The Grand Loon

... of the Loon Brigade pays us a visit. Kor and I issue the requisite beat down.

To expand a bit on my point there (and this is not profound or new).. or why ants counting is not evidence of a "creator";

The absence of a scientific explanation for a thing in nature is not evidence that "god did it". Human intellect is limited, probably severely so. It wasn't until the last century that human beings figured out that our galaxy is not the totality of the universe. It's something so basic now, but humanity was astounded to realize the immense size of the universe, and this is a relatively recent discovery.

One common argument from creationists is that the universe is so perfectly accommodating of life that only a creator could have caused it to be so. For example, if hydrogen and oxygen in water molecules froze (converted to solid) at a density greater than that of liquid water, no life would exist on this planet. Therefore, a creator set the rules of the universe up so that it would be less dense.

It is true, if ice were denser than water, no life would exist. The ice would sink to the bottom of the water and eventually the entire volume of liquid water would turn to solid. As it is, because ice floats, it insulates the water below it so that it doesn't drop below the freezing point and life can survive.

If the force of gravity is not precisely at what it is, stars may never have formed, nor the planets which sustain life. There are a myriad of conditions that had to be just right to enable us to even be here to observe it.

And the observation is the key. All of these conditions had to be right, or there would not be anything existing to contemplate that existence. There may be an infinite number of universes where the physical rules are skewed, never giving rise to an observer. There may be weird (to us) universes where the observes see a very different physical reality. Simply because we exist is not evidence of a "creator".

But.. that doesn't mean there isn't a cause. I call that cause Gorak, because it's nature is unfathomable to us, hence it is pointless to credit or blame it for anything. It simply is.

All hail the Great Cause, Gorak!

While it is pointless to ponder an active and participating creator in the universe, it's not pointless to study the underlying mechanisms of how things work. Aha! The discipline of science is born. It is not a religion. It does not have an agenda. It doesn't have "belief" or "faith". It simply has reason and logic as it's principles for understanding the nature of the universe, and it has some basic paradigms to define what is "reason" and what is whack-a-loonery.

So.. let's go back to Doug's ants;

Complexity like this cannot evolve. The ant needs the ability to count steps to survive. Without the ability the species does not survive. If the species could not survive without the ability, then how could it evolve? With the time it would take for such an ability to develop, the species would be extinct before the development would have a chance to complete its journey.

Prior to the ants counting, they survived a different way.. and were subject to different environmental conditions. Nothing springs up all at once. It takes eons for these things to happen.

I was watching a nature program last week that was rather fascinating. There is a species of ant in Africa that has developed a unique way of dealing with flooding.

When the waters rise, the ants grab their unborn larva and queen and head for the surface. They pile into a shape resembling a net, grasping onto each other. They load the larva and the queen on top and wait for the water. When the water reaches them, they float on it using the surface tension created by their bodies for flotation. They float on the waters until the group reaches land, where they unload the queen and larva and start a new colony.

That's pretty amazing, isn't it? Had the ants not developed that novel way of dealing with flood waters, they might not survive as a species. It's similar to Doug's counting ants. But, did the ants "develop" that skill or did the creator implant the idea in their tiny ant brains?

Surely if the ants were not implanted with the idea at "creation", they would not have survived long enough to eventually figure it out on their own... which is Doug's and the creationist argument.

It is laughably absurd on it's face... and we can all point and laugh at them for actually thinking that's true.

A basic premise of evolution is "slow change over time", and "natural selection". Selection is an important feature in adaptation. It is where things like counting and floating ants comes from.

That the ants have found ways of surviving is very similar to why the universe's physical rules are the way they are. They have to have, otherwise they would not exist. That's all there is to it.

The fossil record is strewn with the evidence of extinct species. In Doug's model, the creator must have not liked those creations of his much because he didn't give them the tools necessary to survive. "He" gave some species of ants math and physics skills, but ignored the needs of 99.9% of the species that have ever existed on this planet. Indeed, nearly every species that has ever existed on this planet is extinct. God must hate life.

Speciation is a component of evolution where biological functions are changed, or adapted, by environmental processes. A fish becomes a new species by exposure to fresh water, rather than salt water. Gradually the fish adapts, or not, based on it's environmental pressures. An ant develops an ability to float on water, or not, because it responds, over a great deal of time, to the pressures that flooding can put on it's species.

The species that exist today are remarkable in that they exist. The vast majority do not, because they were unable to adapt to the realities of the harsh conditions we live in. Because Doug only looks at the ant that survives today, he sees it's seemingly miracle ability to count it's steps as evidence of a creator. In reality, every species that exists today has an equally remarkable story of survival, because it beat the odds. It has to appear miraculous because it had to have found an exceptional method of survival that 99.9% of the species that have ever existed did not find.

In fact, it's just an evolutionary bit of luck that human beings developed a more advanced intellect, otherwise we'd probably be just another evolutionary dead end. We have amazing skills, but then we had to have developed bigger brains otherwise nobody would be here to notice.

Does that make sense?

Ants counting is as much luck as a response to environmental pressures. The evidence for that is over whelming. Merely thinking it's unlikely to have developed on it's own over a long period of time is not evidence of a creator guiding the process actively. That's simply whack-a-loonery.

The "Tree of Life" is the great unifying principle of evolution. The fish does not jump species from salt water to fresh water in a year. It takes a very long time for that to happen.

If you trace back the tree, like the tree of genealogy, each creature on this planet has a common ancestor... a critter that was common to all of us, and whose response to it's environment made us what we are today. That is how the biology of life works, because it has to.

I suspect that modern human beings are in the process of speciation right now.. down ideological lines. The split will not be kind to the Loon Brigade, as they devolve into a more primitive and superstitious form. It's rather sad.

But then.. their kids aren't competing for our jobs.. :)

....

The video is of Ray Comfort, using an analogy similar to Doug's ants story. The funny part about it is that he's got the top and bottom of the banana backwards. Monkeys have figured out that it's much easier to pinch the "bottom" to cause a split to open in the peel, rather than to try and tear off the stub at the "top". Most human beings don't know how to do that.

Comfort is the raging Loon that I "debated" a bit with on Doug's radio program. The discussion went from me asserting that there is zero evidence to support the idea of "creationism" to Comfort playing the Loon "let me ask you 10 questions demonstrating that you are a sinner and God will save you" game.

It seems some people dislike a confrontational approach in dealing with religious nutbags. I prefer PZ Myers style of ridiculing them for their dangerous points of view, while backing up the point with sound reasoning. There can be no accommodating whack-a-loonery. Nothing good comes from it, because you cannot move these people. They are completely invested in the made-up bullshit. You can make the fence sitters embarrassed to be associated with them through societal pressure. Paint the Loons as the freaks they are, and eventually their movement will end.