747 Junkyard argument

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Tornado Argument moved to Tornado argument: capitalization)
(remove spam)
(16 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{stub}}
+
The '''tornado argument''' made by [[creationist]]s and proponents of [[intelligent design]] states that attributing the development of [[life]] to natural forces such as [[evolution]] through [[natural selection]] is like expecting a tornado moving through a junkyard to result in a fully functional [[wikipedia:Boeing 747|Boeing 747]].  The argument was originally made by British astronomer [[wikipedia:Fred Hoyle|Fred Hoyle]].  This analogy depends on a fundamental misunderstanding of the "[[randomness]]" involved in the development of life, as well as a blurring of the separate issues of how life arose from non-life and how subsequent life developed from earlier living things (the jet is clearly supposed to suggest the complexity of current living organisms).
  
The tornado argument states that evolution is like a tornado moving through a junkyard and assembling a fully-functional 747. This analogy plays off the percieved "randomness" of evolution on the part of the creationists.
+
[[ID]] advocates sometimes present calculations showing the impossibly low [[odds]] of a given [[wikipedia:protein|protein]] spontaneously self-assembling from a batch of [[wikipedia:amino acid|amino acid]]s. [[William Dembski]] uses this approach in his paper, "[http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence]" (383k PDF). Such calculations are irrelevant because they ignore important features of proposed evolutionary mechanisms — the very features that get around such seeming impossibilities, in fact.
  
The problem with the analogy is that evolution doesn't work in massive jumps like a tornado would. Evolution has no goal; instead, it works with what already exists and modifies it to accomplish new things.
+
==Counter-apologetics==
 +
 
 +
The tornado argument depends on the common fallacy of equating "natural" explanations of life with "randomness". Only a small part of evolutionary theory is actually based on randomness. [[Genetic mutation]]s and natural [[genetic variation]] present in populations are, to a large extent, random; and the kinds of [[natural selection|selective pressures]] encountered by individuals (predation, food supply fluctuations, etc.) are to some extent random in nature. However, the differential benefit of one characteristic over another in dealing with these environmental pressures (that is, the "fitness" part of "[[survival of the fittest]]") is ''not'' random. Some adaptations are clearly beneficial to the organism and some are clearly not. This means that [[Darwin]]'s proposed driving force behind evolution, [[natural selection]], is anything ''but'' random.
 +
 
 +
In addition, evolution doesn't work quickly by way of massive, uncontrolled forces, as tornadoes do. Evolution theory suggests that ''small'' changes, accumulated over extremely ''long'' periods of time, result in the current diversity of life.
 +
 
 +
Most importantly, the tornado analogy lacks the two main elements that make evolution work: ''reproduction'' (which enables "descent with modification") and ''selection'' (which enables increasing complexity). The lack of these aspects reinforces the improbability of anything useful coming out of the process.
 +
 
 +
The fact that the argument posits the creation of a working airplane reveals another misconception: that evolution has ''as its goal'' the creation of complex living organisms. Evolution has no final goal or purpose; it is merely a consequence of variation among individuals coupled with environmental pressures.
 +
 
 +
Finally, the kind of calculations made by Dembski are based on (or perhaps intentionally rely on) a fundamental misunderstanding of what [[probabilities]] should actually be considered. The odds of a ''particular'' group of amino acids assembling into a ''particular'' protein may indeed be small, but the kinds of amino acids and proteins that current life is based on are not the only ones possible. Indeed, even the mixture of ''atoms'' that life on Earth is primarily based on is not the only possibility (see [[Wikipedia:Alternative biochemistry]]). And at the other extreme, the current range of living things we see around us are not the only possible life forms that ''could'' have evolved.
 +
 
 +
To illustrate the previous point with another analogy, consider the probability that Dembski's own parents would create a child exactly like Dembski. The odds are astronomical. But, of course, they did. On the other hand, consider the probability that Dembski's parents could create ''any'' child. Those are much better odds.
 +
 
 +
==See also==
 +
* [[Evolution is not a theory of chance]]
 +
* [[Ultimate 747 Gambit]]
 +
 
 +
{{Arguments for god}}
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Arguments]]
 +
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
 +
[[Category:Teleological arguments]]
 +
[[Category:Arguments from design]]

Revision as of 10:09, 5 May 2010

The tornado argument made by creationists and proponents of intelligent design states that attributing the development of life to natural forces such as evolution through natural selection is like expecting a tornado moving through a junkyard to result in a fully functional Boeing 747. The argument was originally made by British astronomer Fred Hoyle. This analogy depends on a fundamental misunderstanding of the "randomness" involved in the development of life, as well as a blurring of the separate issues of how life arose from non-life and how subsequent life developed from earlier living things (the jet is clearly supposed to suggest the complexity of current living organisms).

ID advocates sometimes present calculations showing the impossibly low odds of a given protein spontaneously self-assembling from a batch of amino acids. William Dembski uses this approach in his paper, "Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence" (383k PDF). Such calculations are irrelevant because they ignore important features of proposed evolutionary mechanisms — the very features that get around such seeming impossibilities, in fact.

Counter-apologetics

The tornado argument depends on the common fallacy of equating "natural" explanations of life with "randomness". Only a small part of evolutionary theory is actually based on randomness. Genetic mutations and natural genetic variation present in populations are, to a large extent, random; and the kinds of selective pressures encountered by individuals (predation, food supply fluctuations, etc.) are to some extent random in nature. However, the differential benefit of one characteristic over another in dealing with these environmental pressures (that is, the "fitness" part of "survival of the fittest") is not random. Some adaptations are clearly beneficial to the organism and some are clearly not. This means that Darwin's proposed driving force behind evolution, natural selection, is anything but random.

In addition, evolution doesn't work quickly by way of massive, uncontrolled forces, as tornadoes do. Evolution theory suggests that small changes, accumulated over extremely long periods of time, result in the current diversity of life.

Most importantly, the tornado analogy lacks the two main elements that make evolution work: reproduction (which enables "descent with modification") and selection (which enables increasing complexity). The lack of these aspects reinforces the improbability of anything useful coming out of the process.

The fact that the argument posits the creation of a working airplane reveals another misconception: that evolution has as its goal the creation of complex living organisms. Evolution has no final goal or purpose; it is merely a consequence of variation among individuals coupled with environmental pressures.

Finally, the kind of calculations made by Dembski are based on (or perhaps intentionally rely on) a fundamental misunderstanding of what probabilities should actually be considered. The odds of a particular group of amino acids assembling into a particular protein may indeed be small, but the kinds of amino acids and proteins that current life is based on are not the only ones possible. Indeed, even the mixture of atoms that life on Earth is primarily based on is not the only possibility (see Wikipedia:Alternative biochemistry). And at the other extreme, the current range of living things we see around us are not the only possible life forms that could have evolved.

To illustrate the previous point with another analogy, consider the probability that Dembski's own parents would create a child exactly like Dembski. The odds are astronomical. But, of course, they did. On the other hand, consider the probability that Dembski's parents could create any child. Those are much better odds.

See also


v · d Arguments for the existence of god
Anthropic arguments   Anthropic principle · Natural-law argument
Arguments for belief   Pascal's Wager · Argument from faith · Just hit your knees
Christological arguments   Argument from biblical miracles · Would someone die for a lie? · Liar, Lunatic or Lord
Cosmological arguments   Argument from contingency · Cosmological argument · Fine-tuning argument · Kalam · Unmoved mover · Why is there something rather than nothing?
Majority arguments   Majority argument · Argument from admired religious scientists
Moral arguments   Argument from justice · Divine command theory
Ontological argument   Argument from degree · Argument from goodness · Argument from desire
Dogmatic arguments   Argument from divine sense · Sensus divinitatis · Argument from uniqueness
Teleological arguments   Argument from design · Banana argument · 747 Junkyard argument · Laminin argument · Argument from natural disasters
Testimonial arguments   Personal revelation · Argument from observed miracles · Argument from personal experience · Consciousness argument for the existence of God · Emotional pleas
Transcendental arguments   God created numbers
Scriptural arguments   Scriptural inerrancy · Scriptural scientific foreknowledge
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox