Peanut butter argument
Armondikov (Talk | contribs) (→What a load of #&£%*$%...) |
m (→What a load of #&£%*$%...: Tyop?) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==What a load of #&£%*$%...== | ==What a load of #&£%*$%...== | ||
| − | Critics of the argument have pointed out that sealed jars of peanut butter are not, generally speaking, billion year-old volcanic environments rich in ammonia and methane, being bombarded by high energy cosmic rays. It also ignores the fact that the probability of life forming on Earth through [[abiogenesis]] was, most likely, incredibly low, and early earth conditions were conducive to the formation of life. Even assuming that peanut butter was conducive to spontaneous abiogenesis, the "millions of experiments performed every day" pale in comparison to the trillions performed over billions of years of the [[Earth|Earth's]] history. In addition, any life that would be created, however unlikely, would be microscopic in size (probably no more than a few strings of organised chemicals) and die almost instantly due to the presence of preservatives in the peanut butter (that is, of course, what those chemicals are there for!). It would certainly not be the case that fully formed ants will walk out of the opened jar as is often so described by this type of " | + | Critics of the argument have pointed out that sealed jars of peanut butter are not, generally speaking, billion year-old volcanic environments rich in ammonia and methane, being bombarded by high energy cosmic rays. It also ignores the fact that the probability of life forming on Earth through [[abiogenesis]] was, most likely, incredibly low, and early earth conditions were conducive to the formation of life. Even assuming that peanut butter was conducive to spontaneous abiogenesis, the "millions of experiments performed every day" pale in comparison to the trillions performed over billions of years of the [[Earth|Earth's]] history. In addition, any life that would be created, however unlikely, would be microscopic in size (probably no more than a few strings of organised chemicals) and die almost instantly due to the presence of preservatives in the peanut butter (that is, of course, what those chemicals are there for!). It would certainly not be the case that fully formed ants will walk out of the opened jar as is often so described by this type of "argument". |
Aside from all that, the fact that [[abiogenesis]] does not occur in jars of peanut butter is immaterial to the theory of [[evolution]], which specifically describes what happens ''after'' life formed and developed the ability to evolve. If the "peanut butter argument" says anything about ''abiogenesis'', it is that the process is not a simple or a quick one, which pretty much all biologists can happily agree on anyway. | Aside from all that, the fact that [[abiogenesis]] does not occur in jars of peanut butter is immaterial to the theory of [[evolution]], which specifically describes what happens ''after'' life formed and developed the ability to evolve. If the "peanut butter argument" says anything about ''abiogenesis'', it is that the process is not a simple or a quick one, which pretty much all biologists can happily agree on anyway. | ||
Revision as of 17:34, 9 February 2009
According to the Peanut Butter Argument for Intelligent Design, life does not evolve spontaneously in sealed jars of peanut butter, therefore it is absurd to assume it evolved spontaneously in the primordial earth.
The following video should give you an idea of the general line of "thought" for this argument.
Peanut Butter: The Atheist Nightmare
Contents |
"Matter + Energy = ?"
The general premise comes from the very incorrect assumption that evolution says that "matter + energy = life". Therefore, a jar of peanut butter (or any foodstuff), which is subjected to light through the glass jar, should spontaneously generate life. To get around any statistical problems, proponents of the argument will cite that "millions of Americans will open a jar every day, performing the experiment millions of times" each with the same result; no life is formed. Proponents of the idea thus conclude that evolution must be incorrect and that their worldview is correct.
What a load of #&£%*$%...
Critics of the argument have pointed out that sealed jars of peanut butter are not, generally speaking, billion year-old volcanic environments rich in ammonia and methane, being bombarded by high energy cosmic rays. It also ignores the fact that the probability of life forming on Earth through abiogenesis was, most likely, incredibly low, and early earth conditions were conducive to the formation of life. Even assuming that peanut butter was conducive to spontaneous abiogenesis, the "millions of experiments performed every day" pale in comparison to the trillions performed over billions of years of the Earth's history. In addition, any life that would be created, however unlikely, would be microscopic in size (probably no more than a few strings of organised chemicals) and die almost instantly due to the presence of preservatives in the peanut butter (that is, of course, what those chemicals are there for!). It would certainly not be the case that fully formed ants will walk out of the opened jar as is often so described by this type of "argument".
Aside from all that, the fact that abiogenesis does not occur in jars of peanut butter is immaterial to the theory of evolution, which specifically describes what happens after life formed and developed the ability to evolve. If the "peanut butter argument" says anything about abiogenesis, it is that the process is not a simple or a quick one, which pretty much all biologists can happily agree on anyway.
Also, to be honest, it's just plain silly... but when did that ever stop a creationist?
How do we know?
This argument ignores the possibility that life has evolved in a sealed jar of peanut butter (perhaps even more than once!), but was promptly eaten before it could evolve to sentience. Remember this next time you have a peanut butter sandwich.
Pasta sauce argument
A reductio ad absurdum style argument against the peanut butter argument is that if we ask God - it is possible through Creationist theory - for a jar of pasta sauce to be turned into a goat. This experiment has been tried in the following video:
Pasta Sauce: The Creationist Nightmare