Dear Editor,
Duane Linstrom presents yet another example why Intelligent
Design is an intellectually bankrupt proposition.
Â
Dear Editor,
Duane Linstrom presents yet another example why Intelligent Design is an intellectually bankrupt proposition. His latest incarnation of scientific creationism, known as Intelligent Design, is nothing more that rehashing old and long refuted arguments that present some aspect of science (e.g., abiogenesis in the case of Linstrom, evolution in the case of Joe McCormack’s letter) as unexplainable and propose a super-natural entity as a solution.Â
In the case of Linstrom, the unexplainable event is the formation of complex proteins by chance. Cloaked in some biology terms and numbers, Linstrom argues that the chances of a protein arising from the random combination of its components is so small that it must be impossible using purely natural means.Â
Thus, the argument concludes, an intelligent designer put the pieces together. Of course, no attempt is made to see if the working assumptions have anything to do with reality.
Linstrom’s improbability argument is based on the flawed assumptions that 1) chemical combinations are purely random processes, and 2) that each such combination is equally likely as the next. High school level chemistry will teach you otherwise. For instance, Linstrom explains that if we are trying to combine four objects (A B C, and D) into as many possible ways, we could have 24 different arrangements (1x2x3x4). But assume that in nature we never find A and B as neighbors – they just do not combine.
An enumeration of possible cases will show that only 8 different arrangements are possible (ACBD, ACDB, ADCB, DACB, BCAD, BCDA, BDCA, DBCA). A simple combination rule excludes 2/3 of the possibilities! Of course, when using the purely random assumptions, Linstrom obtains ridiculously small probability numbers; but if the intention was to model a real world process, Linstrom’s results are meaningless.
Abiogenesis is a complex puzzle for which we do not know all the answers. We do not know the exact route that molecules took to become complex living cells. Nobody, however, is proposing what Linstrom suggests: that the sequence of components somehow arranged itself into a complete structure by chance!
Science thrives on open problems like abiogenesis and, with time, better answers will emerge. But we will only make progress on these big questions if we motivate the next generation to get excited about science; if we humbly teach our kids that we do not know all explanations to natural phenomena yet, but science is the best tool we have to find testable answers. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, belittles science in general, introduces non-measurable and super-natural explanations, and hopes we stop thinking about these questions. There is no reason to condone this sort of intellectual laziness.
Mauricio A. Hernandez, Gilroy
