Parables for Creationists

[RBH]

Off and on I think about parables to illustrate the weakness of creationist anti-evolution arguments. Here are two attempts, an old one I wrote in the 1980s and a new one. The first was published by the Ohio Committee for Correspondence on Evolution Education back in the late 1980s.

Creationist Criticisms of Geological Dating

Imagine that you are standing some distance east of a tall building. A fence prevents you from getting closer to the building but does not impede your view. Suppose that you want to know the height of the building. What can you do?

Well, first suppose that you see three people standing close to the building in the distance. You can't see them absolutely clearly, but it looks like one is an adult man, one an adult woman, and one a child. You hold up a pencil, marking with your thumbnail the apparent height of the man. Then you carefully move your pencil up the building, one "man-height" at a time, counting the number of "man-heights" tall the building is. You find that it is 53 "man-heights" tall. You assume that the man is 5'10" tall, and multiplying, you estimate that the building is 309 feet high. You repeat the process with the woman, assuming her height to be 5'4". You find the building to be 54 "woman-heights" high, or 288 feet. Repeating the process once again with the child, you find the building to be 77 "child-heights" high. Estimating the child's height at 4'0", you estimate the building's height to be 308 feet. Based on the data gathered so far, you are justified in estimating the building to be between 288 and 309 feet high, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 feet.

Now suppose that you notice a man at the top of the building who is periodically dropping what look like bowling balls off the building. Deferring speculation on why he might be dropping the bowling balls, you time how long they take to fall and find that on average they take 4.4 seconds to fall from the top of the building to the ground. Knowing that the distance traveled by objects falling in the earth's gravitational field in a vacuum conforms to the simple equation, Distance = 16t^2, you calculate that the building is about 310 feet high, your calculation disregarding the effects of air resistance. This makes your estimate slightly inflated, though for bowling balls the effect is very minor. In any case, this is consistent with your earlier estimates and provides independent corroboration for them.

Furthermore, by measuring the time interval between when each bowling ball hits the ground and when you hear the noise of its impact to be a bit less than 1 sec., and knowing that sound travels at about 1,100 feet per second at sea level, you estimate that you are standing about 1000' away from the building.

Now the sun is setting behind the building, and just as the building's shadow approaches you, you whip out a foot ruler, hold it upright on the ground, and mark the ruler's shadow length. Measuring from the base of the ruler to your mark, you find the ruler's shadow to be 37" long. Based on the estimate of your distance from the building obtained earlier, simple algebra shows that a 1000' foot long shadow would be cast by a building that is 324 feet tall at that angle of the sun.

At this point you have three quite different and independent methods of estimating the building's height, and they agree that it is in the neighborhood of 300 feet tall, perhaps a bit more but certainly not substantially less. Now a man walks up to you and says, "Your estimates are all wrong! My book says that the building is really only about 1/200 of an inch (0.005 inch) high. All of your measuring methods are terribly flawed and your estimates cannot be believed. The building is actually less than a hundredth of an inch tall! You must ignore your measurements and discard the physics which underlies them." What would you say to him?

This is exactly what young-earth creationists argue. They deny that the several independent methods of estimating the age of geological features are reliable, and argue that they are in fact as much in (coordinated) error as the man denying your estimate of the height of the building. The creationist "young earth" hypothesis says that the estimates of the age of the earth that show it to be on the order of 4.5 billion years old are wildly mistaken, and that the earth is really only about 6,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 years old. In other words, they argue that the best scientific estimates of the age of the earth are off by as much as a factor of 750,000.

This is equivalent to arguing that the building you estimated to be 300 feet tall is really only about five-thousandths of an inch tall. Yet they offer absolutely no valid evidence to substantiate this extraordinary claim but only criticize your measurements by saying things like, 'Well, those people may be midgets, and they aren't really standing near the building, and your stopwatch is wildly unreliable, and sound doesn't necessarily travel at 1100 feet per second in the air near the building, and gravity is different near the building, so your measurements are wrong by a factor of 750,000.' Moreover, for the creationist all the errors in all the measurements must be coordinated -- the several independent methods of measuring the height of the building have correlated errors such that they all come up with the same erroneous value.

This is the precise character of the argument against scientific dating methods that is offered by "scientific" creationists. Is it any wonder that most scientists don't waste time and energy refuting creationist claims?


Micro-travel vs macro-travel

I have a friend who's a great walker -- he claims that he walks almost everywhere he goes. Recently he claimed that he'd walked to a neighboring town some 4 miles away, walking back home the same morning. I didn't believe him, and asked him a series of questions intended to determine whether he could prove he'd walked all that way.

Q1: Did anyone see you walk all the way? After all, one can't depend on your unsupported word for it -- we need independent evidence.

A1: Nope, no one saw me walk all the way.

Q2: Well, for sure there isn't time to walk to town and back in one morning.

A2: The Hell there isn't! I can walk three miles per hour, it's four miles to town, so there and back takes less than three hours.

Q3: Can you show me your tracks going to town and back?

A3: Well, I can show you some of my tracks -- there were a few muddy spots on the path, and I left tracks there.

Q4: A few tracks? And you claim you walked all the way? Ridiculous. Can we even be sure those tracks are yours? Lots of people wear the same brand of walking shoes that you do. How can you prove they're your tracks?

A4: Well, there's some mud on my shoes that matches the mud in the path.

Q5: That only shows you walked in the muddy places. It doesn't prove that you walked the whole way, or even that you walked on that path. It might even be mud from a different path. Can you show me exactly where each of your feet were on the path all the way from home to town and back? Can you?

A5: Hell, no! That's a ridiculous demand -- how can I possibly reconstruct where each foot went? You've got tracks showing where my feet were some of the time, you know I had time -- I can walk three miles per hour -- and you know I can actually walk one step at a time, step after step after step. What's to prevent me from walking there step by step, one step at a time, even if I don't know where every footstep was?

Q5: You're unjustifiably extrapolating from your data. One step at a time is just micro-travel. No one has ever directly observed micro-travel turn into macro-travel.

A5: What the Hell is "macro-travel"?

Q6: It's travel further than one step, or maybe more than a few steps, or maybe more than 10 or 15 steps, or maybe a few hundred yards. Or something like that. But if you can't show me exactly where each of your feet were every step of the way, and exactly when your feet hit the ground, and precisely how long it took you (three miles per hour is just a guess), you can't prove you walked to town and back, and there is no evidence that your one-step-at-a-time micro-travel turns into macro-travel. You might have been teleported there and back by the IPU for all I know.

A6: Aaaaaaarrrrrrgh!!!

RBH

[ecco]

RBH,

I like it. Well thought out and well written. But you do know you are preaching to the choir. Why not go to http://worthyboards.com/ and post it on their site?

ecco

[Hyndis]

:notworthy

'Nuff said. :thumbs:

[RBH]

RBH,

I like it. Well thought out and well written. But you do know you are preaching to the choir. Why not go to http://worthyboards.com/ and post it on their site?

eccoYup, I'm aware that I'm preaching to the choir here. My intent is to give us all some handy illustrations -- resources showing the illogic -- for use by anyone elsewhere. For example, should the issue arise again in my local school district, these will be published here.

RBH

[lpetrich]

Good analogies, RBH; may I post them in some evolution/creation messageboards that I know of? I'll be sure to credit you.

And I have some of my own:

-

Charlie the Creationist is visiting a forest. After studying it for a while, he decides that the trees in it had not grown from seeds and other trees' roots, but instead had been created at their current size. When someone tries to explain to him sprouting from seeds and tree growth, he counters that all that was observed is micro-growth and not macro-growth, the sort of growth necessary to produce a full-size tree from a seed.

"You claim that those trees had grown from seeds. Were you there?"

He also points out that full-grown trees have a lot more information, in the form of the details of their branching, than seeds. Since information must have come from a designer, the trees' branching must have been designed, meaning that the trees must have been created at their full size.

.

Charlie the Creationist has also become skeptical of the theory that eclipses are shadow effects. When someone points out the resemblance of eclipses to shadows, he states that those are micro-shadows, and not the unproven macro-shadows required for eclipses.

"Can you make a macro-shadow in the lab?" he asks.

-

Charlie the Creationist has decided to visit a museum of watches and clocks and other timepieces, in hope of gaining a better appreciation of Archdeacon Paley's famous analogy.

He looks at the exhibits and marvels at all the different kinds of timepieces:

Sundials, hourglasses, grandfather clocks, cuckoo clocks, wall clocks, alarm clocks, atomic clocks, fob watches, wristwatches, stopwatches, ...

Timepieces with analog displays and with digital displays -- mechanical ones, vacuum-tube ones, LED ones, ...

Weight-driven ones, wind-up ones, electrically-driven mechanical ones, electronic ones, ...

Plain-looking ones, ornate ones, ones made out of wood, metal, glass, plastic, ...

And he thinks:

Wow! What a great designer all these timepieces must have had!

He thinks over the hypothesis that multiple designers were responsible for it, and he decides that a single designer is a simpler hypothesis. He thinks of the time units they use -- days and hours and minutes and seconds -- and he thinks of the various display conventions -- hour and minute and second hands and the "clockwise" direction and so forth -- and he finds that these shared conventions support his contention that they have all had only one designer. But when someone tells him that they have had separate designers, he responds that this great single designer had wanted variety, though he is unable to explain why that designer wanted variety in some features than in others. He also asks why some people prefer to believe that watches and clocks originate by throwing parts into a box and then shaking that box.

And when Charlie leaves, he is more convinced than ever of his beliefs, admiring Archdeacon Paley for having such a great insight.

[Refused]

Great work RBH! Do you mind if I send this to the NCSE message list here in SC for their musing? We could stand up in front of the senate next year and tell the story of the building.. it would be great.

FWIW, I sometimes tell a story of walking up the steps in my house. You know, each step is only inches apart (like reproduction), but together they connect the first and second floors (like speciation).

See ya,
Refused

[RBH]

Feel free to use as appropriate.

RBH

[lpetrich]

Yes, and you people should feel free to use mine. I've written them in the form of the adventures of an imaginary character, Charlie the Creationist; might it be convenient to do so for other creationist parables?

[RBH]

Yes, and you people should feel free to use mine. I've written them in the form of the adventures of an imaginary character, Charlie the Creationist; might it be convenient to do so for other creationist parables?I like that approach, but 'm not likely to rewrite mine in the next day or two.

RBH

[buckshot23]

Wow the Micro-Macro walk "parable" is just absurd. Nicely written though.

[Free Thinkr]

Wow the Micro-Macro walk "parable" is just absurd. Nicely written though.
How so?

[RBH]

Wow the Micro-Macro walk "parable" is just absurd. Nicely written though.Over the years I've had creationists repeatedly define "microevolution" as 'variation within kinds'. Unfortunately, among them they've also defined "kinds" (when they actually break down and define it) as roughly corresponding to everything from species to classes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology)). They seem not to go above classes, though. In the Fundamentals (http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume1/chapter14/hague2.html) it's species. I have the distinct memory (though I can't find the post at the moment) that in the last day or two either you or PƒhMy:deEauLx bumped it up to order.

In any case, I don't think it's absurd. It sketches a few of the kinds of evidence for macro-travel that we have for macro-evolution, though the latter is considerably more extensive than in the parable, and accurately represents the creationist dithering over kinds and macroevolution. In my experience of some 18 years in this debate, it's an accurate depiction.

RBH

[markfiend]

...among them they've also defined "kinds" (when they actually break down and define it) as roughly corresponding to everything from species to classes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology)). They seem not to go above classes, though....
When I've seen the Nylon-eating bug brought up, a common YEC response is "But they're still just bacteria". This suggests to me that in YEC "logic" they're all just "bacteria-kind".

So that's one "kind" that's a bit bigger than species, or even than class... :banghead:

[Graculus]

So that's one "kind" that's a bit bigger than species, or even than class... :banghead:
So that leaves Creationists with only three kinds, the domains Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryotes.

I guess it solves all of the problems with the Ark story if you only need to keep 2 yeasts for the entire domain. This also explains how Noah got drunk so soon after landing... he kept the yeast in a barrel of grape juice.

[premjan]

Is there a list of the "kinds" somewhere?

[buckshot23]

Over the years I've had creationists repeatedly define "microevolution" as 'variation within kinds'. Unfortunately, among them they've also defined "kinds" (when they actually break down and define it) as roughly corresponding to everything from species to classes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology)). They seem not to go above classes, though. In the Fundamentals (http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume1/chapter14/hague2.html) it's species. I have the distinct memory (though I can't find the post at the moment) that in the last day or two either you or PƒhMy:deEauLx bumped it up to order.

In any case, I don't think it's absurd. It sketches a few of the kinds of evidence for macro-travel that we have for macro-evolution, though the latter is considerably more extensive than in the parable, and accurately represents the creationist dithering over kinds and macroevolution. In my experience of some 18 years in this debate, it's an accurate depiction.

RBH
I must lack imagination because I cannot see how we see small changes in populations and we can logically extrapolate that these changes are the cause of all the vast variety of life on this planet. That cacti and Geckos are related and changed into what they are through these small changes. Then to equate it to micro and macro travel is just absurd to me. The case has not been made that the extrapolation is reasonable IMO. I guess that makes me whacky. :huh:

By the way I did not push it to orders.

[buckshot23]

So that leaves Creationists with only three kinds, the domains Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryotes.

I guess it solves all of the problems with the Ark story if you only need to keep 2 yeasts for the entire domain. This also explains how Noah got drunk so soon after landing... he kept the yeast in a barrel of grape juice.
http://www.costumeexpo.com/Products/hats/character/thumbs/strawman.jpg

I know you were joking but I haven't been able to use my friend in a while. :)

[Sven]

I must lack imagination because I cannot see how we see small changes in populations and we can logically extrapolate that these changes are the cause of all the vast variety of life on this planet.
Well, maybe because that's only one line of evidence? And this line is rather about the how, not about the if.

That cacti and Geckos are related and changed into what they are through these small changes. Then to equate it to micro and macro travel is just absurd to me. The case has not been made that the extrapolation is reasonable IMO. I guess that makes me whacky. :huh:

No, if anything makes you whacky it is saying: "I don't understand it, thus it has to be wrong." IOW, finally provide an argument why this extrapolation isn't reasonable.

[Hyndis]

Small change + small change + small change + small change = big change.

I don't see whats so exotic about that.

[Flint]

Kurt Wise has an answer to these objections, and his is the only answer I've seen that really matters. People like buckshot23 are in fact using Kurt Wise's approach, but lack anything approching Wise's integrity.

As Dawkins writes,...there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.Buckshot23 is simply repeating this catechism: Whatsoever disagreeth with scripture is wrong. Evidence is a tool of the devil.

[RBH]

Here's Wise's quotation in full:"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.Attributed to Wise K.P., in Ashton J.F., ed., "In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation", New Holland: Sydney NSW, Australia, 1999, p.329. Source (http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/quotes/cequc307.html). While Wise is one of the 50 "scientists" referred to in the title of the book, his reason for accepting YAC in the face of the evidence is the direct antithesis of science.

More recently, he said (http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_96736.htm)Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists. This is consistent with repeated examples of YACists receiving the highest training as YACists, as well as the growth of the YAC movement despite better arguments against creation and for evolution.Wise recognizes that the evidence is running stronger against him, but holds his Biblically-based position despite that. The only conclusion is that evidence doesn't matter. That's the difference between blind ideology, be it secular or religious, and the reality-based community. secular and religious.

Now I ask buckshot23: Does evidence, physical evidence, matter? If so, you're welcome here. If it does not, as it does not to Wise, then I commend BC&H (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=60), EoG (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=59), and GRD (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=54) to your attention.

RBH

[Boro Nut]

Creationist Criticisms of Geological Dating

It's quite amazing that your first parable is almost exactly word-for-word the same as one I intend to post from now on. I never believed it possible that one person could compose one version, and quite independantly, thousands of miles away, the other one could stoop so low. Of course, I will be spelling neighbourhood properly in my version.

Boro Nut

[RBH]

Of course, I will be spelling neighbourhood properly in my version.

Boro NutWaste not, want not, even when it comes to vowels. All those extra "u"s are a drain on the British economy.

RBH

[_Naturalist_]

It doesn't seem like the best idea to disregard evidence, and instead believe in a myth. Surely no scientist would do that?

[Boro Nut]

It doesn't seem like the best idea to disregard evidence, and instead believe in a myth. Surely no scientist would do that?

Scientists aren't the problem, it's the public that holds onto the myths such as apples always fall down. Newton said nothing of the sort, and in any event it's patently untrue, certainly of any apples the public are likely to encounter in the shops. These have invariably been picked off the branch manually.

Boro Nut

[maurile]

RBH, those parables are terrific!

Here is another parable I've always liked, written by Michael Suttkus (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_parable.htm):

Creationist Cops

Once upon a time....

Two cops, Henry and Phillip, are called to a house on Evidence Street. A neighbor has called and reported a break-in. Arriving at the house, they find that the front door has been knocked off of its hinges and a man wearing a ski mask and holding a bag of jewelry and a bloody knife is leaving.

"Excuse me, sir," says Henry. "A break-in has been reported at this residence. We're here to investigate."

The masked man glances around. "Looks fine to me, but I've really got to get going..."

"Sorry, sir, but we must investigate," says Phillip.

The two cops and the masked man walk up to the front door. It is hanging by only the bottom hinge and the deadbolt has clearly been forced out of the doorframe.

"Sir," says Henry, "Can you explain why your door appears to have been forced in if there hasn't been a break-in?"

"Well," says the masked man, "When I bought this house, they explained to me that the builder was a little worried that if the house looked too new, people would be afraid to live in it, being afraid to damage it. So, he built in an appearance of age, of a history that never happened, damaging it before hand."

Meanwhile, Phillip has stepped inside. He notices what looks like signs of a struggle. He asks, "Sir, can you explain why your sofa is on its back?"

"It was that way when we moved in, our interior decorator put it there."

"On it's back?"

"Yes. He was a great designer, the best ever."

"Why would he place it like that? Isn't it hard to sit on?"

"A little, but intelligent placement doesn't mean optimal placement. I can still sit here." He demonstrates this by sitting on the front of the couch. "See? It works."

Henry, meanwhile, had walked through the living room and into the bedrooms. From there, he called, "Hey, there appear to be two dead bodies in here." Phillip and the masked man go to see. Indeed, two dead bodies, both with obvious knife wounds.

"Well," asks Henry, "How can you explain this?"

"Well," says, the masked man, "Obviously the two bodies can't have just formed from the floor boards, right? That is obviously impossible. They are too complicated for that. They must have been created here by a magical fairy that poofed in here, created two dead bodies magically, and then vanished, leaving no trace of his presence."

Phillip and Henry walk out of the house. "Well," asks Phillip, "What did you think?"

"Hmm, well, appearance of age, a history that seems to have happened, but didn't, obviously inferior design attributed to great intelligence, refutations of a straw man argument nobody made and a false dichotomy, followed by dependence on unevidenced supernatural events to fill in any gaps, it all leads to only one conclusion."

"Quite right," says Phillip. He calls dispatch. "Nobody was here to see what happened. We can't prove anything. We're going back on patrol."

And the moral of this story is, if you commit a crime, pray you get creationist cops.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Scientists aren't the problem, it's the public that holds onto the myths such as apples always fall down.
Boro, since I can't send you an email or a PM, I'll have to do this this way.

Read this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=132418) and follow this moderator's instruction to be there. We've missed you at all the previous ones.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Waste not, want not, even when it comes to vowels. All those extra "u"s are a drain on the British economy.
It's vestigial, which does not mean it is useless. It may be suboptimal, however.

[m9mr]

The 4 mile walk is a bad example of anything except somebody not beliving someone walkin 4 miles unless he sees the evidence, like taped 4 mile walk.
The dude walking 4 miles is still the same dude after 4 miles, hasnt changed anyting except he is now tired.How does that compare to evolution.Evolution theory is lookin for the evidence of change over time not the evidence of a certain species existing now and millions years ago.

[NonHomogenized]

m9mr, do you hear a 'whooshing' sound? That was an analogy going straight over your head...

[m9mr]

its a very bad analogy.
what if you find the dude's foot print in like mud at the begining of the walk and the end of his walk,it would be the same foot print, right.It hasnt changed, thats why you can not compare this anology with evolution,since evolution means change.

[Hyndis]

I guess this is the problem using clever analogies to try to explain the differences between ID/creationism and actual science. :(

[Sven]

Now I ask buckshot23: Does evidence, physical evidence, matter?
He already demonstrated himself that it does: By conceeding that the sun and moon are not in the firmament, as the bible says. He only refuses to take this to the logical conclusion.

[Sven]

its a very bad analogy.
what if you find the dude's foot print in like mud at the begining of the walk and the end of his walk,it would be the same foot print, right.It hasnt changed, thats why you can not compare this anology with evolution,since evolution means change.
Guess what? Walking is change. Only not change of form (evolution), but change of location. Does this help to get the analogy?

BTW, are you going to come back to the two threads you left - apparently you have enough time on your hands to give input in this thread, why not on the other two?