Creationist Arguments

This post is about common creationist arguments and why they're problematic. For those of you who don't know what creationism is, it's the belief that life as we know it was created by a divine source rather than the scientific conclusion which states that life evolved via natural selection.  Natural selection for those who don't know is the process in which organisms which have more favorable traits are more likely to have offspring and pass those traits to them. Organisms which have less favorable traits are less likely to survive and have offspring, thus they're more likely to go extinct. This post goes into detail about the 10 most common arguments from notable creationist I've seen and proceed to debunk them.  

1) Evolution is only just a theory.
 Re: This argument relies on the belief that the colloquial definition of a theory is the same as the scientific one. In everyday usage the colloquial definition of a theory means a guess, however, a theory in the scientific context as defined by the National Academy of Sciences is  "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." (from Scientific American) Germ theory will always remain a theory no matter how much evidence it has. Because in science indirect evidence is used a lot.
2) We haven't seen life evolve.
 Re: Yes we have; an example would be during in labs when a group of bacteria were exposed to antibiotics that were meant to kill them but, some gain the ability to be more resist the antibiotics meant to kill thus, we have an example of natural selection at work (from CNN)      
3) But, that is an example of micro-evolution.
 Re: This is a common counter argument many creationist make when examples of evolution being observed are brought up the issue with this argument is that is that the difference between micro evolution & macro evolution is that macro evolution is same thing as micro evolution just over a longer time span. (from Scientific American)
4) But, the human eye is too complex to evolve via natural selection.
 Re: This argument relies on the lack of public knowledge on the evolution of the eye but in short we do know how the eye evolved. I don't have time to tell all of it so I'll leave with a link to a its okay to be smart video on the topic (from its okay to be smart)  
5) But, evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
 Re: This argument is based off a misinterpretation of the second law of thermodynamics which states "the total entropy can never decrease over time for an isolated system" entropy being the physics term for disorder. But, the key word here is isolated and earth is not an isolated system, thus evolution is able to happen. (from its okay to be smart)(from Scientific American)
6) But, Hitler believed in evolution and it led to his eugenics program.
 Re: This is a classic example of the appeal to consequences fallacy. The issue being that a thing does not become false because of one really bad person who believes in that thing hence evolution is still true even if one the most horrible people on the plant believes in evolution.       
7) There are a growing number of scientists that doubt evolution
 Re: No there isn't. Read any scientific peer review biology journal and you can find the scientific support for evolution. The Pew Research Center also shows that 98% of scientists that work for the AAAS say they believe humans evolved over time. (from Scientific American)(from Pew Research Center)
8) But, if humans came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?
 Re: This is one of the most common creationist arguments out there. The short answer is that humans didn't evolve from monkeys but rather that humans and monkeys have the same ancestor. And even if humans evolved from monkeys that be like asking "If Australians came from Brits then why are there brits?"   
9) But, some fossils like Piltdown Man were shown to be hoaxes.
 Re: Creationist like to cite hoax fossils like Piltdown Man as evidence of a vast conspiracy to make fake fossils. This is despite the fact that the Piltdown Man was debunked by scientists. Thus, if there is conspiracy to fake fossils a scientist would have blew the whistle by now. (from TalkOrigins)
10)  But, we haven't seen any transitional species.
Re: The Problem with this argument is that plenty of fossils that one can consider a transitional species like the Archaeopteryx been found, thus supporting evolution.

Conclusion: Despite strong criticism based on unscientific and fallacious arguments, Evolution is withheld by scientific evidence and is the unifying theory of much of biology.
    

I'll get back to posting

Recently I've been having period of not posting. I'll soon get back to posting as soon as I can.

solar eclipse

The Flaws of Homeopathy

This post is about homeopathy and its many flaws and its creation. For those who do not know, homeopathy is the practice of treating aliments by using diluted substances that in their undiluted form would cause similar symptoms of the aliment in healthy people. The problem with homeopathy is that its principle is based in pseudoscience. So, in this essay I’ll be showing the flaws in homeopathy and why it does not work as an effective treatment.           

Homeopathy was created by German physician Samuel Hahnemann. Hahnemann was alive in era before germ theory was developed, back then the main hypothesis on the cause of diseases was that there was an imbalance in the four humors (blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm). Hahnemann did not believe the four humors hypothesis but rather believed that diseases were caused by miasmas. Hahnemann’s miasmas hypothesis was that medications did not cure diseases but rather suppressed the symptoms; this would cause said diseases to go to internal organs of the patient.[1]

Nowadays homeopathy is touted as an all-natural medication to be used along modern medicine. This was because in the 19^th century germ theory was developed and led to a decline in the four humors and miasmas theories. Many homeopathic practitioners stared marketing homeopathic treatments as a complimentary medication to modern medicine. This was done because modern medicine was still new idea and some people still rejected it and had a distrust of it. To justify homeopathy many people turned to anecdotal evidence and pseudoscientific methods.

   The first major problem with homeopathy is the dilution process, which is the practice of taking a substance which can cause similar symptoms of the aliment in healthy people. This is done by diluting the substance with water over 30 times, also known as 30C. This is an issue because a dilution of 30C is very unlikely to contain a single molecule of the original substance. On the other hand, a homeopathic remedy may contain too much of the original substance which can cause adverse effects, which can sometimes be serious[2].

Another problem with homeopathy is that many studies, including one meta-analysis by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, found that hemopathy works no better than a placebo[3]. This is a problem because even if the user believes the treatment, the placebo effect doesn’t always happen. This can be a problem because if the patient is using a homeopathic remedy as the only treatment for a fatal disease or a choric disease they won’t see improvement in their condition.

 In conclusion homeopathy can be tied to pseudoscience in general. This is because homeopathy was founded on an outdated and scientifically disproven idea. It uses anecdotal evidence rather than data and was created before germ theory, which changed medicine drastically. Homeopathy can even be dangerous if used as the only treatment for serious and chronic diseases. Homeopathy also has little regulation which means sometimes a homeopathic remedy can have too much of the substance, and it means homeopathic practitioners can make false claims about their product as long as they include a blurb reading: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”[4]  And those are the reasons why homeopathy is flawed, can be dangerous, and can be firmly classified as a pseudoscience.                                                                

---

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20090307120146/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/homeopathy_advice/Theory/Intermediate/miasm.html

[2] https://nccih.nih.gov/health/homeopathy

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/11/no-evidence-homeopathy-is-any-better-than-a-placebo-major-australian-study-says/?utm_term=.25ee47a4e77e

[4] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.93

Honest Talk about GMOs

                            Honest Talk about GMOs

There's been renewed debate in GMOs after the test launch of a GM apple that doesn't brown, called Arctic Apple. This debate, however, reveals the discourse between professional scientists and the public. A Pew Research Poll found that 88 percent of scientists view GMOs are just as safe as non-GM food. However, the GMO debate rages even with the scientific consensus that we have. Anti GMO advocates say that GMOs could have negative effects on human health. However, multiple studies found that GMOs have little to no health effects. And it's not just biotech corporations that say that GMOs are safe. Scientists like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye have acknowledged that GMOs are just as safe as non-GMO food. In fact, after realizing that GMOs are just as safe as non-GMO food, Bill Nye plans in the next edition of one of his books Undeniable to change the chapter on GMOs. He's now changing the chapter to show that GMOs pose no greater risk then non-GMOs. If you're still not convinced that GMO food just as safe as non-GMO food here's a video by Healthcare Triage showing that studies that show GMO food poses no greater risk then non-GMO food.

Q & A with The Skeptical Guy

Q & A with The Skeptical Guy

1. Q: Who I am? A: A guy who has a love of science and a hating towards pseudoscience who's doing a small part in fighting pseudoscience

2. Q: Why  you do have a strong hatred towards pseudoscience? A: Some pseudosciences like anti vaccination, alternative "medicine", and AIDS denialism (yes that's a thing) can put people other ones lives at risk. One's like climate change denial will have dire effects on the planet. Some like UFO's and Bigfoot are just baffling. So in the end there know single answer to why I hate pseudoscience .
3. Q: Why are doing this blog? A: I'm doing this blog to help play a part in fighting pseudoscience.