An ID Oops

I was doing some reading on the Intelligent Design page for a lesson I'm giving on Tuesday about teleological arguments for the existence of God, and there seems to be a logical fallacy in part of what they say:

Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI [complex and specified information]. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Hopefully I'll be using all the logic symbols correctly. I'm not doing anything very complicated here, but I haven't done much with them since a one-week mini unit in geometry my freshman year of high school.

Let's break down their hypothesis: "if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI"

A = a natural object is designed
B = the object contains complex and specified information

A -> B

That part seems fair enough. At second glance, I objected to this, but at third glance I took into account the specific words used, and it worked once more. Note that it specifies design, not just creation. Design implies that there is a purpose behind the pieces. Heather is an intelligent being, but not everything she creates contains what I would call complex and specified information. On the other hand, when she purposefully designs something, CSI is present in some form or another, bizarre though it may be.

But what they say next doesn't work: "When ID researchers find irreducible complexity [an example of CSI] in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed"

B, therefore A
(I don't know how to do the dot triangle symbol for therefore)

This statement does not follow logically from the first statement. There is a fallacy lurking here.


Does this mean that the ID theory is bunk? I think not, but I do think that the website's writer needs to re-word his hypothesis. Yes, I'm being picky here, but I reckon I should be as picky as I can be, since the ID critics certainly are. Here are some possibilities that I think would work better:

Alternative Hypothesis 1: If an object contains high levels of CSI, it must be designed.
Here, we merely switch A and B from their first proposition.

A = an object contains high levels of CSI
B = an object is designed
A -> B

We know of natural objects that contain high levels of CSI, so we can assume they are designed.

A, therefore B

This is a logically sound proposition.

Alternative Hypothesis 2: Objects created by undirected processes (such as random mutation) do not exhibit high levels of CSI.

A = an object is created by an undirected process
B = an object does not exhibit high levels of CSI
A -> B

This time, we know of many natural objects for which B is not true.

~B, therefore ~A

This is also logically sound.

However, both of these hypotheses issue a new challenge outside of this sort of logic: proponents of ID must support the premises of the hypothesis/hypotheses. We know that there are naturally-existing objects that exhibit CSI (DNA, cells, etc.). However, they must also support that these cannot or do not arise from undirected processes. Fortunately, it's easy to support this empirically. If we take any object with CSI whose origin we know, such as a machine, blueprint, book, or piece of art (except maybe for some modern and postmodern art), we know that it was brought into being by design - something intelligent purposefully assembled it.

Now we have two possible hypothesis that are empirically supported, and both point to an Intelligent Designer to explain the complex and specified information we see in the world around us.

An Unorthodox Bedtime Story

A few years ago, a friend of mine asked me to text her a bedtime story. The story you will find below became my standard bedtime story (for some reason several other people asked me to text them bedtime stories in the months that followed). Last winter I turned it into an art project, and the pictures accompanying each paragraph are photos of that project. Enjoy!




Once upon a time in a cottage at the edge on a forest there lived a little girl along with her father, mother, and baby brother. The little girl liked to walk in the field of wildflowers near her house.









The little girl was frolicking merrily among the flowers one pleasant morning when a fearsome dragon swooped down and carried her off to its lair in the formidable mountains beyond the forest.








She had not been in the dragon's cave for long when a knight on horseback came galloping up the stony trail. He vanquished the dragon, but when he learned that the little girl was not of noble blood he rode off in search of other damsels in distress and left the little girl behind.






Back at the cottage, the little girl's father had seen the dragon carry his precious daughter away. He wasted no time in finding out where the dragon lived and immediately began his trek up the treacherous mountains. After a time, he found the lair of the deceased dragon.






Both the father and the little girl were overjoyed to see one another. The father swept the little girl into his arms and carried her down through the mountains and the forest. They arrived back at the cottage just in time for a delicious supper of homemade soup before bedtime.



the end.

The Importance of Extension Work in Slowing the Spread of Glyphosate Resistance

All crop farmers face the problem of weeds, and they generally take whatever course of action is cheapest and most effective in controlling weeds. While this may be the most economical solution in the short run, overuse of the herbicide glyphosate (commonly known as Round-Up) is giving rise to glyphosate-resistant weeds. One of the main foci of Dr. Bill Johnson’s work is to educate the public about the threat of increasing glyphosate resistance in hopes that by addressing the consumers of the herbicide he can reduce its use.

A farmer’s dependence on glyphosate varies from crop to crop, but up to 95% of farmers use this herbicide as their primary means of controlling weeds in soy fields (Johnson). In order to fight this problem, scientists must not only discover alternative methods of weed control, but also educate farm-owners about the importance of implementing these methods. In Facts About Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds, one of the publications from an extension group he has written for, the common man is presented with all sorts of useful information. He finds easily understood information about resistant weeds ranging from the number of resistant species to why resistance has developed. Warnings against counter-productive ways of combating resistance, such as increasing the number or concentration of glyphosate applications, are provided. Suggestions are given for effective alternative or companion weed control methods including mixing other herbicides with glyphosate or planting groundcover control crops (Boerboom). This and other publications from extension workers across the country inform glyphosate users about resistance and how to fight it.

By directly addressing the people with the power to reduce glyphosate use, Johnson and others hope to see the rise of more diverse methods of weed management and a decrease in the spread of glyphosate resistance. Studies show that many farmers are aware of glyphosate resistance, but not all of these farmers change their practices to reflect this knowledge (Johnson et al.). Johnson attributes this to the fact that today glyphosate is still largely effective and far less expensive and labor-intensive than the alternatives. Once farmers are convinced that action must be taken now if we want to be able to continue using this herbicide, dependence on glyphosate will decrease and the spread of resistance will be slowed. Glyphosate will remain a useful tool in the agricultural industry, but we will no longer be devastated if it loses effectiveness. Farmers may have to pay more in the short-term to control weeds, but in the long run they will have greater success with managing weeds and thereby increase their profit.

Resistance to glyphosate is spreading at an alarming rate. Research is being done on methods of weed control that will supplement or replace glyphosate, but the research is not very useful unless farmers are knowledgeable about how important it is to combat this problem and the methods of doing so. The work of Johnson and others strives to make research easily accessible to farmers and thus reduce glyphosate dependence. It may take time to convince growers of this, but it will be worth it in the long run to preserve the effectiveness of glyphosate even though it means combining this herbicide with other more expensive weed management methods.


Bibliography

• Boerboom, Chris, and Michael Owen. “Facts About Glysophate-Resistant Weeds.” The Glyphosate, Weeds, and Crops Series. GWC-1. Purdue Extension Knowledge To Go. December 2006. Web. 14 October 2009.
• Johnson, William G. Personal Interview. 24 September 2009.
• Johnson, William G., et al. “University Weed Scientists Report on Grower Awareness and Perceptions on Weed Resistance to Glyphosate in Roundup Ready® Crops.” Benchmark Study: Glyphosate Resistance Management. 2009 - Report #5. Web. 14 October 2009.

A Non-Thiest Inadvertently Demonstrates the Distinguishing Feature of the Christian Mindset

As I was rushing off the my horticulture lab after more than an hour of interesting debate with the non-theists who stayed to talk after round one of God vs. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, I caught a bit of a conversation Dan was having with another guy.

The other guy argued that since Christians believe that the world contains suffering but heaven doesn't and we believe we go to heaven when we die (let's just ignore misconceptions about defining heaven and where it is and all that), if we were logical we would all commit suicide (for which we would be forgiven) so we could go to heaven. And, from the self-centered perspective of a naturalist, his line of reasoning is reasonable. However, this guy was missing the central point of Christianity.

As Paul says in Philippians, for us to die would be personal gain but for us to continue to serve others would be gain for the kingdom. We have more to live for than ourselves. We know God's love, and teaching others about that is worth living for. Even at the expense of personal interest and personal gratification.

While most of us aren't having to restrain ourselves from suicide, we should be sacrificing other desires to spread God's love. I will admit that I have, overall, failed at this in the past. I'm already making progress, and I plan to work to continue this progress.