments involving baking soda and vinegar at that age. Another fave was salting snails and watching them foam. And I think their uncle introduced them to dry ice rockets then (with supervision). Let's see... gravity, making marble contraptions... simple machines... oh, and magnets were fun then, too, if I remember right.
There's always the baking soda volcano, which is way fun. They didn't get to dissecting squid til third grade though - need some fine motor skills for that one.
Any time my kids were in trouble for making a mess, I got the same answer: "But mom, it's a Science Experiment!"
These days, they are 16 and 20, and we have to have rules when their friends are over "No high explosives in a wood frame house!"
Posted by: donna | April 14, 2006 12:28 PM
Compass suggested: "RUN the experiment!! "
Compass, perhaps you could supply a few details of the proposed experimental design?
I think it was here, a few months ago, that a discussion centred around the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. A proposed experiment there was to set up a population of flagella-lacking bacteria, and apply selection for increased motility. The naive idea was that if a flagellum structure evolved within a certain time frame - I think on the order of 10^6 generations - then the Irreducibly Complex argument would be refuted and we could assume the putative Designer was not involved.
The obvious flaw in this experiment was pointed out to be: there's no way to disprove the Designer; the Designer is not a hypothesis because it's not testable. Either potential result of this experiment (flagellum vs. no flagellum at time T) can be explained by ID. No flagellum - flagella are too complex to evolve. Flagellum present - the designer got into your experiment and helped the bacteria out.
Long ramble, but, compass (or anyone else), can you please suggest an experiment with at least one possible outcome that would DISprove a specific, testable hypothesis about probability and protein structure?
Anyone? Please?
Posted by: The Brummell | April 14, 2006 12:29 PM
I'll bet his mummy and daddy must have been so proud of their little boy pinch-hitting for Jesus. Gets me right here [points to torso], kind of like ipecac does.
Posted by: Heliologue | April 14, 2006 12:30 PM
Why don't you bother learning about how evolution actually works, compass, instead of your parody of it. Ah yes. Wiki. The definitive source.
Try answering the question.
Hey, compass... if God could've done it so easily, why don't you get yourself a pile of sterilized mud, stick it an aquarium and start praying. Speaking of strawman. The challenge has been made to you. Work it out.
every hand of bridge ever played was designed, instead of the result of random shuffles. Strawman again. I guess you know whereof you speak more than Wiki does. C'mon. That helps prove my point. Bridge takes place (the chances in the game) because of the designs in place beforehand: the rules of the game, creation of the cards, existence of the participants and so on. None of those components came about through chance.
Perhaps if you bought a shovel, the hole you are digging yourself would be "created" much easier.
Posted by: compass | April 14, 2006 12:31 PM
You think that project was bad? Try these from those nutty Baptists.
Posted by: D Kruz | April 14, 2006 12:36 PM
I propose the following experiment: I'll mix up a bunch of amino acids in a bucket, and in twenty million years, we can all meet back here to see if a protein has developed.
Posted by: Narc | April 14, 2006 12:38 PM
Salting snails? Torturing our molluscan kin?
When Great Cthulhu rises, you will not be eaten first.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 14, 2006 12:40 PM
NO BAKING SODA VOLCANOES. NEVER!!
Demonstrations ain't science.
When Daughter #1 was in first grade, I borrowed a stethescope and we helped her count the number of heartbeats/minute for various animals. Just simple statements about younger/smaller animals had faster heartbeats. Nothing fancy, although trying to find the heartbeat on a co-worker's reticulated python was frustrating. ;^)
fusilier
James 2:24
Posted by: fusilier | April 14, 2006 12:54 PM
Hey compass, answer this question for me: Why is it that certain people with the least understanding of a subject tend to be the ones who THINK they know all about it?
Hint: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Posted by: Boosterz | April 14, 2006 12:56 PM
Hey Compass, since you're so smart about science, why don't YOU tell us why we have pygmies + dwarfs???
Posted by: george cauldron | April 14, 2006 1:14 PM
D Kruz:
The "science" fair to whose description you linked made me scream out loud. Something like, "Sweet Jesus, protect me from your followers!" Examples of winning so-called experiments:
"My Uncle is a Man Named Steve (Not a Monkey)"
"Pine Cones are Complicated" (teaching faux-complexity garbage to the young -- the newest in child abuse)
"Pokemon prove Evolutionism is false"
"Using prayer to microevolve latent antibiotic resistance in bacteria" (maybe these prayers are the ones which cancel out all those requests to cure disease?)
And my personal grand prize goes to Jonathan Goode, grade 7, for his interdisciplinary study demonstrating (deep breath) "Women Were Designed for Homemaking."
I couldn't make shit up: "physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker."
It's like a Junior Jumble in the Sunday funnies -- can you count the number of things wrong in the preceding paragraph?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 14, 2006 1:16 PM
OK. If it could have happened so easily by chance, set it up!. RUN the experiment!
Aw, compass, that ain't fair! Why should evolutionists be the only ones who ever do experiments or research?
Get off your ass and get busy! Posting at leftwing blogs ain't gonna prove Intelligent Design!
Posted by: george cauldron | April 14, 2006 1:19 PM
Well... you have to admit... the Pokemon title is preeettty intriguing!
Posted by: Don Culberson | April 14, 2006 1:19 PM
BronzeDog - Actually, card shuffles aren't random, they're just sufficiently difficult to predict the outcome of that we use them as such. It follows logically that if God is omniscient and omnipotent that everything that ever has or will happen is the product of his explicit desire for it to, because he'd know about it and be able to change it if he wanted to. I'm pretty sure that is the reasoning behind predestination.
Posted by: MattXIV | April 14, 2006 1:21 PM
Unfortunately, that's the Objective: Ministries site, and it's a known spoof. I'm getting a bit irritated with them: lots of people get caught by the satire, think its real, and get upset about it. It misdirects a lot of reasonable anger about what creationists actually do, so I think it is highly counterproductive.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 14, 2006 1:22 PM
Well, shoot, PZ... that spoils a lot of good, clean fun!
Uncle Don
Posted by: Don Culberson | April 14, 2006 1:24 PM
It shows, though, that there is nothing so stupid as to cause most folks rule it out as something that could have emerged from fundieism
Posted by: Don Culberson | April 14, 2006 1:29 PM
Hmmm. PZ, did you know you're being called 'Old Squiddy' on the internets?
Rather a nautical feel to it, I daresay...
Posted by: george cauldron | April 14, 2006 1:30 PM
[ Well compass, I see you have more time on your hands ]
Examples of evolution in action to build proteins in our lifetimes - and in our bodies! - include the AIDS virus, and immune system response to this and other provocations (simple summaries in the talkorigins article below and in Steve Jones' DARWIN'S GHOST, 2000)
Evolution of useful structures which would otherwise have to be intelligently (more or less) engineered can be done in computers using "genetic algorithms" and "genetic programming", e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna
The general probability arguments for getting proteins assembled via gradualistic evolution with increased fitness at each stage (local adaptive hill-climbing) are conveniently reviewed at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/ - This includes Dawkin's "weasel" simulation which helps build intuition although it's only a partial model of evolution.
Posted by: thwaite | April 14, 2006 1:34 PM
Don't play dumb, Compass. I suspect you already know why I would tell you your particular "experiment" as presented is silly. How 'bout discussing that?
Posted by: rrt | April 14, 2006 1:41 PM
Good point, compass! Actually, my favorite proof of ID is the classic experiment documented in the paper: Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design.
And they claim ID propents don't do real research! Pshaw!
Posted by: shargash | April 14, 2006 1:45 PM
"Objective Ministries" is a parody site--a cleverer version of Landover Baptist. But if they can fool Pharyngulans, I wonder how many genuine fundies they take in ;)
Posted by: AWJ | April 14, 2006 1:46 PM
Ack! Deepest apologies to PZ. Noodleous doubleous should have been italicized, of course. You can tell the authors of the paper cited are real scientists, because they used italics. I am not, and so forget unless I remind myself.
Posted by: shargash | April 14, 2006 1:51 PM
Hey, PZ -- Tell me Dobson isn't a Deep One.
Posted by: shargash | April 14, 2006 1:58 PM
Sheesh! Just not my day, I guess. Let me try it again and see if I can get it right.
Hey, PZ -- Tell me Wildmon isn't a Deep One.
Posted by: shargash | April 14, 2006 2:00 PM
The project should have been disqualified for bad Latin alone: it should be "quod erat demonstrandum".
Posted by: j.caesar | April 14, 2006 2:12 PM
Calculate the odds of each player getting their particular combination of cards in their particular order. It's pretty darn unlikely in the end. Sheer Texas sharpshooter unlikeliness (a negative premise) is no basis to make a positive claim like design.
Oh, and yes, Matt, I recognize that shuffling isn't truly random, and the same could be said of most other probability examples of coins and dice. Just go with it for the sake of example. ;)
Posted by: BronzeDog | April 14, 2006 2:47 PM
Ah. Here we go. The last refuge of the Left. argumentem ad hominem.
"Abusing the Man (argumentum ad hominem, arguing to the man; as opposed to arguing ad rem, to the point): there are at least four basic types:
a. Name-calling
b. "Let's-play-amateur-psychoanalyst" (calling into question the opponent's mental health)
c. Casting aspersions on the opponent's moral character
d. Poisoning the wells (an attempt to discredit the opponent absolutely, to destroy his reliability for anything in the eyes of the audience)."
Pick on Compass the messenger, and the message becomes invalid. THAT'S sophisticated argument from the left, all right. That would be rrt, Mr. Cauldron, boosterz. Plus ca change, plus c'e la meme chose. Pretty much you guys engage in A-D there. Well done. People living in glass houses and so on. . .
On the other hand, thwaite, thank you for the resources. Perhaps time will allow examination.
Posted by: compass | April 14, 2006 2:55 PM
The hand of bridge: i.e. Player number one is holding the 3 of hearts, the jack of spades, etc. The rules of the game, the manufacture of the cards, etc. aren't part of what I'm talking about.
They have to be part of what you are saying. I am saying that even before the hand of bridge can be formulated, that the odds of particular cards can even be considered, the first two premises (rules, manufacture) have to be in place. Take away the first two premises, and the odds, or the possibility of same, can't exist.
Posted by: compass | April 14, 2006 2:59 PM
Not answering any of the questions, I see, compass. Cool.
Posted by: george cauldron | April 14, 2006 3:08 PM
Someone just sent me the link to this homeschooling book, maybe this is where he got his data?
https://www.homeschoolingbooks.com/pages/itemdetail.asp?ItemID=380
ack, it's frightening. Is there a list on the web anywhere of "bad science' books for kids? if not someone should start one.
Posted by: megan | April 14, 2006 3:09 PM
Nice try George. C'mon, you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
Posted by: compass | April 14, 2006 3:20 PM
You could make it science if you wished. Test different kinds of household acids (vinegar, muriatic acid, toilet bowl cleaners, all of which appeal to a kid's natural desire to mix household chemicals together. On second thought, it might be bset to not encourage this behavior.) See if the concentration of the acid affects the performance of the volcano (an investigation of reaction kinetics), etc.
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | April 14, 2006 3:20 PM
Nice try George. C'mon, you answer mine, I'll answer yours.
You actually HAD a question? All I saw was this inane post:
OK. If it could have happened so easily by chance, set it up!. RUN the experiment!! By golly, if you could get this to come about by "chance" (in a lab setting) just think! Now you REALLY have the evidence in hand.
...followed by some whining about the mean leftists, and conspicuous ignoring of people's objections as to why this is a stupid comment.
See, compass, this is why ID isn't getting anywhere! Good conservatives like yourself aren't willing to step up to the plate and get their hands dirty with research, they're so busy with their 'culture wars' and all. Prove to us wicked liberals how bankrupt evolution is! Explain to us why that science project was valid after all. We're all ears.
Posted by: george cauldron | April 14, 2006 3:43 PM
I followed the source back to objective ministries, and I have to say it took me quite a while to convince myself that it actually is a parody. Parodies get more and more redundant every day...
Posted by: Bored Huge Krill | April 14, 2006 3:51 PM
Yes, let's spin in circles, Compass. :)
As you insist on playing dumb, I will be blunt: You make the statement:
"OK. If it could have happened so easily by chance, set it up!. RUN the experiment!! By golly, if you could get this to come about by "chance" (in a lab setting) just think! Now you REALLY have the evidence in hand."
In other words, that formation of a typical human protein "by chance" is so unlikely as to imply a guiding force.
This statement implies you are not aware of the standard criticisms biologists make of this basic argument from improbability and incredulity. I say quite bluntly that I suspect you are being dishonest in pretending to be so ignorant, and challenge you to abandon the pretense and address those criticisms. If you truly are ignorant of those arguments, then I challenge you to educate yourself...the resources are widely available with 10 minutes' Googling, at worst.
You are certainly dishonest in implying that my statement was an attack on your person. It was and is a clear statement of my opinion, and rather than distracting from the topic, indeed encourages you to "cut to the chase" and move the discussion to the details of your argument.
I'm willing to treat you like an adult. Will you give me the same courtesy?
Posted by: rrt | April 14, 2006 3:51 PM
NO BAKING SODA VOLCANOES. NEVER!!
Dang.
Besides, can you think of anything more likely to interest a kid in science than the possibilities for blowing things up? (Well, it worked for me).
Hey, compass.. chemical reactions aren't random.
And insults are *not* ad hominems.
Posted by: Graculus | April 14, 2006 4:03 PM
Can someone correct the way I am thinking about this? (I'm a lawyer with a journalism degree, go easy on me) I have been thinking about compass' objections and the original referenced science fair exhibit.
Evolution would hold that amino acid chains in humans would be derivatives, or modifications, from our evolutionary ancestors, correct? Evolutionary theory would hold that these modifications have been going back to . . . abiogenesis? By that chain of thought, it isn't that human protein chains were produced randomly . . . it isn't as if all 460 20-sided dice were rolled at the same time and "magically" came up with the correct numbers in the correct sequence--a feat like that would seem to me to be closer to evidence of ID. But it would be more analogous to say that evolution is a series of die rolls, each new one (the identity of the surviving one being a factor of natural selection) only adding roughly one more number of the sequence. Thus, the statistics of it all are greatly simplified. Once you've got a chain of 200, getting a surviving example of a chain of 201 is only a matter of 1/20, not a matter of 201 randomly correct die rolls. So if you look back over the whole thing you say wow, how did we get here from there? But during the process it was just one "correct" die roll at a time, with the others behind us no longer being a matter of chance but rather of historical record. I'm sure if I had taken more statistics classes in college I would be better at this kind of thought experiment.
Under a system like that what you would have to provide evidence of is the ability of natural selection to result in the modification of amino acid chains, right? Once you have that you have the necessary underpinnings to support a statistical model of the development of a human amino acid chain consistent with evolution.
I dunno, I'm probably all wrong, but I love reading this site anyway. Any help is much appreciated.
Posted by: Jim | April 14, 2006 4:04 PM
Under a system like that what you would have to provide evidence of is the ability of natural selection to result in the modification of amino acid chains, right? Once you have that you have the necessary underpinnings to support a statistical model of the development of a human amino acid chain consistent with evolution.
Close to this is the work with ribozymes. Dr Szostak got a Nobel for that.
Posted by: Graculus | April 14, 2006 4:08 PM
MattXIV - Whether shuffling a deck of cards is random or not depends on your definition of random. According to information theory, the degree of randomness is determined by the observer. This means that if the odds of the observer (the participants in the card game) correctly predicting the next card is no better than 1/52, then the deck is completely random for all intents and purposes.
On the other hand, there is another definition of random: whether all orderings of the deck are equally likely given some starting configuration. By that definition then a simple bridge shuffle is not completely random.
Now to attempt to be on topic -- that some given chemical configurations are far more likely than others (and other configurations are chemically impossible) should be obvious to anyone who has spent more than five minutes in an elementary chemistry class. This science project doesn't even pass the laugh test. Needless to say, it also isn't science -- there is no hypothesis, no data, and no way to falsify the hypothesis. The anthropic principal -- that things are the way they are because if they weren't, we wouldn't be here to speculate about it -- is self-evident, and is doesn't imply there has to be a creator.
Along those lines, the argument along the lines of "there chance of life occurring are one is one in a billion trillion, so therefore god created us" don't hold up either. Astronomy has shown there could be billion trillion stars in the known universe, so why can't we be the exception, the statistical fluke? Although it would be a lonely universe...
Posted by: Peter Amstutz | April 14, 2006 4:11 PM
That's pretty much it, Jim. Which is precisely the point (well, ONE of the points) I've been hesitating to spoonfeed to Compass. In particular since, as I've explained, I believe he knows this already, and if so, is pretending not to. It's not an uncommon argument/debating tactic. I'm not saying he may not have many honestly held disagreements with that point, but I am saying I want him to lay them on the table.
Posted by: rrt | April 14, 2006 4:17 PM
Prove to us wicked liberals how bankrupt evolution is!
Here's the thing: In the end, I don't think evolution is "bankrupt". I really have no problem with the mechanisms described. What I DO have trouble with is the idea that some designer (no names given) MUST NOT BE behind it. There is nothing in evolution as described (as I understand it) that can demand this. It CERTAINLY doesn't do much to prove this creature's existence, but neither does it disprove it. My apologies if I leave you with this impression.
And insults are *not* ad hominems. If they're designed to impeach the messenger, you better believe that they are.
But it would be more analogous to say that evolution is a series of die rolls, each new one (the identity of the surviving one being a factor of natural selection) only adding roughly one more number of the sequence. Yes. Of course. Fine. I understand and agree. But perhaps I am not being clear in my continuation of the bridge analogy (if that continues to be the source of the dispute for you and rrt): Under what conditions could things come about in the first place for matter to even be in that position? This goes beyond biology and chemistry (in my mind) and returns to physics. What set the table to allow matter to interact as it did to in the end create life? Did we just have hydrogen to begin with? INcluded with oxygen? How did these particles come suddenly to be automcatically attracted to one another so that 2 of H goes with 1 of O, leaving the leftover O natural, the rst combined to make water.
That's why I've been saying with the bridge analogy, HOW DID THE CARDS AND RULES COME ABOUT? I've not seen anything in biology that answers this. (And no, I am not a biologist). Put another way: For chance to even have an opportunity to take place, there had to be an underlying order first. For the bridge player to receive X combination of cards (and the odds for that combo to occur) the underlying order of the cards and rules of the game themselves had to be in place.
For what it is worth, I am now (and have been for some time) of the following opinion:
Creationism does not fit in the science classroom (it never has, in my mind).
And neither does ID as a "scientific discipline."
But ID DOES fit in discussions of philosophy; and it is from philosophy that the natural sciences sprang in the first place. And that discussion does need to take place at some point; where the question can be asked that the answer is not (and in all likelihood, cannot ever be) answered.
Part of what makes this place so intriguing is the inherent and constant refrain: God CANNOT exist, when in fact we do not KNOW. . .and at least evolution has done nothing . . .that I can see. . .to refute this.
Posted by: compass | April 14, 2006 4:56 PM
OT, but I'd disagree with said definition...
It isn't a necessary condition that all outcomes are equally likely for an observation to be random. It is only necessary that it be nondeterministic.
In any case, I think your first definition of random is probably the relevant one here.
Posted by: Bored Huge Krill | April 14, 2006 5:24 PM
I thank you VERY much for your refreshingly clear and straightforward reply. Can you understand why I was calling dishonesty, and how much happier I am now that this is laid out?
In response to a couple specific points you make:
"What set the table to allow matter to interact as it did to in the end create life?"
Frankly, I don't care. Now, that's not an entirely true statement...I very much would like to know the specifics of this. But as a biologist, the only reason I want to know the details of abiogenesis (which is what you're referring to in part) is so I can better understand the origins and history of the evolution of life.
Beyond abiogenesis, you're talking about such things as the anthropic principle, etc., and some other commenters have talked about that somewhat. The "puddle analogy" still holds, as does the point that we have no way of knowing that the laws and conditions of this universe are the only ones under which life is possible. Again, as a biologist, I care little about these details. They contribute nothing to my understanding of the role of Tiktaalik in the history of life.
In response to this:
"Part of what makes this place so intriguing is the inherent and constant refrain: God CANNOT exist, when in fact we do not KNOW. . .and at least evolution has done nothing . . .that I can see. . .to refute this."
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I know of no one here who makes this claim. I can't think of any prominent scientist who does. I'm not clear on what precisely Dawkins says, I should point out...I'm aware that he's aggressive in his association of science and atheism, but I think (when you use the word "cannot") that even he doesn't make that statement. There are many of us who believe evolution can and should contribute to a strictly naturalistic and atheistic worldview or philosophy. You can't prove the absence of God, but you can ask "if I keep looking everywhere God is claimed to be and consistently find no sign, when do I decide for myself that he may as well not exist?" But I'm not aware of any of us who actively states "evolution or science in general disproves God." Rather, our fervence is directed at those who claim science PROVES God, or that there is clear material evidence for his hand in creation/evolution/whatever, and insist we teach this as science. I would appeal to our resident philosophers to address this better than I am...
But regardless, it sounds to me like you and I are largely in agreement, at least in a material sense.
Posted by: rrt | April 14, 2006 5:35 PM
For the bridge player to receive X combination of cards (and the odds for that combo to occur) the underlying order of the cards and rules of the game themselves had to be in place.
That's a question about cosmology, not about evolution, then. Go read about the anthropic principle. But don't tell us that because man designed the game of bridge, man must have designed the deal of a particular hand of bridge, because, um, it makes you look like a fool.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | April 14, 2006 5:35 PM
I don't think the baking soda volcano really qualifies as "blowing stuff up". For that sort of demonstration, you can't do much better than thermite. Of course, the chances of a school letting your kid use the thermite reaction in their gymnasium is practically nil.
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | April 14, 2006 5:39 PM
Objective: Ministries has the problem of being too subtle to be effective web parody - I think the subtlety allowed to be effective parody web on the web is pretty limited. Things like the "creation scientist" Dr. Richard Paley are pretty clear signals, but if you just scan quickly most of those signals are easy to miss.
However, I do recommend looking at the member bios. Not only is the Kyle Goldman bio way too absurd, but they got a photo of a dude with a truly amazing look on his face. Also check out the cafe press items - they have a "Jesus Is The Light Switch Cover" where the light switch is located right at Jesus' penis. Humor for your inner Beavis and Butt-head.
Risking the feeding of a troll...
If by cards and rules you mean elementary particles and physical laws, that is clearly not the province of biology. But there are a number of popular publications detailing the well established portions (big bang nucleosynthesis and the generation of heavy elements). Off the top of my head I would suggest starting one of those treatments (e.g., Susskind's new book) or going to wikipedia - which has links to the peer-reviewed literature.
The science fair calculations do prove something - but a very limited something. They prove that amino acids did not assemble into proteins in a random manner. There are other proofs of this (e.g., there is no way to select specific enantiomers in a random model, or exclude amino acids not in the "big 20"). No origin of life specialist would even suggest a random model, so disproving that model is irrelevant, as is "doing the experiment."
Posted by: Edward Braun | April 14, 2006 5:42 PM
If they're designed to impeach the messenger, you better believe that they are.
No, compass. It's only if the "impeaching of the messenger" is used to attack the argument (instead of the messenger).
An ad hominem: John Doe's arguments suck because he's a poopyhead.
Not an ad hominem: John Doe is a poopyhead, and he also faked his data.
Posted by: Graculus | April 14, 2006 6:00 PM
John Doe has repeatedly faked his data, therefore he's a poopyhead.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | April 14, 2006 6:13 PM
I very rarely see this aspect of the ID probability argument refutation: yes, it could take a very large number of attempts to produce a single functioning amino acid or protein molecule given an initial population of precisely those components needed such that nothing is left over when the target molecule is finally produced. BUT all these attempts actually happen in parallel all over the world, wherever there wwas organic soup present. Far more opportunities spread over the soup thatn serially to the present. Indeed, given the size of the Earth, I'm surprised it took so long for a self-persisting molecular family to appear. Borrowing from Murphy, if it can happen, it will. And once happened it is so self-supporting the environment does a phase change to where this kind of molecular arrangement takes over from the soup. From that point on, speciation takes over according to Darwin's theory (and the 1450 yrs of elaboration and observation since).
Posted by: dave | April 14, 2006 6:20 PM
(pardon my rushed typoes - I'm on a ferry doing this on my lap. What's as laptop for if not to be used on one's lap anyway?)
Posted by: dave | April 14, 2006 6:22 PM
I'm the guy who made the original linked post. Uncle Don, you were correct about the project's name -- I had mis-remembered. I'll make the update to the original post. I had also missed that it had won an honorable mention in the Math and Computers section. Oy.
Posted by: Stephen | April 14, 2006 6:39 PM
Rather, our fervence is directed at those who claim science PROVES God, or that the