Labels are Helpful

There was a letter to the editor in the Wichita Eagle this Sunday (Aug. 29) titled “Vote for Person,” and the letter was a lament that some people were complaining that Raj Goyle, 4th Congressional District candidate in Kansas, is not saying in his ads that he is a Democrat. The author of the letter concluded that it would be nice is all candidates dropped labels so that the people would vote for the person, and not the party.

While I agree that the candidate himself should be as, if not more, important than his party affiliation, I still think party affiliation is important. While a label may not tell you everything, and may even be deceptive, it does provide a starting point by which a candidate’s statements can be analyzed. For instance, the statement, “I want to balance the budget,” can mean, “I want to raise taxes,” if spoken by a tax-and-spender (usually located in the Democratic Party) or “I want to cut spending,” if spoken by a fiscal conservative (usually located in the Republican Party and some third parties).

As for as Raj Goyle goes, it was ironic that right above the previously mentioned letter was another letter to the editor titled “Who is Goyle?” This letter pointed out that not only is Goyle’s party affiliation not mentioned anywhere on his website, neither is the fact that he once worked for the ACLU. See, if Goyle let everyone know that he is a Democrat, we wouldn’t be surprised by the fact that he once worked for the ACLU. So labels can be helpful.

Probing the Mind of an Evolutionist

I ran across an interesting passage in a journal article that nicely illustrates how the bias of an evolutionist can blind them to the very thing they are studying. The article is titled “Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina,” written by Sereno et al., published in the journal PLoS ONE, volume 3, issue 9, on September 30, 2008.

To give some background information, one of the important differences between birds and other vertebrates is in the structure of their lungs. Other vertebrates have lungs like we do: bellow-type lungs where the air is drawn into the lungs and then pumped out, mimicking the action of a bellows. Birds, in contrast, have a series of air sacs around their lungs. These air sacs act as the bellows, drawing in and pumping out air. The lung itself does no pumping at all. Rather, it is only acts as a site for gas exchange, and the air sacs pump air through the lungs. The bird type of lung is called a flow-through lung, and it is the most efficient type of lung found in vertebrates.

If birds evolved from dinosaurs, which is the consensus among evolutionary paleontologists, then there must have been some point when a bellows-type lung evolved into a flow-through lung. The question they are now interested in is when. Did the flow-through lung begin evolving in early theropods (the group of dinosaurs birds are thought to be descended from) or did they appear latter, closer to the origin of birds?

Now look at what the previously cited article has to say. I am going to quote from it rather extensively.

"Two general models have been proposed for lung ventilation in nonavian [including theropod] dinosaurs. The first infers the presence of compliant lungs with crocodile-like diaphragmatic ventilation, based in part on stained areas in two theropod skeletons purported to represent a diaphragm separating thoracic and abdominal cavities. The stains and their interpretations have been contested, and the evidence for their arguments refuted by several authors. A second model infers avianlike flow-through lung ventilation with a rigid dorsally-attached lung and compliant air sacs. This hypothesis is based mainly on the morphology of the ribcage and on pneumatic sculpting in the axial column attributable to air sacs. Although more plausible, the second hypothesis actually consists of a collection of inferences about (1) pulmonary morphology and function and (2) the mechanics of aspiration respiration in nonavian dinosaurs." (italics for emphasis)

The crocodile-like diaphragmatic ventilation referred early on is a bellows-type lung. The stained areas in two theropod dinosaurs refer to a couple of small dinosaur skeletons that preserve traces of internal organs. The stains are thought by some to be traces of the liver. I might also add that these two theropod skeletons are the only theropod skeletons that have any significant traces of internal organs.

Here is where the interpretation bias comes shining through. Sereno et al. calls the second hypothesis (the idea that dinosaurs had flow-through lungs) “more plausible,” in spite of the fact that they immediately point out that that interpretation “consists of a collection of inferences”! Matter of fact, earlier in the article, they point out that the presence of pneumatic sculpting in the axial column gives no direct evidence for the existence of either a bellows-type or flow-through lung, and they also say that the morphology of the ribcage also gives no direct evidence for the existence of either bellows-type or flow-through type lungs. So they reject the hypothesis that is based on disputed interpretation of an actual piece of evidence (the stains in two small theropods) in favor of the hypothesis they acknowledge is based entirely on inference! Why then might they consider the flow-through hypothesis more plausible? Quoting from the article again:

"Tracking pneumatic patterns [of theropods] in the fossil record is complicated by the one-sided nature of outgroup comparison, which is restricted to birds among extant vertebrates, and the ambiguous meaning of the absence of a soft structure that only sometimes leaves an osteological imprint." (italics for emphasis)

An outgroup is a species that is known (or presumed) to share a common ancestor with the animals being studied. So what the authors are saying is that all they have are theropods’ closest relatives (birds) and ambiguous, absent, soft structures to determine what kind of lungs theropods have. As already shown, they acknowledge that there is no physical evidence that theropods had flow-through lungs, but there is disputed evidence that they had bellows-type lungs. Yet they go for the hypothesis that is based on no physical evidence because birds are supposed to be related to dinosaurs. This is a beautiful example of a presupposition affecting a person’s interpretation in spite of what evidence actually exists.

On Religious Freedom

The issue of religious freedom has been brought up in regards to the issue of the mosque that is planned for construction at Ground Zero in New York. Some have made the argument that the construction of the mosque should be allowed because in America, people are free to worship as they see fit.
Is this argument valid? The Imam behind the planning of the mosque is being deliberately provocative, wanting to use the mosque not just as a center of worship, but also as a means to introduce Muslim law to America. This casts doubt on the idea that the construction of this mosque is merely religious. But another to look at this issue is to consider: what is the extent of religious freedom?
As an extreme example, suppose there was a cult whose worship practices included murdering a victim to make a human sacrifice. Would such as cult practice be acceptable as a matter of religious freedom in the United States? I would say it most definitely shouldn’t. The taking of a human life in such a manner is unacceptable, even if it is claimed to be a ritual of a religion.
But hang on. Why is the taking of a human life (in other words, murder) wrong? Most people would agree that murder is wrong. They may say that it violates God’s Laws, they may say it deprives the victim of freedom, they may even argue it decreases the reproductive potential of the human species. There may be different reasons given for why murder is wrong, but all these reasons have something in common: they are derived from a person’s worldview. A person may regard God, freedom, or reproductive potential as the ultimate standard or authority in determining moral issues, but regardless, an ultimate authority does exist.
Here comes the catch: acknowledging an ultimate authority signifies a religious view. In other words, any reason for judging murder to be wrong would be founded in a religion. (Some people may have a hard time accepting libertarianism and evolutionism as religions, but if these ideologies are not religions themselves, they are certainly derived from the religion of humanism.) So the result is that one religion (which views murder as wrong) ends up banning the practice of another religion (the hypothetical cult). The conclusion of the matter should be that while there is a separation between church and state (a separation of a specific body of believers and the civil governing body), there can be separation of religion and state, for in order for a state to enact laws (in other words, decree something to be right or wrong) it must appeal to some ultimate authority (a religion).
How does this apply to a mosque being built on Ground Zero? Ground Zero is a reminder of the capabilities of Muslim terrorists. The Imam behind the mosque proposed for Ground Zero knows this and is being deliberately provocative in setting up a Muslim place of worship where 3,000 Americans were murdered by Muslim terrorists. There are those who may want to distinguish between moderate Muslims and extremist Muslims. However, consider that: do we want Sharia law practiced in America? From what I know, Sharia law is derived from Islamic teaching. Some moderate Muslims may say that it isn’t or that there is disagreement as to the particulars of the law, but that only leads to a further question: will moderate Muslims whose morality mimics Christian ethics (the ethics that our nation was founded on) be the face of Muslims in America, or will be Muslims who espouse all parts of Sharia law? Unless we want to exchange the religion our government was (and still is, in many ways) founded on for Sharia law, we must be careful about mosques and Imams and the things they symbolize and teach.

Imagine: a Short Story

Jason lay on his bed. He tried to sleep, but there was too much on his mind. He began thinking about the events of the past several years. They were events that changed his life, and more than that, the course of the whole nation.
It started with a man. His name was Lucius Sanforton. Exactly where Lucius came from was a bit of a mystery. But wherever he got his start, he appeared on the national scene as a philosopher. His debut on the nation front was book, entitled “Imagine What the World Would Be Like.” It wasn’t a very long book, it wasn’t very deep, and it really didn’t talk about what the world would be like. But it had an appeal. It was an appeal for people to stop imagining. Strange, how the title implied that we should imagine something but the point of the book was to stop imagining.
The book focused on specific topics that Lucius argued needed to be stricken from our imagination. Things that would not exist were it not for our imagination. Things for which there is no proof. Things like religion.
Lucius’ argument was not new. Nor was it particularly strong. But for some reason, his words were appealing. He pointed out that there was no scientific evidence for God. No one could show you on a map where Heaven was. And how could Hell be the underworld if the world rests in space and the direction of “under” depends on which side of the planet you are standing on? Because no one could point to it, or produce it, or even touch it, he claimed that they could not really exist. Not that they don’t, but they couldn’t. How could we know what reality was if we could not verify it ourselves?
Jason read the book when it first came out, but he was unsure about the thoughts that were presented. Then Lucius began to appear on talk shows, promoting his book.
Even though he became a popular figure, Lucius remained mysterious, and there was only one thing that everyone agreed on about him: he had charisma that could stop the tide. Suave described his shadow. Lucius was the real thing.
When Lucius began appearing on the radio and on television, his popularity began to rise, and it carried his philosophy along with it. More and more people bought his book and bought into his ideas. It didn’t take long before he had a large following that continued to grow every day. That was when his second book came out, “I Have Imagined.” This book was more substantive, it described how his philosophy should be implemented. If there is no Heaven and no Hell, there are no rewards or punishments in the hereafter. If there is no God, there is no judge, no standard. What then should our standard be? The same as was used in the first book: what we can feel, touch, and verify. Namely, ourselves. It is our lives, we should live it for us, for humanity. Individualism is dangerous, because it sets one man against another. When that happens, who is right? Who is to judge between them? No, the focus of every person should be everyone. It was wrong, therefore, for some to have more than others. This denied some people the opportunity to live their life to the fullest. Things would be much better if everyone had everything in common. Then mankind could prosper, and not just materially, but developmentally.
It surprised Jason at first, but one by one, people began to renounce their possessions. It seems easy for those that have little to renounce the few things they have, but the rich began renouncing their possessions as well. These possessions were then pooled into large resources that were available to anyone and everyone.
At first, only a few people renounced their possessions. Then more began. Then still more. Soon, it was hard to find a man in the country who was still clinging to things they claimed were their own.
The effects of this transition were phenomenal. Everyone had everything! No one lacked anything. Those who had been poor now had everything and those who had been rich still had all and more. Everyone lived in bliss.
Then some people began to consider, what about other people? Sure, everyone in this country was benefiting, but there were other countries with other people. What about them? They were humanity, they should take part in this grand experiment. So some people volunteered to gather resources and transport then to distant countries, so that this equality may spread. Everyone acted enthusiastically to this plan, even Lucius, who, unexpectedly, seemed surprised, but at the same time, delighted, at the suggestion. So the volunteers set off, even though there were fewer of them than most people expected, given the groundswell of support for the plan.
Things continued in bliss for a time. Then something new occurred. It happened in isolated cities at first, and there were those who thought it was a passing phase of the immature, but this new phenomena began to spread. People would get together for large parties. Perhaps that is not so strange: people did that before all goods became common. The difference with these parties was that they occurred every night. Why not? the partiers asked. All goods are common, and at these parties everyone is welcome. Eat, drink and enjoy yourselves. Live life for today.
This party phenomena spread and grew. It grew in the number of people who attended the parties. It grew in the number of places the parties took place at. It grew in the length of the parties. And it grew in what went on at the parties. Soon, they lasted all day so that life became one giant party. It spread across the country so that everyone was doing it. And besides the food, drink, and music, love was made and given whenever and wherever.
Those who had went to deliver goods to other countries returned to find everyone enjoying themselves. At first, they were shocked. How could they be wasting resources, rather than sharing them with others? They tried to express their concern to the people, but the response of the partiers was simple: we are not preventing anyone from using these goods. If you want to spread them, by all means, do so. So some volunteers set off to distant countries with more goods. But the number of volunteers was much smaller than during the previous journey.
Jason enjoyed these parties. Orgies had never been so enjoyable. There were no responsibilities to wake up to in the morning. For more food and drink, the general pool of resources was visited.
Things changed once again. But this time, the change was different. It was for the worse.
It happened slowly at first, in isolated places. Things began to become scarce. It happened first with the drinks. Beers, wines, and martinis became harder to find. The general pool ran out, so people began searching buildings and houses for any caches that may have been forgotten when everyone was renouncing possessions. Some were found, which eased the strain a little. But it also came with a new problem. Those who found the caches sometimes did not return them to the general pool. Instead, they horded them for themselves. Other things began to become scarce as well. Food. Plates. Cups. Even electricity became scarce. No one was manning the power stations, everyone was at the parties. Partners also became scarce. With a one to one ratio of men and women, you would think that wouldn’t happen. But some people are desirable, and they could only fulfill the pleasures of so many people in one day. It was probably here that the first blows were struck. One man thought another was with a woman too long, so he decided to interrupt them. Then people began to fight over the drinks and food. Those who horded things were attacked. As more and more food and goods became scarce, the parties developed into brawls.
The more fighting went on, the more things were destroyed and the less anyone had. It didn’t take long before everyone was fighting for their life and anything they could get their hands on. Many people were killed in the process. The dead were not attended too. Instead, they were ransacked. Finally, the fighting stopped. There was nothing more to fight over. Everyone stopped fighting and began panicking. There was nothing left. In desperation, they turned to the only man they could think of who could help them: Lucius Sanforton. His wisdom was desperately needed.
Lucius had a plan. He seemed ready to help. The solution was simple: the general resource pool needed to be filled, and since everyone had access to it, everyone needed to contribute to it. So he began assigning tasks to people. Everyone was desperate to do what he told them. They began to work in the duties assigned to them.
At first, everyone worked willfully. But some began slacking. Jason knew they were slacking, because their production dropped. It didn’t take long for it too happen. As soon as the general pool began to get some resources, people stopped panicking, and so they stopped working as hard. Some people may have stopped working altogether if Lucius had not swiftly implemented a solution to this growing problem. He appointed supervisors to oversee production. These overseers made sure people worked.
The appointment of the supervisors only partially took care of the problem. Everyone worked, it was true, but many people did not work hard. Jason saw it happen, and he had to admit, he began to slack as well. There did not seem to be a reason to work once there was enough for everyone to survive. Once no one was starving or thirsty, why exert yourself? The problem was this was extremely shortsighted. What were to happen if a catastrophe occurred? A store of resources was needed to allow for the recovery from disasters. But no one wanted to work longer than enough to get his immediate needs fulfilled. And if someone happened to be one of the few who had foresight, his motivation for work dropped precipitately when those around him lacked foresight and worked as little as possible.
Lucius had a solution for this as well. The supervisors now implemented quotas. The idea seemed good, but it didn’t provide motivation. So the supervisors were given the authority to punish those who failed to meet their quota. The initial punishment, a drop in rations, an increase in work time, and other things, motivated many people, but some still skated by doing as little as possible, even to the point of taking a punishment or two. So the punishments gradually became harsher. Eventually, beatings were given to those who failed. Claiming sickness was called into suspicion. Was it real, or were they faking it to get out of work? Some sick were beaten for desertion of duty, some sick went to work to avoid beatings.
This continued, for what seemed an eternity. It had been a long time since Lucius implemented the supervisors. It was at least twelve years ago. And yet, things did not seem better than they were at the time when the people first came to Lucius begging for help.
All of this went through Jason’s mind as he lay on his cot. He tried to sleep, knowing that his shift began in only three hours, even though he had only got to bed two hours ago. He glanced over at the man in the cot beside him. The man was lying still. Not because he was asleep. Jason knew this because he had seen the man slit his wrists just an hour ago.
Jason turned away from his neighbor and stared at the ceiling. He understood why the man had taken his own life. There seemed to be no end. They were slaves, ironically, to each other, as Lucius still claimed to be working to help everyone. And though he harbored no hope of things getting better, Jason could not bring himself to follow his neighbor’s example. He was afraid. What happened after death? Jason began to imagine again, and it kept him awake at night.

On the Decline of Bison in America

I was at the zoo a few weeks ago, and I read one of the signs near the bison exhibit. The sign described, and lamented, the decline of the bison, talking about how there used to be herds numbering in the millions that used to roam across the prairies of the Midwest, but now, there are small herds restricted to a few, isolated areas. I must admit, it would have been an awesome sight to have seen a massive herd of bison traveling across the prairie, and in a sense that such as sight can not be seen today, I am sorry for the decline of the bison.

On the other hand, I am glad that there are no longer huge herds of bison dominating the Midwest. Imagine what our country would be like if the middle of the country was a prairie dominated by a flowing tide of living bison. Would the vast fields of corn, wheat, soy, and other crops that are grown in the Midwest exist if farmers had to worry about a herd of bison migrating across their lands and trampling their crops underfoot (to say nothing of consuming the crops)? What about ranchers, who would have to worry about herds of bison being able to wreck their fences by shear power of numbers? What would travel across the Midwest be like if a solid wall of bison flesh moving across the highway could stop traffic dead in its tracks? It is not that I have no concern whatsoever for bison, but we as human are able to utilize the Midwest for our own benefit and advancement, and I consider the quality of human life enabled by the utilization of the former prairies of the Midwest a greater boon than the loss of herds of bison that number in the millions.

How Transitional Forms are Identified Pt. 3

Maybe, in the fossil record, we can look for patterns. Let’s look at our hypothetical chain of interbreeding. Species P can interbreed with species D1, which can interbreed with D2, which can interbreed with D3. While physical similarities themselves may not be a reliable indicator of relatedness, closely related organisms will look similar to each other. So, P will look the most like D1, D1 will be similar to P and D2, D2 will be similar to D1 and D3, and D3 will be most similar to D2. So while we may not be able to find an interbreeding chain in the fossil record, if an interbreeding chain were to exist, there will be a progressive chain of similarities from the parent species to the final daughter species.

There are a few considerations that need to be taking into account at this point. First of all, while a progressive chain of similarities implies that there is progress being made, and thus, the parent species would be primitive while the daughter species would be more advanced, modern evolutionary theory does not accept the ideas of primitive and advanced. Evolutionists don’t like these terms because it implies that later descendants are necessarily better than their ancestors. So the terms ancestral and derived are used. Ancestral condition simply means whatever features the parent species had while derived simply refers to new features that the daughter species have. The terms ancestral and derived are used because there are no connotations of “worse” or “better” associated with them. Still, the concept of a progressive chain of similarities is valid, since a chain of interbreeding would start with ancestral conditions in the parent species with more and more derived characters (a progression of new characters) arising in the daughter species.

The second thing to consider is what this progressive chain of similarities would look like in terms of side branches. If you look at a cladogram, which is a chart purporting to show the heritage of a group of organisms, the chart branches off repeatedly. It may appear at first that there is no linear progression. Rather, everything appears to be a complicated web or bush. However, despite all of the branches, a single, linear progression can be picked out. If you start with the common ancestor (which would exist at the base of the cladogram) and then pick one of the final species as your target daughter species, you will be able to traces a single path from the common ancestor to the final daughter species. Many side branches will have been passed by, but if these are ignored and you focus on just the line of descent from the common ancestor to your chosen daughter species, a single, linear progression can be traced. So while there may be a multitude of side branches and transitional forms for other lines of descent muddling up the picture, a single progressive chain of similarities can be found.

The last thing to consider is how this progressive chain of similarities will relate to time. Time in the fossil record is about as controversial, as far as the theory of evolution verses creation science goes, as whether or not transitional forms exist. In the theory of evolution, the fossil record represents a huge amount of time and each layer of rock represents sediments that were accumulated over a long time period. In creation science, the majority of the fossil record is thought to have been laid down by the worldwide deluge (Noah’s flood), which lasted about a year. So the fossil record represents a very short amount of time (compared to the evolutionary view). However, since transitional forms would exist only if the theory of evolution where true, we will have to consider how the progressive chain of similarities would look in the fossil record assuming that the fossil record represents a long period of time.

Obviously, you can not have the descendant before you have the ancestor. That would be like saying that the son is older than the father. So the first thing to note about the chronological progression of a progressive chain of similarities is that the ancestor should be the oldest, and the descendant should be younger. This does not mean that the ancestor and descendants must exist at different times: it is very possible that the ancestor may exist alongside its descendants for a time. For instance, if species P were in existence, then it gave rise to species D1, species P need not necessarily go exist: species P may persist for a time after it gave rise to species D1. Matter of fact, it is even theoretically possible that species P may remain in existence long enough that is descendent, species D1, actually goes extinct before it does. So we can not look for when an ancestral or a descendent species lived, we have to look for the first occurrence of each species, since that will tell which was first in existence.

What about the reverse? If species P and species D1 may be coexistent for a time, what are we to do about instance where the earliest specimen of the supposed parent species is found in rocks that are younger than, or of the same age as, its descendent? Since the fossil record is incomplete, it is possible that the first occurrence of the parent species is missing, or has not been found yet. While it is theoretically possible that the daughter species may be found in rocks that are older than the parent species, we must remember what we are looking for: we are looking for evidence of transitional forms. Thus, only when the parent species is found in rocks older than the daughter species will there be any actual evidence for transitional forms, since that fits the anticipated pattern. While the reverse pattern (parent younger than species in the fossil record) can be accounted for, that will not provide evidence that the two species in question actually form a chain of interbreeding. Rather, that would be fitting the data to the theory. We want to test the theories and see which one already fits the data.

The last thing to consider about a chain of similarities is, how much of a difference is acceptable between each link in the chain? For instance, if we were looking for the transitional forms between a reptile and a bird, would the sudden appearance of feathers be an acceptable jump from one species to the next, or would we expect to see more gradual changes? In the case of feathers, we would expect to see more gradual changes. It would be difficult to put an exact limit on how dissimilar two species can be before the gap between them is considered to be too large to be reasonably explained as an evolutionary jump. Certainly, the measure of change will be different between an evolutionist and a creationist. The evolutionist might consider the presence of legs on a whale as evidence that it is a transitional form while a creationist might question, so where is the whale with half-legs, half-flippers? In this point, the burden of proof is on the theory of evolution. It claims that transitional forms must be there, and it claims that the evolutionary process occurs in increments (even punctuated equilibrium must occur in increments: the rapid jumps are not the sudden acquisition of brand new features, they are the rapid accumulation of minor changes in a short amount of time). In the theory of evolution, the chain of interbreeding must have existed at some point. Whatever differences exist between two species in a chain of interbreeding, they are not enough to prevent the species from interbreeding. That fine of a scale must also be applied to the chain of similarities: the differences between adjacent species on that chain must be slight enough that they could almost be mistaken for the same species.

Evolutionists may complain at this point, saying that I am relying on the absence of evidence to prove that there are no transitional forms. This is not the case. Rather, I am saying that the theory of evolution can not be excused with the absence of expected transitional forms. Small differences in physical appearance can not be extrapolated into tiny differences in physical appearance without any evidence that such an extrapolation is valid. To say, “Species A is very similar to species C, so we may assume from the progression from A to C that a species B must also have existed” does not lend credence to the idea that transitional forms exist. Rather, such an extrapolation is based on the assumption that transitional forms must exist.

Granted, searching for tiny increments in the chain of similarities is by far the hardest proof needed to demonstrate that transitional forms exist. But that is what the theory of evolution predicts so if the theory of evolution is true, then such a chain must be shown to exist, otherwise known species will just be placed in an order so as to fit the theory.

Here is the final score then: transitional forms can not be identified by physical similarities, as it is acknowledged by both evolutionists and creationists that there are instances where physical similarities do not indicated relationship. Cladograms do not constitute proof of transitional forms, as they are constructed with the assumption that transitional forms exist. The only definitive proof of transitional forms would be a chain of interbreeding, where the parent species can interbreed with the first daughter species, and the first daughter species can interbreed with the second daughter species, but the second daughter species can not interbreed with the parent species. There are no known chains of interbreeding in living organisms, rather there are groups of interbreeding organisms, which is consistent with creation science. The last place to look for chains of interbreeding is in the fossil record. Since only physical similarities can be drawn out of the fossil record, physical similarities will have to be used in conjunction with other features. The chain of interbreeding would appear as a chain of similarities, with the parent species most similar to the first daughter, the first daughter more like the second, and so on. These species would have to appear in the proper chronological order. Lastly, the differences between adjacent species in the chain of similarities must be tiny: the chain should show small, incremental changes, rather than broad jumps.

The preceding criteria can be applied to species that are claimed to be transitional forms, to see if that claim is valid or whether the claim was made in order to fit the data into the theory of evolution.

Unicorns and the Absence of Evidence

Do unicorns exist? I mean simply, do they live somewhere in the world?

Of course not, one might say. They are a mythological creature. They don’t really exist.

How can you know that? Some real creatures exist in mythology, so the fact that unicorns exist in mythology doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist in reality. And unlike some other mythological creatures, such as the multi-headed hydra, or the six-limbed Pegasus, the unicorn has a conservative body plan, one that would not cause a person to think that it is biologically impossible. So there aren’t any reasons to think that a unicorn can’t exist. Why then would one insist that it is a mythological animal, and not an actual animal?

Well, because no one has ever seen one.

Up until 1976, no one had seen a megamouth shark, either. Did the megamouth shark not exist before 1976? Does knowledge of a creature make it real, or can a creature exist apart from our knowledge of it? Obviously, an animal exists apart from our knowledge of it, since finding an unknown creature is called a discovery, not a creation. So the megamouth shark illustrates that creatures can, and likely, still do, exist even when we have no knowledge of them. Could the unicorn be one of these still unknown creatures? The answer we would be forced to give at this point is, yes.

What I have illustrated here is the problem of absence of evidence. There is no evidence that unicorns exist, but neither is there any evidence that they do not exist. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that they may exist somewhere, we just don’t know where. This argument is sound, but let us go one step further. So we establish that it is possible for unicorns to exist somewhere in the world. What applications can be draw from the statement that unicorns may exist? Nothing. True, we may not be able to say definitively that unicorns don’t exist, but because we do not know if they exist, there is nothing we can say about unicorns. They may be there, but because no one has seen them, it is impossible to know about their diet, habits, longevity, or anything about them. So the absence of evidence argument is a double edged sword: if there is a lack of evidence, we can not say that something does not exist. On the other hand, with no evidence, no knowledge about a subject can exist. The result is, since no one has seen a unicorn, we act as if they don’t exist. They may exist, but since we know nothing about them, they have no impact on our lives or our knowledge.