Thermodynamics Vs Evolution: The Grudge Match

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” — Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

Pseudoscience

Science and pseudoscience, what’s the difference? It’s not a trick question, as you approach the cutting edge of science, where the known becomes the unknown and theories become wild and speculative the line between the two can be quite fuzzy. String Theory anyone? But in general the difference lies in that where science starts with facts and observations and arrives at conclusions pseudoscience starts with a conclusion and twists fact and observation to fit. The two most common avenues to pseudoscience appear to me to be: First, when a hypothesis is retained long after dis-confirming evidence should have rendered it obsolete. Adherents of the “Vaccines cause Autism” movement would fall into this category. Second would be those who attempt to prove their own pet ideology by either conducting flawed research or by willfully misinterpreting the work of others. Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents might fall into this category.

Correctly discerning pseudoscience can be difficult, especially if it appeals to our own biases. Some things to consider are: Arguments from authority, real science shouldn’t be decided by a chosen few, rather it is the sum total of a multitude of efforts and advancements are evaluated by the scientific community as a whole and finally a consensus is reached. Insufficiently detailed references to supporting data, it is important to be able to find the primary sources that are being used to support a position so that you can read it yourself and determine if it has been correctly interpreted. Reliance on testimony, look at the quality of the references used, if they come mainly from personal experience they may not be reliable.

Finally, you may want to look at a larger sampling of the scientific community and see what they have to say about the topic or person you are interested in. There are bound to be many sides to the issue but you may pick up on the general flavour of scientific opinion. Good luck and happy investigations.

Resources

http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=30

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm

(Un)Intelligent Design

Lets start as we mean to end shall we? Intelligent design is not science. The difficulty arises because ID does not make testable, falsifiable claims and/or predictions. One of the lynch pins of the ID movement is the concept of “Irreducible Complexity. This is the assertion that there exists in nature structures and systems that are too complex to have evolved, ipso facto they were designed.

The eye was originally pointed to as one of these structures, however sophisticated proponents no-longer do so for two main reasons :

1. There are now very detailed models showing how the eye could have evolved incrementally and examples at almost every stage in nature.

2. The human eye is poorly constructed. The nerves which carry impulses from the light sensitive cells of the eye come out the front of the cell, gather into a bundle and dive back through the retina to the brain. This has the effect of reducing the light gathering efficiency of the eye and giving us a blind spot.

From my perspective it seems a little wasteful of a deity to handicap us in this way simply to provide a semi-useful metaphor.

So, several other examples of such structures and systems have been put forward to attempt to illustrate I.C. a few of these are: the bacterial flagellum, the clotting cascade and the immune system, astoundingly complex products of nature all. However, all of these have plausible evolutionary pathways, refer to the resources below. Basically this boils down to the logical fallacy known as the “argument from personal incredulity”, it can be re-stated thusly:”I can’t figure out how it happened, therefore it could not have”. This is laziness and arrogance taken to the extreme. The rationale in the mind of such a person roughly consists of “I am an intelligent person, if I cannot find the answer then there isn’t one”.

This leads us to the fact that even if the above examples did not have plausible explanations (as at one time they did not) it does not follow that such explanations do not (or cannot) exist. One of the chief criticisms of ID and it’s ilk is that if we follow it’s lead then eventually we are left with the only answer to “How?” being “The creator (god) did it.” This would be the downfall of science and in this heavily scientifically dependent age, the downfall of our way of life.

“The candle flame gutters.
Its little pool of light trembles.
Darkness gathers.
The demons begin to stir.”

- Carl Sagan

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Resources:

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050805-2.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/ ……..Link edited for brevity.

http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/immune/immune_evo_annotated_bib.html

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=31

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne05/coyne05_index.html

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp