A Defense of the Creation Model
Jan 27
The following is a response to a Jan 6. opinions article titled "Calling it Science doesn’t it make it Science" by Tyler Laing.
The author of the article warns of a new danger on campus. Rising tuition fees? Higher marking standards from profs? Dragons? No. He writes that UBC-O has an infestation of creationists. Infestation? Universities must encourage the free exchange of new ideas, no? The infestation term is an unflattering and unfair description of many Ph.D. university professors, the world over, who favour the creation model over evolution. The author also misrepresents that we think the creation model is equal to evolution. No. We think the creation model is actually superior to evolution as it better accounts for the evidence. The author thinks that the creation model is not science because it cannot be falsified. I would agree but ironically, the author misses the point that much of evolution (cosmological, geological, chemical and biological) is also unfalsifiable and not science. Falsification is one of a number of test points for science. What is falsifiability? “All men are immortal” is falsifiable (one dead man falsifies the statement) but “All men are mortal” is unfalsifiable (maybe the next man won’t die). So how do we compare the models? Compare the “fit” of each model to the evidence and decide which origin model makes better predictions. I would add that the ability to observe/reproduce evidence is also essential to a good science definition. Thus, mentally forearmed, I encourage the reader to apply critical thinking to each origin account. Space limits me to three examples.
Beginning of the Universe. It is impossible to experimentally falsify the big bang theory unless you have a time machine (or physicists are secretly making new universes). Likewise, for God having created the universe. Neither origin account is science. What we ARE able to observe is evidence supporting an actual beginning for the universe which is consistent with both models.
Beginning of life. The naturalistic explanation (abiogenesis) speculates thus: lifeless simple chemicals self-assembled into the first living cell. Falsifiable? Impossible! This explanation further suffers from the complete failure of experimental efforts to repeat what we THINK happened. Randomly reacting simple chemicals do not synthesize enzymes, DNA, RNA, sugars, ER, microtubules etc which (somehow) further assemble into a viable complex information-rich cell. A recent publication agrees (Lack of evolvability in self-sustaining autocatalytic networks: A constraint on the metabolism-first path to the origin of life, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Jan 4, 2010). Want a falsifiable prediction from the creation model? The generation of a living cell from simple unguided chemicals will never succeed. Why? Connect the dots. It takes an intelligent human in a sophisticated laboratory to CREATE a very few of the cell’s complex information-rich components therefore the synthesis of a fully functioning cell (which we cannot begin to do) demands a super-intelligence. The “by-itself” explanation is completely unsupported. The evidence supports the creation model. Perhaps another 1000 years of research will discover how natural processes led to abiogenesis? That is a belief statement and it is made in direct contradiction to a wealth of failed experiments.
Generation of complex life. The story goes: mutations and natural selection ultimately transform the first proto-cell population into (after many iterations) incredibly complex information-rich organisms that see, feel, taste, hear, smell, fly, generate electricity, contain poisons, have immune systems etc. Evidence? None. Where is a single sequence of experiments which reproduces evolution’s supposed creative power to generate complex information? We again emphasize that complex information must arise from intelligence. Like so many before him, the author offers up examples of natural selection or genetic variation to “prove” evolution. They don’t. The author’s use of E. coli “evolving” to live with a deadly chemical is a good example of natural selection but not evolution. And natural selection was first described by a follower of the creation model - Edward Blythe. Surprised? Don’t be. A creation model worldview still encourages good research.
The author of the Opinions article writes that the creation model is not science but clearly many areas of evolution also fall into this same category. The real question? Is there supporting evidence for any model? Evolution is “bullet-proof”, not because of the experimental evidence, but because, according to evolutionists, “it is a fact” and all data must be viewed from that context. We reject this artificial and limited approach to the study of origins. I and untold thousands of researchers love science and we have a creation model worldview because we feel that it better accounts for the evidence. It also means that we have accepted that there is a Creator behind the model and this may account for some of the hostile and emotive opposition we encounter.
The Creation Club ideally meets monthly to tackle issues with a critical mind and open forum. We advertise our meetings and encourage thinking individuals to attend.
Dr. Ed Neeland UBC-O Chem Prof.
25 comments
Gavin Gamache on Jan 27, 2010 at 3:59pm
The first two examples actually have nothing to do with evolution. The origin of the universe is a question best posed under the purview of physics and astronomy, not biology, and abiogenesis is at best half chemistry, half biology, but nowhere does it involve biologic evolution.
However, a hot dense inflationary period ("the "Big Bang") is arguably modern science's One Sure Thing; it is well-supported by observations of Hubble redshift, cosmic microwave background radiation, the relative quantities of the first several dozen elements and isotopes in the universe, and the visibly evolving nature of galaxies and clusters thereof as we can see the older versions the farther out we look. All these observations fit to an extremely precise degree of accuracy the values predicted from theory.
Abiogenesis I'm not as deft with, but Chris Impey's pop-sci book Our Living Cosmos mentions several experiments that have taken scenarios like those believed normal on the early Earth, and have produced such things as cell wall-like lipid bubbles and some amino acids. The assertion that of course it would take an intelligent entity like a scientist or creator to do such a thing is a bit of a wash: for example, it takes large and expensive machinery and technical expertise to create such things as artificial diamonds in a lab, but deep in the earth they are formed naturally. In the same way, the several hundred million years and who-knows-how-many chances it took for the simplest biochemistry to develop is more beyond our current technologic reach than the pressures and temperatures kilometres underground; nature has a much bigger toolkit than we.
Only the third example is really one of evolution, and admittedly this is where your strongest argument is. Obviously the observation of the changes that have already happened to produce the variety of adaptations we can see in the living world is difficult (paleontology being the best bet), and the experimental route is just as fraught with the problem of the human lifespan (or perhaps attention span). Still, the assertion that the provided example of E. coli adaptation is not that of evolution but of natural selection is almost absurd; it seems an argument of definition.
A better example could be seen perhaps with the domestic dog: since its taming in prehistory, and with the addition of many different reproductive pressures, a huge variety of breeds have appeared, and maybe it's a question of defining the word "species" that has kept them all under Canis lupus familiaris, since I for one cannot think of any other subspecies, let along species, with such a variety of different appearances and traits: a varying sense of smell, different fields and qualities of vision, differences in size which are very striking when you imagine a Great Dane standing next to (or over top of) a daschund, even the presence or absence of the tail from birth on some breeds which have had their tails traditionally docked. These of course are less impressive changes than, say, if one breed of dog secreted venom, or had six legs and could grip glass with them, but the more time that natural selection is given, the more pronounced the net changes are, and more and more will some populations change in different ways than others in other locations, leading to different species that would not be able to reproduce, eventually forming two distinct gene pools, and separate species. Indeed, could you really look at that Great Dane and that daschund and say that, in the wild, they could fruitfully reproduce, purely from a mechanical perspective? The different reproductive pressures put upon the species by breeders throughout history has produced wildly different breeds in much the same way that different environmental pressures have created different species over the course of billions of years. So perhaps the laboratory you should be looking at for examples of evolution isn't a row of petri dishes, but a row of kennels.
Ed Neeland on Jan 28, 2010 at 11:59pm
Hey Gavin:
You stated that the term "evolution" is to be applied only to biology. So I am confused by your second paragraph where you said "visibly evolving nature of galaxies." It seems like you agree with me and other scientists that the term evolution is acceptable in many other fields like cosmological evolution. Oops? In any sense, the data definitely support a beginning for the universe which is OK with the Creation model.
Your comments on abiogenesis relate the production of diamond to both natural and artificial processes which somehow invalidates the intelligence requirement for abiogenesis. Don't follow you on that one. Diamond doesn't contain the encylopedic information found in DNA so the analogy falls very short and this example emphasizes that a simple ordered diamond unit cell can form naturally but that the cell could only be made by intelligence/design. No natural/random processes generate complex information. I haven't even found one example. In fall, I keep looking for trees to lose their leaves and have those leaves spell a message like "Hi Ed. Nice day we're having isn't it? Now that would be impressive! But, let's face it, if you and I ever saw such a "leaf message" under a tree; we'd be looking for the person who did it and not even considering the tree as the culprit. I hope you agree. The cell is just a tiny bit more complex than that message.
Evidence for evolution usually takes the approach that any change in organisms is evidence for evolution. IF you define evolution as change. Who would argue that definition? We wouldn't be having this conversation if evolution simply meant change. We would talk about how seasons evolve and not change etc. But evolution is much more than just change. It is the molecules to men origin account which has no mechanism and that the fossil record absolutely denies. The Creation model accepts that living organisms have inbuilt genetic variation. And yes mutations can change that information. And of course, natural selection can act on that changed information BUT the whole sequence does not add up to molecules-men change. Let me explain with another example. We observe that wind currents can move objects. We also have identified many flowers which contain coloured compounds. We know these compounds can stick to canvas. So we simply combine the sequence. Throw a canvas into a field of flowers, add ten paint brushes and wait for a tornado. You will get the Mona Lisa. This is simply unsupportable and it is essentially what evolution is saying and which I completely reject. We know about mutations in the DNA, we observe natural selection and therefore combining the two should give rise to new kinds of creatures with greater information content and complexity. But our experience shows us that masterpiece paintings do not arise from random chance and natural laws. Neither do our experiments demonstrate that the mutation/natural sequence produces new kinds of organisms with an increase in complex information. So citing natural selection as evidence for evolution is like citing wind currents in a field of flowers as evidence for spontaneous paintings. Your dog example is a beautiful example of artificial selection and phenotypically expressing the genetic variation which was already present in their genes. No evolution going on. Just variation. We could continue the artificial selection of dogs for a billion years and get...more dogs. See the point? No new kinds of creatures but just variation within kind. Holding up gene variation and natural/artifical selection is a common misconception which I am frequently encounter. Well that's about it. Thank you for your comments. You're welcome to attend our next meeting of the Creation club Feb 4 Lib 303 at 12:30 pm if you'd like to ask further questions.
EN
Jade Merik on Jan 29, 2010 at 10:31pm
Dr. Neeland, do you even understand what evolution is? How on Earth can you go on believing that religion 'better accounts for the evidence' in contrast to evolution? Where, may I ask is this evidence? Is it the outdated man-made book full of fairy tales you call the Bible? The one with talking snakes and women who spawn from ribs? Evidence for evolution is all over the world. Look at the genetic level, at DNA. Understand that genetic mutations and natural selection create change. Change occurs over time. Look at the age of the Earth. Look at fossils. Look at Homo Ergaster, Homo Habilus, all of them, and look at us too. There are living examples of the results of natural selection in everyday life. Darwin's finches are the classic example. Evolution is fact. Go to the museum and get over it.
Mark Gradwell on Jan 30, 2010 at 12:57am
I quote:
"Beginning of the Universe. It is impossible to experimentally falsify the big bang theory unless you have a time machine (or physicists are secretly making new universes). Likewise, for God having created the universe. Neither origin account is science. What we ARE able to observe is evidence supporting an actual beginning for the universe which is consistent with both models."
I presume you mean created by God or itself. You don't need a time machine to determine what's happened with things. There are two ways which Science does this. The first is direct experimentation which is what's going on at CERN. The second is analysing data.
Real life experience here proves this principle. If you see crumbs of glass, bits of clear plastic scattered in the road one can safely assume a car's had a bump at some point. You can even determine how long ago it happened. If for instance emergency services are still there along with the offending car all smashed up. You can even determine the veracity of eyewitnesses using the laws of physics, impact speeds, directions etc.
Although it's preferable you don't need to actually witness an incident to be sure what's happened.
With the origins of the Universe itself as with Evolution we now have evidence gathered in a great deal of ways which point to what Scientists and most other what I'd like to call thinking people call the truth.
Ether that or we are faced with a global conspiracy which is maintained with superb efficiency.
Eric on Jan 30, 2010 at 1:22am
Ed Neeland said, "We observe that wind currents can move objects. We also have identified many flowers which contain colored compounds. We know these compounds can stick to canvas. So we simply combine the sequence. Throw a canvas into a field of flowers, add ten paint brushes and wait for a tornado. You will get the Mona Lisa. This is simply unsupportable and it is essentially what evolution is saying and which I completely reject."
This sounds a bit like a version of the tornado in a junkyard building a 747 argument and shows how little you know about evolution, or maybe you're just being disingenuous. Since the painting in your example does not reproduce and does not undergo natural selection, how is this a valid example of evolution. If your example of the painting could be thrown into the field of flowers over and over again (reproduction), and then if there was a way for it to delete unwanted colors and strokes while keeping the desired ones (natural selection) then you could in principle get the Mona Lisa if there was selective pressure in that direction.
Miles on Jan 30, 2010 at 4:51am
The problem with having a "Super Intelligent Creator" is that an even more intelligent super creator would have had to have created the creator, thus developing into an endless cycle of who created whom.
The fact that the creator would be more complex than what it created, would allude to a creator that was even more complex than the creator who created us, ad infinitum.
This thought experiment was demonstrated by Hume well before "Origin of the Species" was written. Hume correctly pointed out the absurdity of the creator hypothesis, by demonstrating that an infinite number of creators would have had to have been created prior to the creation of life as we know it.
Darwin's idea of natural selection was a scientific way of demonstrating that a creator in fact had no influence over the development of life; and that the development of life on Earth could be better explained by the processes of natural selection. Not to mention the backlog of scientific evidence that supports Darwin's theory to date.
Sarith on Jan 30, 2010 at 5:13am
Ed Neeland said, "We observe that wind currents can move objects. We also have identified many flowers which contain colored compounds. We know these compounds can stick to canvas. So we simply combine the sequence. Throw a canvas into a field of flowers, add ten paint brushes and wait for a tornado. You will get the Mona Lisa. This is simply unsupportable and it is essentially what evolution is saying and which I completely reject."
No Ed, that's not what evolution "is saying". The crucial difference here, is that one blank canvas doesn't give birth to lots of little blank canvases. If it did, and the little blank canvases were born with some variety in them, we could probably breed a Mona Lisa without too much trouble =)
Dr. Neeland says "We could continue the artificial selection of dogs for a billion years and get...more dogs."
That's true provided that no mutations occur over the next billion years that artificial selectors can seize upon--which is of course, not the case. I recommend reading the wiki article on mutation, which is quite useful.
Also interested to know what variety of creationist Dr. Ed Neeland is. 6000 year-old Earth? Garden of Eden avec talking snake? Noah's flood? It's much easier to have a constructive discussion if the conclusions of both sides are on the table up front.
Gavin Gamache on Jan 30, 2010 at 2:34pm
Thanks Ed, for your reply. I spent a lot of time on that post and I'm gratified to see that it was read by the person to whom it was addressed.
To start with, yes, I did use the term "evolution" perhaps inappropriately. In much the same way as the word "creation" does, it has differing meanings, especially in this topic. I should have clarified my terms, but it's difficult to see the flow of a writeup when you only have a few square inches in which to review it.
So I'll begin again by saying that evolution is an observed and proven fact. Obviously life on earth is different now than it was millions and billion of years ago. That's all evolution means: "change". The real discussion we're having is between whether that change is due to natural selection, or a supernatural creator. Hopefully you can agree with those terms, and we can avoid confusion.
I stand by my point, though, that natural selection applies only to biology. Stars and galaxies do not undergo the same process, because a star does not have genetic material that it passes to its offspring. The "evolution" that is observed in the universe is due to such things as nuclear physics, the availability of certain gases, gravitational interactions, and the like. The environment around a star does exert pressures on it, but because there is no way for a more "successful" star (like, say, an M-type, which are small and burn their nuclear fuel at a much slower rate, for tens of billions of years) to spawn others of the same type, there is no selection. Actually, since the universe as it exists is quite complicated WITHOUT natural selection acting on it, it really brings home how easy it is for complexity to rise out of simplicity with only the application of a few laws of nature and billions of years.
I don't think you give my diamond analogy as much credit as it's due. I did say that while the formation of diamond requires tremendous pressure and temperature, which are difficult to reproduce in a lab, the evolution of species requires a tremendous amount of time, which is IMPOSSIBLE to reproduce in a lab (at more than the normal rate). I wasn't directly comparing diamonds and DNA, merely another type of extreme outcome from natural forces.
Your leaf message and meadow painting examples are fine, but they only really exemplify one "generation", as the other comments mention. Again, there's no selective pressure, and no genetic material. I believe the other comments above me go into this as well, but if an art critic happened by that meadow every year and gave feedback on the randomly-created canvasses in such a way that next year's crop was a little bit more to his liking, eventually there would be something that would be recognized as a masterpiece. Obviously since the meadow and the winds don't particularly care what art critics think, it's hard to imagine that happening.
Perhaps another point you miss is that saying that there would be "[n]o new kinds of creatures but just variation within kind" is somewhat quaint: the distinction between "dog" and "wolf" is more or less arbitrary at this point, since they can interbreed. Same with horses and donkeys, producing mules, which are sterile, which is actually an important point. Horses and donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes, which makes the offspring between them sterile, for the most part. There have been a few examples of mules having offspring, but it is extremely rare. They make an excellent example of exactly what makes speciation happen: when two populations no longer interbreed for whatever reason, such as mutual isolation, then the random fluctuations in their gene pool as the generations progress are kept completely separate, and eventually visible differences accumulate. I recall one example where two species of fruit fly were found to be mutually fertile, despite never mating in the wild due to differing environmental requirements for mating. In that case, the assertion that these are, in fact, different species is somewhat arbitrary.
Another weakness with "no new creatures, just variation within kind" is that creatures are, by and large, very similar to begin with. Obviously our brains are the pride of nature, but many animals have brains. Same with hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys, digestive tracts, et cetera. All these come from common ancestors. We did not evolve from chimpanzees; chimpanzees and humans evolved alongside one another. They are not our grandfathers but our cousins. You can see this similarity not only in appearance, but in our DNA; we share about half of our amino acids with ringworms.
Also, you say that the molecules to men theory is unsupported by the fossil record. What specifically are you referencing when you assert that?
As well, you should remember that not every evolutionary path ends in such complexity as the human body, which is an easier idea to swallow. The bacteria that exist today have just as long an evolutionary history as we do, and yet they remain single-celled. Imagine a line chart: each line starts at 0,0 and with each unit it moves to the right, it will go either up or down one unit as well, with equal odds. You'd end up with a lot of squiggly lines slowly separating after going some distance to the right. Most of them would be more or less near 0 still, but some would be off to either side, and if you give it enough time, one might make it to one million above or below, despite the individual odds. This is like how the natural world has a gigantic amount of diversity at the single-celled level (look at an evolutionary tree of any decent resolution and observe how the Bacteria domain takes up almost all of the space, to say nothing about the sheer number of bacteria there are for any one human: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg), and just one species which has made it to the moon and back: it's purely a numbers game.
I'm pretty sure that's everything I wanted to cover for now. I'm out of town for the time being, but I think I will take you up on your offer to attend your club at some point after I return.
Reid Betts on Jan 31, 2010 at 12:49pm
"if an art critic happened by that meadow every year and gave feedback on the randomly-created canvasses in such a way that next year's crop was a little bit more to his liking, eventually there would be something that would be recognized as a masterpiece."
Thank you! This shows so masterfully what it is to understand evolution. It really does not seem to me that Dr. Neeland understands what evolution really is.
Anonymous on Jan 31, 2010 at 1:09pm
How to Refute Creationists with only a Bucket of Feces.
http://i.imgur.com/mRdRL.jpg
Ed on Jan 31, 2010 at 5:08pm
Dr. Neeland.
Your arguments seem to have been trawled directly from the Answersingenesis site, which is especially interesting, given their stated goals which include; 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.'
In other words; Evidence MUST be filtered through the pre-established conclusions of doctrine, and if any evidence contradicts these pre-determined conclusions, it must be discarded. Why do you even bother trying to assert that Creationism is science, or in any way scientific? Your own beliefs claiming that all evidence must be filtered through doctrine is anathema to science in virtually every way imaginable!
I see that you tried to trot out the ‘bu.. but.. evolutionism isn’t science either!!’ argument; but the only way that you can make that argument stick is if you grossly distort the meanings of ‘science’, ‘evolution’, ‘facts’, ‘hypothesis’, ‘testing’, ‘evidence’, etc. In short, you can only make that charge stick if you lie. Deep down, I am sure that you don’t believe in fairy tales. I’m sure that much of the pseudo-science that you preach is a reflection of what you feel you ought to say, based upon your understanding of what it means to be a Christian. It’s alright, I understand. I know people who believe in Atlantis, or that aliens built the pyramids, or that the moon landings were faked. It’s only a wilful ignorance that allows them to hold to those beliefs, and the same is true of yours.
I also see that you’ve tried to hide behind the ‘academic freedom’ defence; why would that even be needed if what you were preaching were actually true? Evolution doesn’t need to hide behind ‘academic freedom’, neither does real history, or real medicine. You only invoke it because your arguments can’t pass rigorous academic scrutiny. Additionally, just as you are free to promote whatever pseudo-science you want, we are EQUALLY free to openly challenge it. Did you think that your plea to ‘Academic Freedom’ somehow insulates you from criticism? Get real.
You believe in magic words. You have no evidence of the actual truth of this assertion. Were I to apply that same lack of intellectual scrutiny to other fields, I would find myself believing in ‘Crystal Healing’, psychic mediums and psionics, witchcraft (of the broom-riding variety), and palm-reading. Do you believe in those as well, or is the only real magic ‘Christian Magic’? ‘And God Said, “Let There be Light”. And there was light’. This is the very definition of supernatural invocation via Magic Words. That doesn’t seem very scientific to me. Why waste your time asserting otherwise?
Evolution = The Changes in genetic diversity amongst a breeding population over time. That’s what evolution deals with, not Cosmogenesis or Abiogenesis (you know that, stop trying to mix them all together, it’s dishonest.) Wishing for a definition of biological evolution (that’s what you’re really concerned with, after all) which is somehow going to include geologic ‘evolution’, cosmic ‘evolution’, or some other form of evolution is sneaky and rather convincing evidence in itself that you – and other Creationists – aren’t on the level.
Appealing to the ‘thousands’ of other creationists out there doesn’t add anything to your argument; at best, you’re simply appealing to the popularity of an idea as proof of its validity. If you believe that, then you must also believe that hundreds of years ago, when people thought the world was flat, it actually was flat, and only became unflat once people started to believe it was round.
Finally, you argue that the Creation Club ‘tackles’ these issues with open minds? Really? Creation Club? Its very name implies that it is only interested in ‘Tackling’ different models of its pre-accepted paradigm. I’ve even attended a Creation Club meeting; I didn’t see open and critical discussions of what was presented. Instead, I saw a lot of head-bobbing in agreement with whatever the speaker said. In fact, the only critical examinations of the presentation came from non-Creation Club members who had shown up and decided to question what was being said. Yep, that’s a pretty serious amount of ‘Tackling’ going on there.
If you want to believe in your stories of magic words and talking snakes and submissive, inferior rib-women, go ahead; it’s a free country, and no one will stop you. If however, you try to trot those stories out into the public domain and tell them under the guise of ‘science’, be prepared for the criticisms and denunciations. You want academic freedom? You want critical examination? You got it. Just don’t cry when your stories collapse.
Darren Sim on Jan 31, 2010 at 6:41pm
"It takes an intelligent human in a sophisticated laboratory to CREATE a very few of the cell’s complex information-rich components therefore the synthesis of a fully functioning cell (which we cannot begin to do) demands a super-intelligence." - Dr. Ed Neeland
99.8% of the species that have ever existed on this planet has become extinct.
Never mind that, in 6 million years, the Andromeda galaxy is on a direct collision course with our solar system and if THAT doesn't happen, our sun will fry us to a crisp.
If there was a god, and perhaps there is one, he is either very stupid, capricious, malicious, tinkering or very Immoral. Perhaps the combination of all 5.
Locus on Jan 31, 2010 at 10:30pm
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of information here. It is possible for a natural process to "create" information.
Lets define information. We'll use the simplest, and most common definition of information, from Computer Science(and math, defined by Claude E. Shannon in his seminal "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory )
This definition is simple: something with more information has less entropy, than something with less information.
Entropy(in Information Theory) is defined as the uncertainty of a variable. If we're dealing with purely random text, then we know that the next character can be anything. However, if the text is less random, say a work of Shakespeare, then based on the previous letters, we can make predictions on the next letter. The less uncertainty, the less entropy. The less entropy, the more information.
Now, lets say we look at a cliff-wall. There is a surprising amount of information in a cliff wall. A skilled geologist, knowing the layers before or after any spot on the cliff wall can make predictions on what the current layer will look like. This was a cliff wall, created by purely natural processes, with a high degree of information.
The funny thing is, a molecule has more information in it than the disparate atoms when they aren't in a molecule. And molecules form naturally, given the right conditions.
Its disingenuous to say that natural processes couldn't create all the information contained in a cell. This happens everyday when cells divide!
John on Feb 2, 2010 at 11:33pm
Apparently protists disagree with the concept of intelligent design that Dr. Neeland likes to push:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123218620/PDFSTART
Amanda on Feb 4, 2010 at 12:46am
I'm pretty sure the flying spagetti monster created everything. It has been the most convincing theory to me thus far and also the most delicious. Food=bliss, ignorance is also sometimes bliss. May you be touched by his holy noodly appendage.
Justin on Feb 4, 2010 at 11:14am
I agree with Darren, I always thought if there is a god he really sucks at doing his job. I've caught him falling asleep too many times. I'm not really sure I want to believe in someone like that and that someone that incredibly lazy has actually created anything. He is not getting that promotion he asked for.
MikeTheInfidel on Feb 13, 2010 at 11:01am
Sarith said: "No Ed, that's not what evolution "is saying". The crucial difference here, is that one blank canvas doesn't give birth to lots of little blank canvases. If it did, and the little blank canvases were born with some variety in them, we could probably breed a Mona Lisa without too much trouble =)"
In fact, we've done just that, with a computer and programming modeled after evolution:
http://kottke.org/08/12/mona-lisa-evolved
Sorry, Dr. Neeland, but you're a kook.
d on Feb 13, 2010 at 3:22pm
"Infestation?" Yes, most appropriate description; has a nice biological flavor to it. "Universities must encourage the free exchange of new ideas, no?" Yes, but there's been no new "research" in creationist nonsense since the last publication 3,500 years ago so, what "new ideas?"
Benjamin Davidson on Feb 14, 2010 at 4:51am
"The story goes: mutations and natural selection ultimately transform the first proto-cell population into (after many iterations) incredibly complex information-rich organisms that see, feel, taste, hear, smell, fly, generate electricity, contain poisons, have immune systems etc. Evidence? None" This is truly embarrassing, coming from somebody who supposedly represents Western Canada's preeminent intellectual institution. The gall it must take to spit on so much of the worldwide scientific community's achievements at once with such reckless language, and then append your credentials to it.
None? Really, you believe that? That the entire intellectual world, with all its different pressures and biases, has been driven to the same conclusion, and with complete confidence, for literally no compelling reasons at all? The fact that mutation and selection over time guarantees some amount of evolution isn't evidence that it might have occurred on a universal scale? Or the fact that novel new features have not just been developed, but carefully catalogued and observed start to finish, over as miniscule a scale as a science lab running for a couple of decades? The fact that you find the same hierarchical pattern throughout the globe regardless of whether you examine geographical distribution , geological strata, radiometric measurements, or genetic features isn't evidence? The fact that we can use a tree of life produced through an evolutionary understanding of biology to consistently predict genetic features of one population based on features of another isn't evidence? The fact that even just limiting ourselves to high-profile examples like the predicted evolution of modern homo sapiens, or the transition of aquatic to amphibian life, we can easily point to fossil discoveries made in recent years, in the right place, in the right rock layer, dated to the right time period that we predicted, that isn't evidence? The fact that once you jump this "too complex!" hurdle you've (quite mistakenly) erected, it provides an elegant and coherent explanation for biodiversity unrivalled by any other hypothesis ever proposed isn't evidence? Not necessarily sufficient evidence either - you don't even think it qualifies as evidence at all?
Further, this nonsense about generating complex information, and natural selection vs evolution in the referenced E. Coli experiment. Excuse me? You’d think such a high-profile case of observable science absolutely demolishing nearly everything the creation argument hinges on would demand slightly more thought and attention from our writer! This experiment clearly, definitively documents the generation of useful new genetic information. It’s NOT merely natural selection. Start the experiment over again with an early sample, and you’ll be waiting years again. Start the experiment with a later one that’s part way there, and you’ll consistently be waiting a shorter amount of time. No, we didn’t merely select for a pre-arranged genetic potential, this IS new, this IS complex, and it IS evolution. Next time you’re backed this far into a corner, try the “but it’s still just MICROevolution!” argument and maybe we’ll have to spend a moment typing out the fallacy of your objection.
Evolutionary theory provides a mechanism that swiftly handles what would be a chaotic mess analyzed in any other way. We see the same inescapable hierarchy no matter what angle we view it from, and every creationist argument I've ever read amounts to desperately scrounging for some branch where insufficient data is available for biologists to just laugh the critics out of the room (in this case, the nanoscopic, billion-year-old precursors to life that, if their molecular configuration were intact would probably be buried under a few miles of clay, under a few more miles of water), and act as if it's an arrogant, ideologically-driven cover-up when all the experts don't think it's undermining their life's work when you can identify a few hundred such areas of ignorance in a disconnected, confused series of “see, feel, taste, hear, smell, fly, generate electricity”-style questions. Either that, or some obscene fifty-thousandth power calculation that claims we could almost never get from A to Z by chance, falsely assuming that there was no logical progression to get there in baby steps, that the universe isn't teaming with chemical potential, all running in parallel over countless iterations, and that there aren't also 1E49 alternatives out there equally amazing but never realized. The structure of these exchanges is consistently one of evolution providing a framework, and creationists asking a never-ending list of questions, some answered incompletely, but most answered long ago, and all of which take far longer to thoroughly answer than to ask during debates, and thus they score points among those too uneducated in the field to recognize this.
This pathetic attempt at an alternative explanation called creationism is rarely even a direct point of discussion for the simple reason that every intelligent person who's looked at the Bible knows that you could point out evidence that this book knows nothing of science all day long, and that every creationist out there must know this too, and yet have somehow already found a misguided, third-hand excuse that assures them it's not completely impossible just yet, that's also nebulous enough to equally apply to any potential future criticism. Pulling a real understanding of the world out of the Bible at a scientifically precise level is utterly beneath the people with the training and intellect to try (to say nothing of anyone in the social sciences and humanities, of course).
This is an embarrassment of the highest order. Funny, not long ago I remember wishing that there were more high-profile cases like this in my proximity, to lay down an obvious path of active involvement in these sorts of issues, but now I can honestly say I’m merely ashamed to know that this sort of talk has such a noteworthy foothold in BC. For shame...
Julia on Feb 14, 2010 at 7:31am
What an embarrassment. UBC-O has a prof that either doesn't understand some very basic scientific processes or he does understand and is purposefully misrepresenting basic concepts. Incompetent or unethical - either way I'm seriously upset at the lack of standards.
I'll be communicating my dismay to the Dean of Science and the President of UBC. I recommend all UBC alumni who care about academic standards do the same.
Afton on Feb 14, 2010 at 10:08am
Personally, I find it more embarrassing that more than half of these comments are aimed at insulting Ed Neeland rather than disproving his point. If you're trying to convince someone of your views, calling them a "kook" is not going to sway them your way. Why not bring up more evidence supporting evolution to strengthen your argument, instead of simply dismissing his points without even considering it? Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution through and through, but throwing out insults rather than supportable arguments is "an embarrassment".
Julia - Do you really plan on addressing the Dean? You seriously think this man is detrimental to the young minds of the future? Well, having been enrolled in five different classes of his in three years, I can assure you his creationist views do nothing to weaken his ability as a chemistry professor. In fact, he is one of the best in that department, which is not short on great professors. So, if you want to communicate dismay to the Dean of Science, I can think of a thousand more reasons to do so before bringing up Ed Neeland's opinion on creationism.
allenc on Feb 15, 2010 at 9:52am
Despite all the arguments so well expounded here, Neeland lost it in the first paragraph of his response to Gavin Gamache's post. If he cannot understand the difference between the evolution of a galaxy and the evolution of life, then, well, he is a kook.
Arthur on Feb 15, 2010 at 5:51pm
Afton wrote: "Personally, I find it more embarrassing that more than half of these comments are aimed at insulting Ed Neeland rather than disproving his point."
Then you are embarrassed over something you've imagined.
Only a few responses are not very kind to Neeland, but most of those moreover do aim at disproving points as well. Only one or two are genuinely unresponsive.
In any case, crankery is not obviously entitled to a surfeit of respect and politeness. Neeland opens with not only a daft misrepresentation of biological evolution, but with the charge that the thousands of scientists who work on (or premised on) evolutionary theory do so with no evidence whatsoever. That sort of well-poisoning and sweeping preemptive insult naturally reaps the whirlwind in the form of responses that do not just debunk, but take the opportunity to note that -- on the topic in question, at least -- Ed Neeland is neither competent to critique the essentially complete consensus of genuine experts, nor, frankly particularly intellectually honest in his writing on the topic.
Brian Lynchehaun on Feb 16, 2010 at 12:46am
Wow...
If I get around to applying to a masters program, I'll be skipping UBC-O. I have no interest in sharing a campus with nutjobs who don't know the difference between cosmology and biology (the Theory of Evolution being a biological mechanism, not a cosmological one)...
Keegan Smith on Mar 1, 2010 at 4:48pm
Yeah, Brian. I am sure there are nut jobs on all campuses but not ones so open about it haha Oh, and I think this is the best place to insult profs cause they are incharged of your grade and possibly your reference to grad school lol.
Add a comment
Comments published on this website are the opinion of the commenter and not the Phoenix Newspaper. The Phoenix reserves the right to withdraw submissions from publication for any reason. Any reason could be material deemed to be sexist, racist, homophobic, or of poor taste or quality.