Biology Needs to Work Harder Against the Claim of Random Chance!!

[Wowbagger]

I am starting to get frustrated on this point. After debating a bunch of creationists, and reading their books and web sites, it seems the one thing they all have in common is the notion that Evolution is, somehow, all based on random chance, and happy accidents and stuff like that.

Recent examples include:
This book I reviewed, "Not By Chance!", by Lee Spetner.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105431

And, the upcoming film "Expelled", which has this statement on its web site:

educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.

(emphasis mine) from this page:http://www.expelledthemovie.com/movie_overview.php

I don't even need to remind y'all about the numerous threads going off on this topic, all over very Forum.

They are all fighting the wrong battle! Yet, they assume scientists are conspiring against them.

The goal of those studying The Theory of Evolution has been to eliminate and reduce chance, as much as possible, given any and all evidence deemed reliable, and experimental results that are repeatable. Evolution places its arguments into functions of physics, cumulative adaptations, the environment, self-organizing systems, and other aspects of the fitness landscape, etc.; using a completely non-random algorithm. The last thing Evolution ever relies on is going to be random chance! For, "random chance" adds nothing to our understanding of life.

Folks like, Richard Dawkins, etc., have written numerous books on the subject, attempting to communicate all this. But, for some reason the Creationists still don't get it!!

Biology needs to work harder to remove this pervasive Myth of Chance from midst of public understanding.

My question is: How?! What can we do, what must be done?

 

[Fnord]

"The goal of evolution..."?
"Evolution places its arguments..."?
"The last thing Evolution ever relies on..."?

Goal? Placing arguments? Reliance? These are arguably acts of intelligence. Do you mean to say that Evolution is an intelligent entity with goals, plans, a mission statement and maybe even a 401K?

First, de-personify Evolution. It is a process, not a person. It has no goal, which would imply a plan, which in turn would inply intellect. Speak of it as a process only. If I can catch this sublety, then it shows up like chaff on a Creationist's radar.

Re-phrase your pitch, and then we'll work on the rest.

 

[kerikiwi]

Dawkins has never attempted to communicate that evolution has goals, or argues or relies on anything. Evolution just is.

 

[Wowbagger]

My Bad!

I should have said the goal of The Theory of Evolution.

I know evolution has no goals.
I meant to say that the Theory's goal is to demonstrate evolution is not random.

I apologize for the bad wording, and made the correction in the OP.

ETA: Perhaps the phrasing "The goal of those studying evolution is to..."

 

[kerikiwi]

Therein lies a problem with editing after responses have been made: the responses now look as if they were badly-worded.

 

[Garrette]

Last night I had an unexpected opportunity to discuss this with my 14 year old son. He doesn't question evolution, but he faces IDer classmates a lot, and last night he was studying for an evolution quiz.

As is his wont, he got distracted and working on the probability of getting a Yahtzee in the game of the same name. (Summary for those who haven't played: Roll five dice in an attempt to get varying combinations. Each of your turns allows you three rolls of the dice, either rolling them all three times or leaving some and re-rolling the select ones. A Yahtzee is when you get all five dice showing the same number).

He wondered how his mother (who plays the game a lot) seemingly gets so many Yahtzees when his calculation showed them as being rare.

So we talked about how the ability to re-roll select dice reduce the odds considerably and is a decent analogy for natural selection. He seemed to get it.

My quick and rough calculcations showed that while the probability of getting a Yahtzee on just one roll is 1 in 1296, it is closer to 1 in 24 or 1 in 25 when allowed selective re-rolls. (I don't trust my math, so I'm not claiming the actual result is correct, but it demonstrates the idea).

 

[Alric]

Dawkins and others have been very explicit about evolution not being random. Its the non-random selection (by the environment) of replicating random mutations.

The proplem of IDsts and creations is that they get hung up on the posteriori probability of a given sequence to arise. What is important is the a priori probability that any sequence will arise.

Think of the lottery. The probability of me (unfortunately) winning the lottery is quite low. However, the probability of someone (anyone) winning the lottery is quite high and actually commonplace.

There is also the issue of the evolution of evolvability. This increases the chances even more that beneficial mutations will persist. That is at heart what the "Evolution not random" thread is all about.

 

[Jeff Corey]

The one in 1296 is right. 6 / 6 to the 5th or 1/ 6 to the 4th power. The other outcomes are too complicated, but I found them by googling "Yahtzee odds". They got a p = .046, which makes this a great example for a statistics lecture.

 

[Wowbagger]

Re-phrase your pitch, and then we'll work on the rest.

I did rephrase my pitch. Now, I'd like to know how you are working on the rest.

Therein lies a problem with editing after responses have been made: the responses now look as if they were badly-worded.

That's okay. I'll just let the other readers know that I added the words "those Studying the Theory of", to the OP. And that, without those words, your response did make a lot of sense.

My quick and rough calculcations showed that while the probability of getting a Yahtzee on just one roll is 1 in 1296, it is closer to 1 in 24 or 1 in 25 when allowed selective re-rolls. (I don't trust my math, so I'm not claiming the actual result is correct, but it demonstrates the idea).

More creationists should play Yahtzee, then! Though, I still don't think that, alone, would be enough.

 

[tsg]

Last night I had an unexpected opportunity to discuss this with my 14 year old son. He doesn't question evolution, but he faces IDer classmates a lot, and last night he was studying for an evolution quiz.

As is his wont, he got distracted and working on the probability of getting a Yahtzee in the game of the same name. (Summary for those who haven't played: Roll five dice in an attempt to get varying combinations. Each of your turns allows you three rolls of the dice, either rolling them all three times or leaving some and re-rolling the select ones. A Yahtzee is when you get all five dice showing the same number).

He wondered how his mother (who plays the game a lot) seemingly gets so many Yahtzees when his calculation showed them as being rare.

So we talked about how the ability to re-roll select dice reduce the odds considerably and is a decent analogy for natural selection. He seemed to get it.

My quick and rough calculcations showed that while the probability of getting a Yahtzee on just one roll is 1 in 1296, it is closer to 1 in 24 or 1 in 25 when allowed selective re-rolls. (I don't trust my math, so I'm not claiming the actual result is correct, but it demonstrates the idea).

Another demonstration is the odds of tossing 100 coins and having them all come up heads is about 1 in 10^30. But, if you toss the coins, pick up all the coins that didn't come up heads and toss them again until they are all heads up, it will take you, on average, just 7 throws.

 

[Fnord]

(Generalizations, slippery slopes, and strawmen follow.)

To a Creationist, "Random" means that there is no selection involved, and "Selection" implies that there is a "Selector" doing the selecting. If there is a selector, then there is a reason or standard for making the selections. These reasons or standards form a plan.

So, to a Creationist's exclusionary mind, you can have either complete randomness, or some form of guided selectivity going on, but not both. Either mutations are random, or they are not. If they are not, then there must be a "who" that causes them.

"Survival of the Fittest" is another matter. Most folks see environmental changes happening on a seasonal scale. Many also see "environmental disasters" like earthquakes, typhoons, and the like. They do not see any species evolving into another over the course of a single season, or any new species arising from a storm-wrecked coastal city. To them, evolution doesn't happen because they don't see it happening -- the time span is just too short. Given a 70-year human lifespan (WAG), no average Creationist will ever witness the evolution of a new species from an older one.

Once the concept of "Selective Breeding" is introduced as a similar concept, where human intervention takes the place of "natural forces" and "changing environmental factors", you run into a Creationist insisting that God uses these forces and factors to create new species, and voila, "Intelligent Design" is born.

IMHO, the greatest hurdles that evolutionists face are:

1) God, Gospel, and religion are more familiar to Creationists than is science.
2) Everything a Creationist observes or experiences relates somehhow to their religious beliefs.
3) Any attempt to translate science into terms that Creationists can understand serves only to reinforce their already-held religious beliefs, rather than enlightening them to the wonders of science.

Case in point: I spoke to an eight-year-old child the other day, and asked what his favorite classes are. He answered "Anything except science, because science lies about things like evolution and God and stuff."

This came from an 8-year old child!

By the second or third grade, children of Creationists have already been taught that science is full of lies. If you want to teach people that evolution is real, then you must get to them before the second grade!

But is a kindergardener or first-grader able to comprehend the more subtle nuances of science? Or are they more easily convinced that "Concept A" is the truth while "Concept B" is a lie?

In my opinion, as long as Creationist parents have any influence over their own children, there is little little chance of them learning to appreciate science on their own. Teach the kids, starting in kindergarden, that religion is a lie, and science is the truth, and you'll stand a better chance.

 

[fls]

Don't you think the problem is that they deliberately want to misunderstand?

I don't think wording is going to get around that.

Linda

 

[Garrette]

Another demonstration is the odds of tossing 100 coins and having them all come up heads is about 1 in 10^30. But, if you toss the coins, pick up all the coins that didn't come up heads and toss them again until they are all heads up, it will take you, on average, just 7 throws.

I like that one.

Don't you think the problem is that they deliberately want to misunderstand?

I don't think wording is going to get around that.

Linda

Sadly, you are probably right.

 

[Fnord]

Don't you think the problem is that they deliberately want to misunderstand?

I don't think wording is going to get around that.

Linda

"Deliberately want"? No. more like "Pre-Programmed" to do so.

As I said, (#3 above) "Any attempt to translate science into terms that Creationists can understand serves only to reinforce their already-held religious beliefs, rather than enlightening them to the wonders of science."

For a Creationist, ever known scientific principle comes down to just one thing.

"Goddidit."

 

[fls]

"Deliberately want"? No. more like "Pre-Programmed" to do so.

As I said, (#3 above) "Any attempt to translate science into terms that Creationists can understand serves only to reinforce their already-held religious beliefs, rather than enlightening them to the wonders of science."

For a Creationist, ever known scientific principle comes down to just one thing.

"Goddidit."

Yeah, I was going to suggest that it would be better to build on what you were saying - get them invested in the wonders of science.

Linda

 

[Wowbagger]

So, to a Creationist's exclusionary mind, you can have either complete randomness, or some form of guided selectivity going on, but not both. Either mutations are random, or they are not. If they are not, then there must be a "who" that causes them.

Agreed. So, how do we manage to communicate the idea that the Theory of Evolution is a form of guided selectivity, where nature is the guide, and not a "who" (intelligence)?

The aim is not necessarily to convince them that the Theory is correct (although that would be a nice side effect), but to at least get them to STOP claiming evolution is random, for a change.

If we could get creationists to at least understand what the Theory is, in the first place, we can worry about winning them over with it, later. But, there is little hope in convincing them, if they keep getting it completely wrong, all the time.

IMHO, the greatest hurdles that evolutionists face are:

1) God, Gospel, and religion are more familiar to Creationists than is science.
2) Everything a Creationist observes or experiences relates somehhow to their religious beliefs.

This might cover most Creationists. But, in my experience, there are also plenty of non-religious folks who still do not accept Evolution on grounds that they think it all relies on random chance.

3) Any attempt to translate science into terms that Creationists can understand serves only to reinforce their already-held religious beliefs, rather than enlightening them to the wonders of science.

I wonder then, if framing the issues, like this, might help:

* Show them that there are at least three ways of explaining anything:
1. Creation: such as Biblical God or the more generic Intelligent Designer
2. Randomness: Complete and utter lucky accidents and sheer improbability
3. Inevitable Algorithms: Things that happen in nature, due to physics and such

* Explain that science tends to like the 3rd option better, because the predictions of such algorithms can be tested for. "Randomness" (meaning complete random chance, in this context) implies no predictability, and therefore adds nothing to understanding anything. And, the Creator certainly is never prone to show itself. We can not test for the Creator.

* Once that is done, explain to them that the Theory of Evolution, and its algorithm of Natural Selection is supposed to be an example of that third category, not the second one.

Is this a viable portion for a workable strategy?

Teach the kids, starting in kindergarden, that religion is a lie, and science is the truth, and you'll stand a better chance.

Minor, but important correction: Science is the provisional truth.
Science does not seek Ultimate Truth, but merely builds reliable models of reality.

Another demonstration is the odds of tossing 100 coins and having them all come up heads is about 1 in 10^30. But, if you toss the coins, pick up all the coins that didn't come up heads and toss them again until they are all heads up, it will take you, on average, just 7 throws.

Don't you think the problem is that they deliberately want to misunderstand?

Some might deliberately want to misunderstand. Others might understand, but deliberately wish to promote distortions. Still, others simply never understood, but might change their mind if they did understand.

(I wonder which category Ben Stein fits into.)

 

[sol invictus]

Another demonstration is the odds of tossing 100 coins and having them all come up heads is about 1 in 10^30. But, if you toss the coins, pick up all the coins that didn't come up heads and toss them again until they are all heads up, it will take you, on average, just 7 throws.

I think I'm not understanding you. On average you will have to pick up 50 coins and re-toss each of them at least once. The average should be something like 100 more throws (50+25+12+7+...).

EDIT - Oh, I see - you toss all of them together, and count that as one throw.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I am starting to get frustrated on this point. After debating a bunch of creationists, and reading their books and web sites, it seems the one thing they all have in common is the notion that Evolution is, somehow, all based on random chance, and happy accidents and stuff like that.

Recent examples include:
This book I reviewed, "Not By Chance!", by Lee Spetner.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105431

And, the upcoming film "Expelled", which has this statement on its web site:
(emphasis mine) from this page:http://www.expelledthemovie.com/movie_overview.php

I don't even need to remind y'all about the numerous threads going off on this topic, all over very Forum.

They are all fighting the wrong battle! Yet, they assume scientists are conspiring against them.

The goal of those studying The Theory of Evolution has been to eliminate and reduce chance, as much as possible, given any and all evidence deemed reliable, and experimental results that are repeatable. Evolution places its arguments into functions of physics, cumulative adaptations, the environment, self-organizing systems, and other aspects of the fitness landscape, etc.; using a completely non-random algorithm. The last thing Evolution ever relies on is going to be random chance! For, "random chance" adds nothing to our understanding of life.

Folks like, Richard Dawkins, etc., have written numerous books on the subject, attempting to communicate all this. But, for some reason the Creationists still don't get it!!

Biology needs to work harder to remove this pervasive Myth of Chance from midst of public understanding.

My question is: How?! What can we do, what must be done?

No, "Biology" does not need to work harder at this; indeed it doesn't need to work at all on this.

It has already shown what needs to be shown to convince those who need to be convinced in that regard.

If your country has a problem with religious sects claiming otherwise, that that is a problem specific to your country. How your country decides to solve or not solve this problem, is up to the citizens of said country. It is not up to "Biology".

 

[Fnord]

Agreed. So, how do we manage to communicate the idea that the Theory of Evolution is a form of guided selectivity, where nature is the guide, and not a "who" (intelligence)?

By first convincing tham that it takes no intelligence to "guide" something.

"Well, what about a railroad track, Mr. Wizard? It's already there, and an engineer doesn't steer anything!"

"Nice try, Tommy! But an intelligence laid down those tracks, so intelligence is still a guide."

It'll be a long, uphill battle.

The aim is not necessarily to convince them that the Theory is correct (although that would be a nice side effect), but to at least get them to STOP claiming evolution is random, for a change.

Then scientists should stop using the term "random" when referring to changes in DNA due to things like cosmic ray strikes.

If we could get creationists to at least understand what the Theory is, in the first place, we can worry about winning them over with it, later. But, there is little hope in convincing them, if they keep getting it completely wrong, all the time.

"They" are not the only ones getting it wrong. The very tools that are used to nullify Biblical truths are used by Creationists to nullify Scientific truths.

"Too many contradictions! No fossil evidence! Exagerations!"

Also, keep in mind that Creationism is an easy short cut to explaining the universe. "Goddidit" is the answer to everything, and it doesn't involve any math or understanding of how to perform an experiment. Or, as the bumper snicker says...

"Goddidit. I believe it. That settles it."

This might cover most Creationists. But, in my experience, there are also plenty of non-religious folks who still do not accept Evolution on grounds that they think it all relies on random chance.

You would have to explain random chance in a way that a Creationist would understand and accept. Understanding might be easyier than acceptance, however...

"Now, my children, let us examine the sin of gambling. See these dice?"

I wonder then, if framing the issues, like this, might help:

* Show them that there are at least three ways of explaining anything:
1. Creation: such as Biblical God or ...

Stop right there! To a Creationist, God is all you need to explain anything. As soon as you hit the word "or" the fundie has already cut you off. According to them, there is no "or" - only God, nothing more

... the more generic Intelligent Designer
2. Randomness: Complete and utter lucky accidents and sheer improbability
3. Inevitable Algorithms: Things that happen in nature, due to physics and such

* Explain that science tends to like the 3rd option better, because the predictions of such algorithms can be tested for.

Fundie: "Of course science likes the 3rd option! Scientists set up the rules, scientists run the tests, scientists interpret the results, and scientists get paid to do it!" Sounds like a JREF challenge loser-weanie, eh?

* Once that is done, explain to them that the Theory of Evolution, and its algorithm of Natural Selection is supposed to be an example of that third category, not the second one.

Is this a viable portion for a workable strategy?

Maybe. Again, you're going up against The Absolute Standard, and not some third-grade fairy tale. You might convince a Fundie/Creationist that the Theory of Evolution makes sense in principle, but he will always know what the Real Truth is.

Minor, but important correction: Science is the provisional truth. Science does not seek Ultimate Truth, but merely builds reliable models of reality.

What?!! "Provisional Truth"? To a fundie, you've just broken the 9th commandment. There is only Absolute Truth or lies - no middle ground allowed. Nope! Not gonna hear it! I can't hear you anymore! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA- (et cetera).

You know it, I know it, and just about every other reasonable adult knows that your description of science is correct or very nearly so. To a fundie, a model is something you play with when you can't obtain the real thing.

Some might deliberately want to misunderstand.
Others might understand, but deliberately wish to promote distortions.
Still, others simply never understood, but might change their mind if they did understand.

And some already understand, but don't care, because they already know The Absolute Truth.

Look, if you want to win over a fundie/creationist, you have to learn how they think ... neo-cons, with GOD instead of GWB at the top. Anything that even hints at contradicting the word of God sets off alarm bells in the fundie's mind. Try reading Scripture (Book of Genesis) to them and deconstructing it in scientific terms. Then maybe - maybe - they'll let you off with only a harsh look and a snort of derision.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What biology needs to understand is that evolution by natural selection works even if both mutation and natural selection are random and that no amount of creationist hemming and hawing or biologists' insistence that the probability theoretic definition of "random" "makes everything random" will ever change that.