…and this is a 
Four bad arguments against evolution
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 19, 2008 11:16 AM, by PZ Myers
Bryan Fischer claims that anyone is capable of defeating Darwin in 4 easy steps, all they have to do is remember his four "scientific" arguments. I've got an easier strategy for creationists: be really stupid, lie a lot, and ignore anything a scientist tells you. See? Only three steps, and none of them require any thought whatsoever. Besides, it's really what Fischer has done, too. The only thing new is that he has distilled creationist inanity down to four easily dismissed lies, and they actually are fairly representative of common creationist misconceptions.
So here you go, Bryan Fischer's easily trounced arguments.
First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. By logical extension, then, matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe.
…
Intelligent Design theory offers a Prime Mover, evolution does not.
There are actually several errors here.
Right off the bat, he makes the common error of assuming there is some universal authority that ranks scientific ideas into "laws" and "theories", with laws having some objective priority. This is not true. It's largely arbitrary. If you come up with a description of something that can be typically written out in a short and easily testable mathematical formula, it tends to be called a law: for example, Newton's laws, including F=ma, etc., or the ideal gas law, PV=nRT. Laws tend to be short and simple. This is not always true, of course (arbitrary, remember?): for example, Ernst Haeckel called his description of the relationship between development and evolution the Biogenetic Law, which has the virtue of being a counter-example that is neither mathematical nor in any way formally correct.
Theories, on the other hand, tend to be descriptions of more complex phenomena, and are often not easily reducible to a formula: for example, cell theory, germ theory, and the theory of evolution. They are neither more nor less true than a law, and a scientific theory is nothing like the colloquial meaning of "theory", a guess. Theories can also encompass many ideas that we call laws. Evolution, for instance, includes concepts like the Hardy-Weinberg Law and Dollo's Law.
So in the first sentence of his first argument against evolution, Fischer reveals his scientific illiteracy. Perhaps I need to define a Myers' Law that says every creationist argument will be built on false premises that expose the arguers ignorance — keeping in mind that anyone can declare a statement to be a law, and calling something a law is no promise of validity. It seems to hold up fairly well in Fischer's case, at least.
The rest is irrelevant. The Big Bang is not part of evolutionary theory, which describes the history of life on earth. Even if physicist discovered that the Big Bang was a result of a cataclysmic battle between Odin and a gang of frost giants, it would not perturb our understanding of life's history here. It would make the cosmologists freak out, which would be fun, and it would shape our philosophical understanding of our presence here, but evolution is built on evidence on this planet, evidence that will not go away whatever the physicists discover about events 14 billion years ago.
As for that last sentence … I've seen a lot of belittling of Dawkins "Ultimate 747" argument from The God Delusion, but it really is a key point for these people. There is a naive assumption that every action must have a causal intent behind it, which is not true; they even acknowledge it when they exempt their god from this "law". It's fair game to turn it around on them and remind them that they postulate something infinitely complex and powerful which has no cause. The other strategy I use (keep in mind, I'm not a cosmologist) is to argue hypothetically that what if there is an eternal and timeless substrate of something more fundamental than space and time that bubbles up universes, like ours, spontaneously — it is not a god, nothing that cares about us personally, but it does have the attribute of never requiring a creation event, like their hypothetical god. Even claiming a causal event at the beginning of the universe does not imply Jesus.
Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a law) teaches us that in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another heat reaction. This is why things break down if left to themselves, and why scientists tell us that the universe is headed toward a heat death.
This law teaches us, then, that the universe is headed toward increasing randomness and decay.
But what does the theory of evolution teach us? The exact opposite, that the universe is headed toward increasing complexity and order. You put up a theory against my law, I'm going to settle for the law, thank you very much.
All right, another repitition of the false law/theory dichotomy, with extra emphasis. Still wrong.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen.
Nothing in evolution violates laws of physics or chemistry, and the properties of organisms depend on the second law. We burn food, increasing its entropy, to decrease entropy locally in our bodies; the net change is an overall increase in entropy, but the bit we care about, ourselves, can use that increase to drive a local decrease. All of this is obvious, with even a minimal understanding of the principles involved.
Fossils. Realize that the fossil record is the only tangible, physical evidence for the theory of evolution that exists. The fossil record is it. There is absolutely nothing else Darwinians have they can show you.
It kind of takes your breath away, doesn't it? This is an argument that relies entirely on a profound ignorance of the science of biology. No, this is not true; in fact, fossils are only a tiny part of the evidence for evolution. It's a kind of sexy, tangible, concrete piece that doesn't require a lot of background to appreciate, and historically it is very important, but in modern biology, it's probably the least of the elements that support the theory.
First of all, the fossil evidence is flawed and imperfect, which every evolutionary biologist will tell you, and as creationists are fond of quoting. Even Darwin's Origin goes on at length to document the imperfection of the geological record — all it can do is demonstrate a long pattern of change and diversity over earth's history (which does contradict literalist interpretations of the bible) and hint at transitions and connections between lineages … and even the fossil lineages are a product of a connect-the-dots sort of exercise. Fossils disprove a literal Genesis, which is probably why the creationists focus on them so much, but they provide only a sketch outline of the history of life on earth and are not the key evidence for the process and mechanisms for evolution.
For that, we rely on evidence in living organisms. Read this summary of the evidence for evolution, for instance; a small part of it is a description of transitional fossil forms, but most of it is molecules, comparative phylogenies, development, genetics, biogeography, experiments … and especially molecules, molecules, molecules. Modern evolutionary biology is dominated by molecular analyses — everything from traditional ecological field work to embryology has become reliant on looking at genes and proteins. In the field I follow most closely, evo-devo, there is virtually no fossil evidence of any kind, nor can there be — we're interested in the dynamic process of gene expression and interaction during the formation of embryos, and none of that can fossilize. You can read some of my articles on evolution, and you'll find relatively few fossils discussed — it's mostly about molecular mechanisms. Similarly, my Seed articles have all been on evo-devo and molecular genetics. That's where all the action is at, not in fossils.
This isn't even new. Darwin himself vested little effort in a discussion of fossils as evidence, but instead discussed variations under domestication and in nature, his mechanism of natural selection, hybrids, biogeography, and development, and prefaced his chapter "On The Geological Succession Of Organic Beings" with a chapter "On The Imperfection Of The Geological Record". This has always been the case in evolutionary biology, that the primary evidence has come from extant forms, not old bones.
Fossils have just always been handy tools to bonk creationists over the head with, while telling them their myth is wrong.
Genes. The only mechanism -- don't miss this -- the only mechanism evolutionists have to explain the development of increasingly complex life forms is genetic mutation. Mutations alter DNA, and these alterations can be passed on to descendants.
The problem: naturally occurring genetic mutations are invariably harmful if not fatal to the organism. Rather than improve an organism's capacity to survive, they invariably weaken it. That's why the phrase we most often use to refer to genetic mutations is "birth defects."
Wait…Fischer has just told everyone that the only evidence "Darwinists" can muster is the fossils, and then in this last point he mentions genes? So he does have a vague notion that biologists do look at something other than mineralized bones, which implies that he was simply lying in his third argument.
Whenever Fischer says "the only…", I think we can take it as a given at this point that he's just making stuff up. Evolution is not "only" about mutations. Mutations provide a substrate of random variation on which other mechanisms, such as selection and drift, can operate to produce change in a population. That's the first grand error in this claim, and it's a fairly common misconception, implying that all there is to evolution is random chance assembly of functional organisms.
The second big mistake is the claim that genetic mutations are invariably harmful. This is simply not true. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and a smaller number are beneficial. The whole point of Darwin's great idea, though, is that there are mechanisms (the ones Fischer claims don't exist) which can select for and increase the frequency of the beneficial mutations over time, while winnowing out the harmful ones.
We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that most mutations can't be harmful, or we'd all be dead. We know this because we understand genetics, unlike Mr Fischer, and we know that every human being on this planet is born with a substantial collection of novel mutations. I'll just cite Larry Moran's succinct calculation:
The haploid human genome is about 3 × 109 base pairs in size. Every time this genome is replicated about 0.3 mutations, on average, will be passed on to one of the daughter cells. We are interested in knowing how many mutations are passed on to the fertilized egg (zygote) from its parents. In order to calculate this number we need to know how many DNA replications there are between the time that one parental zygote was formed and the time that the egg or sperm cell that unite to form the progeny zygote are produced.
In the case of females, this number is about 30, which means that each of a females eggs is the product of 30 cell divisions from the time the zygote was formed (Vogel and Rathenberg, 1975). Human females have about 500 eggs. In males, the number of cell divisions leading to mature sperm in a 30 year old male is about 400 (Vogel and Motulsky, 1997). This means that about 9 mutations (0.3 × 30) accumulate in the egg and about 120 mutations (0.3 × 400) accumulate in a sperm cell. Thus, each newly formed human zygote has approximately 129 new spontaneous mutations.
Is Mr Fischer walking around with over 100 "birth defects"?
One last, relatively minor complaint, but it is a pet peeve: most birth defects are not a consequence of genetic changes at all, but of epigenetic errors — factors in the environment that perturb the pattern of development and cause aberrations in form. Most of the malformations that Fischer would label birth defects have no genetic basis, while virtually all of the genetic changes that occur in every one of us would not even be recognized by him. It's symptomatic that basically everything Bryan Fischer says is a 180° reversal from the truth.
But then, what else would you expect? Fischer has no knowledge of biology at all. His training is in theology (surprise!), which seems to have only taught him arrogance and pretentiousness, that he thinks expertise in making stuff up from old books means that people with real degrees in the sciences are doing likewise. The tragedy is that this clown is the head of the Idaho Values Alliance, which means he believes his patent ignorance qualifies him to tell other human beings how to live their lives.
Comments
I can outthink Darwin, he's dead.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | April 19, 2008 11:27 AM
Well, I'm convinced.
(... falls off chair giggling.)
Of course, I can *still* hear Ben Stein calling out my name. (Sort of.)
Posted by: marc buhler | April 19, 2008 11:30 AM
Must. . . resist. . . obvious. . . cheap. . . shot. . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 19, 2008 11:33 AM
Well, when Ambassador Keyes wins the Constitution Party nomination (he's left the Republicans), and then goes on to win the Presidency, this guy will be a science advisor. This will all come about because of the glorious re-awakening of American yesterday!!! [/keith]
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 11:33 AM
OT, but entertaining. The crazies are trying to take control of the comments section accompanying the brutal NYT pan of Expelled.
Posted by: La Rana | April 19, 2008 11:34 AM
No doubt Mr. Fischer thought the "laws of science" were enacted by the National Academy of Sciences. Or perhaps the College of Cardinals. You know, one of those organizations with a nice letterhead and long red robes.
Hmmm. What if someone introduced a measure to repeal some of those laws? Then we could have perpetual motion machines! And cold fusion would finally start working.
Posted by: Zeno | April 19, 2008 11:40 AM
Thanks for the awesome post, PZ. Its nice for those of us fighting Fischer on his home turf -- and believe me, its an exhausting wave of stupidity to try to hold back. The downside to this post is twofold: you just put his activism on a larger stage and probably just doubled the size of his ego. But, that's OK. Its all he's got.
Posted by: Akitagod | April 19, 2008 11:43 AM
I'm sick and tired of the constant aesir-bashing on this blog! Are you not worried about being denied dying in battle and thus not getting to enter Valhalla? I'll sacrifice a goat for you.
Ahem. Sorry. Too much time on my hands, and nothing useful to add. Carry on.
Posted by: Ted D | April 19, 2008 11:56 AM
Didn't Dobzhansky in his 1937 book, "Genetics and the Orign of Species" falsify the mostly deleterious mutations argument? Also interesting to read E. O. Wiley and others on the Second Law of Thermodynamics as the driving mechanism for evolution. Can't recall the name of the Nobel Laureate who showed that the Second Law could lead to increase in complexity.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | April 19, 2008 11:58 AM
It always fascinates me how many times, when I follow your links to your opponents, I find they almost never link to you or other evolutionists. It would also be nice if just once they would link to the informtion they claim to be quoting, I guess that would be too much to ask.
Posted by: Dennis | April 19, 2008 12:00 PM
Tell the creationist fellow that the universe actually has zero net energy (gravity being the negative part).
Posted by: Jit | April 19, 2008 12:01 PM
To quote the Firesign Theatre:
"Eww! It's a big bag of shit!"
"Yes, but it's really GREAT shit!"
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | April 19, 2008 12:05 PM
I love how some commenters turn the bad review into proof that the movie is right:
'cause it couldn't be that Expelled is a piece of crap and there's no way not to notice that.
Posted by: Ted D | April 19, 2008 12:06 PM
Ilya Prigogine?
Posted by: Christian | April 19, 2008 12:06 PM
Theology = study of nothing, if God does not exist. That is no qualification to talk about science.
Posted by: Jit | April 19, 2008 12:07 PM
Great article. Though it's a bit depressing to have to constantly rebuff these crappy arguments against evolution. Why will they never listen?
Posted by: Mantecanaut | April 19, 2008 12:12 PM
You know? One of my favorite things is how these gomers will gurgle and rant that scientists are not qualified to discuss theology. And yet, here we have a theologian trying (and failing rather comically) to discuss science.
Posted by: Dan | April 19, 2008 12:15 PM
PZ,
Are most mutations strictly speaking neutral, or are many of these something slightly either side of neutral? In particular many being very slightly deleterious.
Posted by: SteveF | April 19, 2008 12:16 PM
Oh, thank you for this. It's actually too funny to be true, and it's so sad that it is actually true. But in his own experience, there must have been some atheists, who were debating with Fischer, and they must have given him similar answers. Or are these "arguments" new to him and he never heard similar explanations? If yes, then he is not competent enough. If no, then he is a bloody liar ... or just an idiot... just like:
Fischer: "What do you have to say about my arguments against evolution?"
Biologist: "Well, I will explain you every detail. So..."
Fisch" "LALALA I can't hear you LALALA"
Posted by: Patrick Albers | April 19, 2008 12:34 PM
Oh, I just created matter last week. But that's umpossible!
Well, it wasn't that much and not for very long. But still:
I am a god!
Or can it be, that this gawdfly just doesn't know his Einstein? ;)
Posted by: student_b | April 19, 2008 12:37 PM
"Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen"
I've been doing that to creationists for years anyway; I had no idea I could tie it into an actual argument. Thanks!
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | April 19, 2008 12:39 PM
Ha, read this:
Yeah, friendliest place in the world to raise a family until you decide you want your kids to have a read science education, and not a know-nothing fundamentalist religious one.
Bryan Fischer is a grinning, smug enemy of science and reason, executive director of an organization that appears to hate gays, medical research, reproductive choice and public schools, and works tirelessly to promote the exclusively Christian viewpoint in public venues.
...
Interestingly, his son J.D. Fischer majored in molecular biology at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington. Be interesting to know what HE thinks of evolution, and dear old Dad's anti-science hijinks.
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 19, 2008 12:45 PM
"there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter"
There's nothing in the observable universe that can explain the origin of god. What's your point?
Posted by: Olaf Davis | April 19, 2008 12:49 PM
A paper from 2007 in the Journal of Bacteriology which appears to have been co-authored by his son:
Citrate Sensing by the C4-Dicarboxylate/Citrate Sensor Kinase DcuS of Escherichia coli: Binding Site and Conversion of DcuS to a C4-Dicarboxylate- or Citrate-Specific Sensor (2007)
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 19, 2008 12:50 PM
That perplexing 'Second Law of Thermodynamics Argument' gives insight into just how stupid creationists think scientists must be. Do they really think that thousands of working biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, etc. are going to somehow not notice they've been unknowingly violating the laws of physics for over a hundred years -- and then all of a sudden an engineer is going to run up and tell them their perpetual motion machine isn't working? Oops, will their faces be red.
What the hell sort of image of evolution does this indicate? If there are no violations of natural law in what they call MICRO-evolution, the little picture, then it's not suddenly going to appear if you pull back a distance and look at the big picture. Another instance of what's called "the discontinuous mind."
Posted by: Sastra | April 19, 2008 12:56 PM
Holy smokes, does this clown actually think that the physicists who study the Big Bang and the origins of energy and matter are unaware of the 1st law of thermodynamics, and fail to take it into account?
They know full well about the first law; in fact, they know more about it than he learned in Bible class.
I always find it interesting when people think their ignorance is an argument for anything (again, using ignorance in the true sense of the word). It's like the old story about how "science showed that a bumblebee couldn't fly." True (maybe?), scientists at the time could not account for how a bumblebee could fly. However, they didn't use that to conclude a bumblebee couldn't fly, they took it as an indication that their knowledge of how it flew was lacking.
That's what Fischers is doing here. He is doing the equivalent of applying simplistic analysis and interpretation and acting as if it applies to the real system. Sorry, dude, bumblebees can fly no matter what _your_ version of the physics says. Perhaps you should consider that, if your version of the 1st law doesn't accomodate the Big Bang, then it is your interpretation of the 1st law that is wrong, and not the Big Bang?
If I were talking to him, I wouldn't get past the first point. He demonstrates himself to be an ignorant fool, so nothing else he has to contribute is worth listening to.
Posted by: Pablo | April 19, 2008 12:57 PM
Like so many of these creationist / ID pundits, Bryan Fischer makes no provision for comments. I wonder which is uppermost in their mind when they do this, 'I am the Authority Whose Word is Law' or 'if I allow comments someone might make a point I can't rebut'?
Posted by: Richard Simons | April 19, 2008 12:57 PM
You have to remember, in the fundie creo world, anyone with and IQ over 80, a high school education, or a brain larger than a walnut is....an elitist.
I'm sure they think their dog is a smart ass elitist too.
Posted by: raven | April 19, 2008 12:58 PM
I find it interesting that the actually scientific blogs (for instance, this one) have a space for anyone to add comments. Creationist sites, on the other hand, almost never have such a space. Perhaps they are afraid of someone bursting the bubble of lies they build around their gullible readers?
Posted by: Landon | April 19, 2008 12:59 PM
Re Genes: I guess there are mutations, otherwise all brothers and sisters would all be exact look-alikes.
There should be a Law that forced these people back to school.
Posted by: Chupacabras | April 19, 2008 1:00 PM
Interesting exercise: See how many points can be rebutted by using the Answers in Genesis page on arguments creationists should not use.
(I see at least points 2 and 4 addressed, as well as the false theory/law dichotomy)
Posted by: Mark | April 19, 2008 1:01 PM
Even Aristotle saw that behind the existence of the universe had to be what he called a Prime Mover or an Unmoved Mover.
Well if it's so obvious that even Aristole saw it... even Aristole could see that one by golly.
Intelligent Design theory offers a Prime Mover, evolution does not.
Big deal anybody can offer a prime mover. You have to do more than just "offer", otherwise anybody who "offers" something has a better theory by default. Hey everybody let's go around "offering" stuff all day! "Offer" "offer" "offer" "offer" "offer"!!
Posted by: StarbucksOffersLatte386sx | April 19, 2008 1:02 PM
This law teaches us, then, that the universe is headed toward increasing randomness and decay.
"But what does the theory of evolution teach us? The exact opposite, that the universe is headed toward increasing complexity and order."
No, it doesn't.
Do you think lying generates more heat than telling the truth? Fischer would be an excellent subject in such an experiment. In fact, you might be able to tell a lot about randomness, decay and heat death by studying the grey matter of your typical creationist proponent. Teh stupid; it burns.
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 19, 2008 1:02 PM
True, although I would note that biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists are not as expert in the concept of the statistical distribution of energies as others, such as physicists or physical chemists. I mean, biologists might have had some thermodynamics training in their coursework, but that's asking quite a bit for paleontologists.
That's why I focused on the 1st law stuff. Physicists, OTOH, were the ones who developed the whole "Laws of Thermodynamics" things, and most physicists have highly advanced training in thermodynamics, and it's applications (as in statistical mechanics, which is all about thermo). Yet, he implies that these folks are so stupid to not account for the 1st law? Hokey smokes, I am not an expert in Big Bang physics in any way, but I know darn well that "energy balance" is a huge component of everything they do.
Posted by: Pablo | April 19, 2008 1:05 PM
Golly, gee, I can demolish Darwinism with a single argument.
1. All that evolution has going for it is evidence. Without that, it is nothing.
(Yeah, it does take your breath away, doesn't it?)
Posted by: Lout | April 19, 2008 1:11 PM
I'll admit I am no scientist, but it sounds to me like Myers is saying a "law" is only such because some human being says so, and therefore one should not assume a scientific "law" to be valid or objective, but arbitrary? This then means that Fischer's understanding of a "law" is something unscientific and therefore he is wrong. Am I getting this correct?
Posted by: HG | April 19, 2008 1:12 PM
"But what does the theory of evolution teach us? The exact opposite, that the universe is headed toward increasing complexity and order."
This guy looks like he's getting some of his theories mixed up or something. Not exactly the brightest bulb, if you know what I'm saying.
Posted by: 386sx | April 19, 2008 1:19 PM
Posted by: Richard Simons | April 19, 2008 1:19 PM
It does not matter if we call it theory or law, the important issue is if our model work and can be tested. Evolution is a primitive theory and requires so much faith that, sorry to say, it turns to be a religion followed by people who do not want to be brave enough to reject God but want to hide themselves behind science. Believing or not in God is not a science thing, believing in God or not is a pesonal decision.
Finally PZ Meyers, I saw a clip about your comments about religion in the Expelled movie and I found them prepotent, silly,wrong,simple, ignorant and childhood. Your conspiracy about killing religion departs from the assumption that religion is just a hobby thing. Well why natural selection created it in the first place?. Secondly, killing religion seems to be an unnatural process, as you said, you should try to do something against it, otherwise it will exist. Hope you are quite aware that you will die, your childrens and your grandchildrens and religion will still be there because even if your dream become true and Darwinism mindset is the only prevalent serious thought, sooner than later you will realize that the Darwinish is, in fact, a religion.
By the way, you guys are not the intelligent ones.
Posted by: Ivan | April 19, 2008 1:21 PM
Mindless creationist blather landing on runway 38!
Posted by: Martin | April 19, 2008 1:30 PM
Ivan, just out of curiosity, what is your field of expertise? Do you have one?
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 19, 2008 1:30 PM
Right at the start:
Ah, yeah. Because all they do in neuroscience departments all day is sit and twiddle their thumbs. 'Not much for us to do - everything in there is just totally random...'
Posted by: Stuart Ritchie | April 19, 2008 1:32 PM
That was entertaining stuff.
Posted by: Ben | April 19, 2008 1:33 PM
Martin (#39) For The Win!
Especially delicious if you know how runways are numbered. Because the creationist world is that special kind of world where a circle can too have 380 degrees of rotation, I don't care what those elitist geomertrey professors say!
Posted by: Johnny Vector | April 19, 2008 1:36 PM
You refutation of the nonsensical creationist 2nd law of thermodynamics claim doesn't work for them though. You ask if they are not themselves more complex; they answer of course. You point out that this contradicts the 2nd law; they point out that this is because God did it, just as God did it for evolution, just as God hears every sparrow's call. To them this is proof of God, because none of these things would work -- according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics -- without God mucking about with the machinery all the time.
Cogito ergo boggum.
Posted by: QrazyQat | April 19, 2008 1:37 PM
Hi Ivan,
Thanks for joining in the discussion with your well-thought-out comments and lucid style!
You're going to fit in really well around here. PZ, a Molly award for this man! Cheers!
Love from,
Stuart.
Posted by: Stuart Ritchie | April 19, 2008 1:37 PM
Ooh, Brian Fischer has also decided he's qualified to assess the validity of AGW.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/fischer/080417
CO2 isn't a pollutant at all! It's plant food! Whew, what a relief. Time to switch from a bike to a car so I can feed me some plants.
Posted by: Rebecca | April 19, 2008 1:47 PM
Okay, it's not exactly spare and pithy but I'm all in favor of putting up plaques of PZ's rebuttal instead of those silly ten commandments. "Thou shall not kill, steal, bear false witness", I try to live by, but the "no god before me" is bizarre. Where would America be without coveting? It drives our economy dammit.
Observation:I suspect english is not Ivan's first language; if it is then the irony is just tragic. Any way you slice it though, he's a clueless idiot.
Posted by: Jsn | April 19, 2008 1:51 PM
Posted by: Ivan | April 19, 2008 1:21 PM
I wonder how much vodka it takes to get this ridiculous.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 19, 2008 1:53 PM
By the way, you guys are not the intelligent ones.
"I know you are -- but WHAT AM I??"
Snap!
Posted by: George Cauldron | April 19, 2008 1:55 PM
I KNOW WHAT ENTROPY IS!! I JUST LEARNED THAT IN CHEMISTRY!! YAY!
Posted by: LP | April 19, 2008 1:56 PM
it sounds to me like Myers is saying a "law" is only such because some human being says so, and therefore one should not assume a scientific "law" to be valid or objective, but arbitrary? ...Am I getting this correct?
No you are not. A scientific law isn't just because "someone says so", its because it is an accurate codification of real phenomena. Like Ohms's Law. What usually distiguishes a "law" from a theory is that a law is essentially a single statement typically expressed as an equation, e.g. V=I*R. A theory is a coherent collection of laws and a model of why those laws are in the form they are, i.e. theory of electromagnetism.
Posted by: SteveM | April 19, 2008 1:56 PM
SteveM,
Please clarify Myers use of the words "arbitrary", "valid", and "objective". Also, your explanation reflects Myers own, but Myers goes a little further. He says that not all "laws" are expressed as an equation and that such a law is an example of the arbitrary -- if I am not mistaken.
Posted by: HG | April 19, 2008 2:03 PM
Okay, it's not exactly spare and pithy but I'm all in favor of putting up plaques of PZ's rebuttal instead of those silly ten commandments.
It's been Dugg does that count?
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 19, 2008 2:04 PM
As evolution applies to all organisms, let's make Fischer happy by instituting the law of evolution.
I'm only halfway joking. Let's assume we find life elsewhere in the universe. What are the likelihood that this life is found to be static, eternal, singular individuals as opposed to adaptable, competitive organisms in a population?
Not quite as bad as the "Ultimate 747" probability perhaps, but the way to bet is that evolving life forms kicks others ass.
I'm not an expert either, but I doubt an energy balance matter (which is another way of saying that Fischer is wrong).
Looking at an entire initial singularity (the whole shebang) there are presumably some varieties that allow constraints. But until a full theory of quantum gravity exists, I'm not sure how valid they can be.
Looking at larger volumes in later stages of the process (for egality, let us call it this a "hebang"), there is presumably no such thing as a definable global energy in general relativity. Seems one can motivate and use various energy conditions for rather large hebangs though.
Now as mentioned AFAIU the local energy density of the current cosmology comes out as zero, since empty space is as perfectly flat as can be observed. So energy balance seems to be a result, if nothing else.
One can blame it on inflation, I suppose. Which in turn can be blamed for setting up a conveniently large universe instead of a dud.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | April 19, 2008 2:05 PM
No, actually, it is pretty much arbitrary. You can call anything a law -- there is no governing body overseeing the nomenclature with a set of categorical guidelines. Lately, I've had a string of creationists trying to shout me down with a "Law of Causation" and a "Law of Biogenesis", neither of which really exist as laws.
But in an operational sense, you're right: the laws that persist are the laws that work. Ohm's Law? Nice, clean, measurable, usable, it's one of the things that makes my computer function. The law that says the force of gravity is proportional to the masses divided by the distance squared? Sure, that one seems to predict behavior very accurately, I'll call it a law.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 19, 2008 2:08 PM
I really don't understand how creationists can spew the same stupid disproved arguments over and over and over and over. Well I can see one positive aspect to it, it helps me to further understand the fact of evolution. But ah, not sure on the numbers but I think >70% of the earths population doesn't believe or have a proper understanding of evolution so evolution still needs to be taught to >4 billion people, who are most likely being brainwashed in their churches with this same crap. What a daunting job we have ahead of ourselves.
Posted by: dave | April 19, 2008 2:09 PM
"What are the likelihood" - What is the likelihood.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | April 19, 2008 2:13 PM
That's "Ohmses's Law". Unless it's been past-tensededed.
Or rather: Just so. Trying to argue that PZ is wrong on the basis of whether one should call A a law and B a theory is like deciding who to vote for based on what lapel pin they wear.
Ohm's law is a concise mathematical statement, which is consistent with theories of Electromagnetism and solid state physics. It is not more or less true than those theories.
The point is that the terms "law" and "theory" in science are not part of a hierarchy, and trying to win your argument by labeling things with those terms and then claiming one beats the other as a result of those labels is lunacy.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | April 19, 2008 2:18 PM
By "energy balance is a huge component" I didn't mean to suggest that there is always an energy balance, but that the energy balance is always something considered. It could be that there is an energy balance, or it could be that "there is presumably no such thing as a definable global energy in general relativity," or something maybe something else. Regardless, the concept of energy balance is addressed in some way in the various models. It certainly is not ignored, and under no circumstances are they proposing an actual violation of the (real) 1st Law. It's just that under Big Bang conditions where GR treatment is required, it can be hard to pinpoint what the 1st law actually requires.
But the point remains, physicists know this stuff, and realize that their models need to account for it in some way.
Posted by: Pablo | April 19, 2008 2:21 PM
What usually distinguishes a "law" from a theory is that a law is essentially a single statement typically expressed as an equation, e.g. V=I*R.
Mendel's Laws illustrate the arbitrary nature of what distinguishes laws from principles or postulates as they are not expressed as equations and had to be modified to allow for effects such as linkage.
Posted by: Richard Simons | April 19, 2008 2:26 PM
And notice that even Ohm's law fails to describe superconductors.
(I once heard someone argue that there couldn't be superconductors because they would violate Ohm's Law)
Posted by: Pablo | April 19, 2008 2:27 PM
"Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen"
Regress?
Posted by: Rey Fox | April 19, 2008 2:36 PM
Actually not of real phenomena per se, but of models of real phenomena.
Posted by: Christian | April 19, 2008 2:36 PM
To put it another way that might be clearer: Scientific laws are not in the least arbitrary. Neither are scientific theories. Both are beholden to testing against reality.
What scientists call a law as opposed to a theory is arbitrary, though.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | April 19, 2008 2:43 PM
Oh FSM (For the Sake of Molly)! Ohm's law works just fine on superconductors. E = I * R. You got your superconductor, that's got that R equal to zero. So whatever I is, E is zero too. Works like a champ.
Which reminds me of a story I heard Nth-hand, of a guy in the British (I think) army, taking a test to be a radio operator. One question asked him to write down the three equations of electronics. Three? he wondered. Which set of equations has three? Let's see...
Ohm's law. There's just the one.
Kirchoff's laws. Two of them.
Maxwell's equations? Four.
He finally gave up on that question. Upon asking about it later, he was patiently informed that the three equations were:
E = I * R
R = E / I
I = E / R
Posted by: Johnny Vector | April 19, 2008 2:54 PM
So how much current flows if you hook the two ends of a superconductor up to a 9 V battery?
Posted by: Pablo | April 19, 2008 2:57 PM
Ivan (#38): Parody or Punditry?
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 19, 2008 3:02 PM
Fischer sez: Laws of Thermodynamics blah blah i am a moron
I really wish people (mostly creos, but sane folks do it, too) would stop conflating information entropy, engineering thermo, and statistical thermo. The more "sophisticated" Second Law arguments almost always conflate energy entropy with information entropy, and always fail at understanding statistical entropy.
Also, the First Law argument is so entirely bizarre I don't know what to do with it.
(No creo ever seems to abuse the Zeroth or Third Laws of Thermo, either. Let's give temperature some love!)
Posted by: Kadath | April 19, 2008 3:23 PM
So how much current flows if you hook the two ends of a superconductor up to a 9 V battery?
As much as the battery can supply. The problem is not Ohm's Law, but your circuit model. A battery is a very good, but not a perfect, voltage source. Include an accurate model of the battery and things will work out just fine.
Posted by: SteveM | April 19, 2008 3:23 PM
So what is the current if you apply a 9 volt potential difference across a superconductor?
You claimed above that E = 0. But if I apply a non-zero source, then E =/= 0. You cannot have both E = 0 and E > 0.
The problem is that 0*infinity is not defined. Hence, your claim that "anything times 0 is 0" is wrong.
Posted by: Pablo | April 19, 2008 3:29 PM
#39:
Oh, I hate to pick apart your most excellent burn, but I'm picky for the details. Runway numbers don't go above 36 (numbered according to their magnetic heading in degrees, rounded off to the nearest 10 and the zero dropped).
A Pilot and Biologist
Posted by: DH | April 19, 2008 3:31 PM
Pablo (#67):
I = E / R, as always when Ohm's law applies. Thevenin says you can model the battery as a pure voltage source in series with a resistor. Since the superconductor has no resistance, the internal resistance of the battery is the total resistance in the circuit.
There's always some resistance in your power source, unless you just make a loop out of the superconductor wire. In which case you now have a constant amount of current flowing in the loop, with zero voltage. If that current is nonzero when you create the loop, presto! Big ol' electromagnet that lasts forever! (Or until you bring a big power supply too close to it, resulting in the magnet being pulled against the side of the dewar, causing a thermal short and boiling off all your helium so suddenly it's not superconducting any more. Not that I have any experience with that.)
If you're worried about writing the equation as I = E/R and dividing by zero, you can stop worrying! In that case you need to take the appropriate limit, like you do any time a denominator goes to zero. You remember that from High School calculus, right?
The pirate physicists hijack the thread! Avast!
Posted by: Johnny Vector | April 19, 2008 3:33 PM
DH, I explained it all in comment #44. Well, I didn't explain the numbering convention, I was trying to keep it all secret-y so those of us in the know can keep our elite status.
But now you've let the cat out of the bag. And my trophy wife out of town, too. How depressing.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | April 19, 2008 3:40 PM
I think the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a case for Sun worship.
Truly, no life would exist on Earth without the Sun and all life derives its sustenance in some way from it. The Sun is the source of energy that allows us to defy entropy.
Sun worship is the only religion with some basis in science. The Sun is real and tangible and is proven to be the source of life. And after the winter we've had here in Minnesota, I plan pay much homage to the great and powerful Sun this summer!
Posted by: Sonja | April 19, 2008 3:41 PM
Posted by: Pablo | April 19, 2008 3:41 PM
/Ivan (#38): Parody or Punditry?/
Had he signed off as Ivan Yakkinoff, I would vote parody, but there was a quaint earnestness to his rant that suggests punditry, irrationally based and poorly spelled.
The world may never know...
Posted by: jsn | April 19, 2008 3:42 PM