Skip to main content

Answer to Creationist Bullshit

   Was reading a Scientific American article on 15  answers to creationist nonsense (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist). Nice article, but since it was published by reputable publishing house, they could not use words like Bullshit, which are slightly more appropriate for the subject. But, the article got me thinking about creationists and other things. The article goes on to say why doubts raised by creationists are not valid science. For example, macro evolutionary processes are not understood, but the fact of macro evolution or speciation having occurred is beyond doubt. The article goes into greater details about these things. The final answer is on the "Paley principle". Simply stated it goes as follows : "a watch is a complex thing and tells time by a specific arrangement of a lot of smaller parts. Somebody must have put them into place otherwise it would not work. We work (or rather our bodies work), and we are a complex assemblage of smaller complicated parts, so we must have a designer". Some people believe that this designer was God, failing which at least Aliens were involved. It just could not have happened on its own.


 But if you really think about it, a watch did not spring upon us fully made. Or for that matter any complex artifact. Take for example a jumbo jet. Marvelous piece of engineering, and something surely made by design. But dd it spring upon us fully made ? No. The first flying object was perhaps a paper plane or something similar. Then gliders came along, and then bigger and better planes which finally led to the jumbo jet. So, even in man made objects, we see hints of 'evolution', so I dont understand how people can be stupid enough to give the "Paley principle" as proof that evolution cannot take place. If anything, looking at almost anything that we use, we can be sure that it has undergone an evolution in its design.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Butter, Oil and Zephyr

    Well, have been doing a lot of a MD simulations lately. My current favourite is implicit solvent simulations. The entire explicit solvent thing always seemed too brute force to me. Its not elegant, and nor is it computationally feasible for larger systems. Implicit solvent simulations suffer from their own problems, but I would consider their future much brighter. This is simply sue to the larger time scales that you can access using these simulations even on a normal desktop system. Larger time scales means better averages and thermodynamic properties are always averages, so better match with experiment.    Speaking of Implicit solvent simulations, Gromacs does a good job, as well as any other currently. I especially like the OBC model for calculating Born radii which I am glad to say, I copied to MUST_READ folder when it first came out. It might still be lying there, that is another thing, but at least I can appreciate when a good...

I am a Reverend now!!!

  I have been an atheist for most of my life. I have never truly believed that God exists or such thing. More recently, I have started looking down upon people that do believe in God. Not a hatred kind of looking down upon them, but rather a pitiful look down or maybe even a cuter look down upon. Like when you see a child earnestly insisting that Santa Claus exists. You pity the child's ignorance and you find it cute, but secretly you also get a bit tense knowing that his/her ignorance cannot last very long. And, you wonder if that earnest child could really handle the news when it hits them hard.   So, in summary all I am saying is, people who believe in a God are stupid. They should grow up and really think hard about what they mean when they say they believe in God. Half of them will mutter and sputter and fail to come up with what they really believe. Most would say something asinine like "I am sure there is something out there" or "There will be chaos if n...

An early essay on co-translational folding

   One of the earliest essays I wrote on the co-translational folding concept. This was for a course on protein folding that Prof Balaram takes at IISc. I am reproducing it in full, with missing punctuation marks added. At one point, I say that I have not been able to find out why it is assumed that refolding is a good substitute for in vivo protein folding. I did know even then, but I chose not to talk about it. I did so, since I cannot talk about the topic without calling everyone involved an idiot. Also, I have omitted the references as I cannot bring myself to format them properly. Rest assured that nothing I said in the essay is without literature support. Co-translational folding Introduction    Protein folding is one of the major unsolved problems of molecular biology. The problem is as follows : given that a gene encodes a unique structure (which performs a unique function), how does this information conversion take place ? it is assumed (barrin...