googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: Are creationists arrogant? A review of King Crocoduck's series: Part 3

Friday, July 21, 2017

Are creationists arrogant? A review of King Crocoduck's series: Part 3



In his third video of his series, King Crocoduck (whom I refer to as KC, for short) talks about terms used by creationists that he feels are vague or misused. Specifically, he discusses the terms information and kind. I don't think he's very successful in his criticisms which I will expound upon.

He first discusses information. Now, typically, I avoid using the word information because it can lead to confusion. It's usually evolutionists, though, who try to muddy the waters. Take the two words book and koob; only one of these words has meaning (in English) but both contain information. From a statistical viewpoint, the second word has different information than the first word even though both words have the same letters. So when a creationist starts talking about how mutations in the DNA don't add new “information” to the DNA (like how a mutation might cause book to become boko but destroys its meaning), evolutionists respond much like KC does – that is to ridicule the word and make demands for a definition which derails the conversation.

KC suggests that comparing DNA to a language or calling it a blueprint are simply analogies used to explain to lay people how DNA functions. They're not scientific terms. I agree to a large part but I think KC fails to realize that most people understand an analogy when they hear one. I don't think anyone actually believes DNA has little words written on it. When creationists are explaining our theory to a lay audience, we tend to use the same analogies of “blueprint” and “language” that we heard when we learned these things. Why then does KC object so strongly to creationists using the same terms and analogies as evolutionists?

But I've notice that the word, information is not only used when talking about DNA to lay persons. The following is a quote from an online article by the National Center for Biotechnology Information:

Interestingly, even using the most conservative estimates, the fraction of bases likely to be involved in direct gene regulation, even though incomplete, is significantly higher than that ascribed to protein coding exons (1.2%), raising the possibility that more information in the human genome may be important for gene regulation than for biochemical function.

So, even in a scientific paper, scientists who actually study DNA (unlike KC who is a physicist) describe DNA as having information.

KC says, “[DNA] is merely a sequence of molecules that, under the right conditions, will react with other molecules in a specific predictable way.” I should point out that KC seems to be describing DNA function like it's something as simple as a row of dominoes falling over. DNA is a highly organized, highly complex molecule whose “instructions” are encyclopedic in length. Human DNA, for example, is over 3 billion base pairs in length. Perhaps KC doesn't like the term, “information” being used when discussing DNA. How about terms like “organized,” “ordered,” or “complex”? He would probably object to those as well, saying they are also too vague.

Hold that thought and consider what KC says next: “DNA does not contain information. It contains biochemical potential and, as such, is subject to the laws of statistical thermodynamics and biochemistry – not the laws of information.” As KC is saying this, he flashes a shot of Ludwig Boltzmann's tomb on the screen. Boltzmann, if you remember from my last post, talked about how systems will tend to either be in disorder or moving toward disorder (per the 2nd law of thermodynamics). So if DNA is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, please explain how applying heat to chemicals could ever cause them to become organized into a highly complex DNA molecule? Also, if mutations to the DNA provide the raw data that allows evolution to happen, how can evolution even be possible if the DNA molecule is being corrupted thousands of times faster than it is improving? Eventually the DNA should become too disorganized to sustain life!

In spite of KC's objections, creationists will continue using words like “information” and “organization” when describing the DNA molecule. It's organization and complexity is strong evidence for a Creator!

KC next moves to talking about the term, kinds. KC says, “A much more common and much more frustrating example of nebulous, creationist language is when they insist that evolutionary theory predicts a change in kinds, without actually defining what kinds are.” The Bible says that God created animals according to their kind; Genesis 1:24-25 says, for example:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

It should be noted that the demand for a rigorous definition of a kind is usually nothing more than a red herring raised by evolutionists. When discussing their own theory, for example, evolutionists sometimes describe macroevolution as “evolution above the species level.” The problem is that I have yet to hear a rigorous definition of the word species. So if evolutionists can discuss their own theory using words as imprecise as species, they have no grounds to harp on our use of the word kind. Yet harp the do. //RKBentley sighs//

I've written before about kinds. For practical purposes, a kind is a group of creatures originally created by God that would reproduce creatures similar to themselves. It includes all of the various species that are descended from the original group. Perhaps my definition isn't technical or terribly precise, but it's at least as precise as the term species. It's easy enough to understand in concept that we can use it while discussing our theory. Evolutionists, on the other hand, play word games. Let me give you an example I've used before:

Dogs, wolves, and coyotes can all reproduce together yet evolutionists identify them as different species. Because of their very different anatomies, Great Danes and Chihuahuas cannot reproduce together yet they are still considered the same species. Both evolutionists and creationists believe all canines have descended from a common ancestor but if creationists call canine a “kind,” evolutionists pretend they can't understand what we're talking about. KC says the term kinds is "no less arbitrary than 'makaka.'" I know most evolutionists aren't stupid. In this case, they're just playing dumb.

KC further clouds the discussion by demanding an exact equivalent between kinds and some other label in taxonomy – such as species, genus, family, etc. If pressed, I would say a kind is most analogous to a family but the fact of the matter is that there is no exact equivalent. KC provided a slide which Ken Ham used in his debate with Bill Nye. On the slide, Ham lists cat-kind (which is a family according to Linnaean taxonomy), dog-kind (also a family), and elephant-kind (which is an order).

Evolutionists believe there is some evolutionary order in behind their method of classification. In other words, they believe all mammals have a common ancestor – then, among mammals, all marsupials have a common ancestor – then, all diprotodonts – then, all macropods (Kangaroo-kind) – then, the various species. With this in mind, where to place animals on the Linnaean hierarchy can be somewhat subjective. For example, bison were once considered to be a different genus than domestic cows... until it was discovered they could hybridize! Technically, that should make them the same species according to the reproductive rule used by evolutionists but evolutionists are rather arbitrary in applying that rule. Regardless, bison and cows are obviously the same kind regardless of where evolutionists label them.

There is a field of study within the creation sciences called, baraminology, which attempts to identify the original created kinds and to assign species to their respective kinds. The Linnaean system is completely inadequate for that so it's rather ignorant (and arrogant) of KC to demand that creationists use their terminology to describe our theory.

KC said, "As far as anyone can tell, this standard for kind was selected simply to elminate the need for millions of animals on Noah's Ark and, in all accounts, is completely arbitrary." KC is either ignorantly or deceitfully repeating the straw man argument where evolutionists say that Noah didn't have room on the Ark for millions of species. KC does not mention the simple fact that the vast majority of the 6.5 million species believed to exist are bacteria & viruses, plants, insects, and marine creatures. Noah didn't have to provide for these on the Ark.

According to Wikipedia, there are only around 66,000 species of vertebrates. More than 1/2 of these are fish or amphibians meaning there are only 20-30k species of terrestrial, vertebrate animals (remember too that even some mammals and reptiles are aquatic). So the oft repeated claim that Noah would have to have had "millions of animals" on the Ark is a blatant lie and KC has fallen for it! The 30k modern, terrestrial species we've identified are descended from a smaller group of kinds Noah took aboard the Ark so Noah had to accommodate only a few thousand animals.

KC concludes this video saying, "Creationists, we don't use technical terminology to try to look smart. We use it because it has what your words don't – precision." Really? Why do evolutionists constantly equate evolution with science? Why do they frequently use evolution and natural selection interchangeably? Why do they harp on creationists for calling evolution "just a theory" when they use theory to describe the unobserved, unduplicated, unscientific phenomenon of abiogenesis?

Evolutionists want to define terms in their favor. They use a definition of evolution that basically describes any change in a population but gives no consideration to the type of change. In the creation v. evolution debate, the dispute is not over wolf-to-dog type evolution but over fish-to-frog, dino-to-bird, or ape-to-man. Somehow, they believe birds continuously removing one color from a population of moths (by eating dark moths, for example) is the same thing as dinosaurs acquiring feathers – it just has to continue long enough.

Maybe scientists are careful to use words with precise meanings but evolutionists aren't. They're happy to abuse the language in order to deceive a lay public. KC certainly does his part, using this video to add to the confusion. KC claims information isn't useful in science even though I can cite many examples of secular scientists using the term. KC also pretends he can't understand the term kinds even though an average 10-year-old can get it. Remember too, KC is the same person who tried to define nothing as all the energy in the universe!

Evolutionists are the truly arrogant ones. They think it's their right to tells us what words mean. They can whine, they can kick and scream, but at the end of the day, words mean only what the majority of people think they mean. Sorry, KC, but you're not the word czar. I find your video less instructive and more annoying.


Read the entire series:

4 comments:

Steven J. said...

It should be noted that the demand for a rigorous definition of a kind is usually nothing more than a red herring raised by evolutionists. When discussing their own theory, for example, evolutionists sometimes describe macroevolution as “evolution above the species level.” The problem is that I have yet to hear a rigorous definition of the word species. ... Perhaps my definition isn't technical or terribly precise, but it's at least as precise as the term species.

From an evolutionary point of view, species are supposed to grade imperceptibly (over time, and sometimes over space) into other species. By the same token, we should not expect a hard-and-fast distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution. Stephen J. Gould once compared species to mountains: just as "mountain" applies to a wide range of geological phenomena (Ararat is a volcano, Everest is an uplifted chunk of seafloor), "species" applies to a range of biological outcomes that produce populations reasonably distinct from other populations. They're not some fixed, essential and immutable feature of biology.

But from a creationist point of view, "kinds" are indeed essential and immutable (in the sense of one "kind" becoming another). They should be definable in a way that, on an evolutionary point of view, species shouldn't be.

Indeed, this raises a point. At first glance, it seems unfair to demand what level of Linnean taxonomy corresponds to "kind" -- the levels are somewhat arbitrary, and there is no fixed amount of morphological or genetic similarity that requires (or forbids) putting two species in the same genus, family, order, etc., so there would be no reason to suppose that if a "kind" is a "family" in one order, it must be a "family" in all other orders. But if "kinds" are real -- if change is easily possible within them but faces impenetrable barriers between them -- then one would expect taxonomists to notice this, and use it as an anchor point in taxonomy. Some Linnean rank would be found or created that corresponds to "kind" -- that this has not happened is an argument against the existence of "kinds."

Steven J. said...

KC does not mention the simple fact that the vast majority of the 6.5 million species believed to exist are bacteria & viruses, plants, insects, and marine creatures. Noah didn't have to provide for these on the Ark.

Strictly speaking, the number of animal species does not include bacteria (or viruses, which are sort of outside the classification system as they're not exactly life), or plants. But given that young-Earth creationists attribute huge swaths of the geological column to Flood sediments, Noah must have disembarked the Ark to a world whose forests, meadows, and jungles were buried under a mile of mud. Floating rafts of sodden vegetation seem an inadequate and uncertain basis for an ecology (and raise the question of why Noah thought that an olive branch in the bill of a dove meant that there was livable land out there). In any case, Noah would need room for animals to exercise, room for food storage, etc. -- you can't compare the room needed to keep all those thousands of animals for thirteen months to the room needed to ship them on a few hours' journey by train. So make room for all sorts of useful land plants aboard the Ark, and not just for fodder.

I note that lions and house cats are distinct, modern-appearing species by the time of the Egyptian first dynasty, which could not (on your chronology) be very long after the Flood. That's incredibly fast speciation from a single pair of ur-felids aboard Noah's Ark, unparalleled in anything we've observed since the start of scientific biology, from an incredibly small starting population.

Steven J. said...

KC claims information isn't useful in science even though I can cite many examples of secular scientists using the term.

"Information" is not an attribute intrinsic to the things of this world; it is an attribute of our interest in them. "Information" is what we want to find out about a thing. If we talk about the "information" in a stretch of DNA, we are talking about whatever it is we are measuring -- probably the number and sequence of nucleotides. "More information in the genome is devoted to regulation than to actual genes" means that more base pairs are part of regulatory sequences than to genes.

But creationists cannot mean that by "information," since obviously known sorts of mutation (e.g. single nucleotide insertions, retroviral insertions, and gene duplication) would "add information" if we just mean "more nucleotides" or even "more genes." But what, if not that, do creationists mean? When they do offer information, it is self-contradictory. For example, gene duplication, single-nucleotide substitutions, translocations of part of the genome, and other known types of mutation do not "add information" -- yet it is assumed that every difference between the human and chimp genomes means "added information" (presumably in the human genome, even though it is slightly shorter than the chimp genome), although there are no known differences between them that cannot be explained by some known sort of mutation. You can make a term meaningless by [a] using it in a way contradictory to the usual or commonplace sense while [b] refusing to stipulate a clear, new definition for it, and this is what creationists do with "information."

Steven J. said...

So if DNA is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, please explain how applying heat to chemicals could ever cause them to become organized into a highly complex DNA molecule? Also, if mutations to the DNA provide the raw data that allows evolution to happen, how can evolution even be possible if the DNA molecule is being corrupted thousands of times faster than it is improving? Eventually the DNA should become too disorganized to sustain life!

As I've noted before, there are many experiments in which chemicals combine into more complicated forms when one adds heat or other "unorganized" energy. Researchers at Manchester University in the UK have shown that very simple, ubiquitous chemicals can be formed into the basic components of RNA given repeated cycles of wetting and drying. This is not quite the same as assembling DNA from scratch -- but it does cast great doubt on any claim that this could not happen without intelligently directed miracles.

In the article you linked to in the claim that DNA is being corrupted faster than it is improving, I address your claim and try to explain where it went wrong.