Creationist Wisdom #481: Babu Ranganathan

A newspaper called The Mercury in Pottstown, Pennsylvania is the smallest circulation newspaper in the U.S. to have its staffers win two Pulitzer Prizes. That undoubtedly makes them very proud. However, they have now descended into the very depths by publishing a letter from Babu Ranganathan, whose articles used to appear regularly in Pravda. He’s a graduate of Bob Jones University, with a major in Bible and a minor in what that school calls Biology.

The last time we wrote about Babu was a year and a half ago. That was Babu Is Back in Pravda Again. He keeps repeating the same stuff in every one of his articles, and his version of creationism is more primitive than that of anyone else — except maybe Jack Chick. His absence from Pravda suggests that even they became tired of his repetitive rants. So now he’s in The Mercury.

Babu’s letter is titled Not Nature Made. We’ll give you a few excerpts — but not too many because it’s his usual Niagara of nonsense. You’ve seen him say it all before. The newspaper has a comments feature, but Babu’s letter hasn’t attracted any yet. Perhaps that will change. Okay, here we go, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Just because something exists in nature doesn’t mean it was invented or made by nature. If all the chemicals necessary to make a cell were left to themselves, “Mother Nature” would have no ability to organize them into a cell. It requires an already existing cell to bring about another cell. The cell exists and reproduces in nature but nature didn’t invent or design it! Nature didn’t originate the cell or any form of life. An intelligent power outside of nature had to be responsible.

Uh huh. And just because the Sun is up there in the sky doesn’t mean nature is responsible. Only the gods could arrange the heavens to bring us light and warmth each day. Apollo has to be responsible. Then he says:

Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953 [the Miller–Urey experiment], showed that amino acids (the building blocks of life) can form by chance. But, it’s not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning protein molecules. It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

It would seem that Babu didn’t learn much organic chemistry at Bob Jones University. Let’s read on:

Mathematicians have said any event in the universe with odds of 10 to 50th power or greater is impossible! The probability of just an average size protein molecule arising by chance is 10 to the 65th power. Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules. Also, a partially evolved cell would quickly disintegrate, not wait millions of years to become complete and living.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He continues:

Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it’s irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about the origin of an airplane or a cell.

It gets worse:

Only evolution within “kinds” is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not evolution across “kinds” (i.e. from sea sponge to human). How could species have survived if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Survival of the fittest would actually have prevented such evolution!

Want more? Okay:

Modern evolutionists believe and hope that over, supposedly, millions of years, random genetic mutations in the genes of reproductive cells caused by environmental radiation will generate entirely new genes. This is total blind and irrational faith on the part of evolutionists. It’s much like believing that randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel, over millions of years, will turn it into a book on astronomy! That’s the kind of blind faith macro-evolutionists have.

We’ll give you a few fragments from the remaining paragraphs:

Mutations are accidents in the genetic, are mostly harmful, and have no capability of producing greater complexity in the code. … Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between different species are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. … Furthermore, so-called “Junk DNA” isn’t junk.

Okay, that’s it. You will note that we haven’t bothered to rebut anything in Babu’s letter. That’s because we’ve done it before, and you know this stuff anyway. We’ll end by expressing our gratitude to The Mercury for rescuing Babu from oblivion. We’ve missed him since Pravda dropped him. It’s good to have him back.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

22 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #481: Babu Ranganathan

  1. Babu’s minor in biology was very minor indeed.

  2. Babu, the babbling buffoon, is a real credit to BJU, since he so wonderfully exemplifies the output of that esteemed seat of learning.

  3. “The probability of just an average size protein molecule arising by chance is 10 to the 65th power. ” Is a load of BS. Because the “Math People” can’t possibly compute that, as the PROVEN chances of this happening are 100%. Cuz I don’t know about him but I am made of various proteins.

  4. L.Long scoffs at Babu’s claim that “The probability of just an average size protein molecule arising by chance is 10 to the 65th power.”

    I’ve previously estimated, based on the typical number of spermatozoa a male produces, that the odds against your conception on a certain glorious night so many years ago were at least one in 100 million, or 1 in 10^8.

    Go back a generation and the same was true for your father’s conception. Putting his odds together with yours means that the odds against the double event of his existence and then yours are 1 in 10^16. (It’s a factorial computation.) If we start the chain of improbability ten generations ago, the odds against your being the end result of this wildly improbable series of events is 1 in 10^80. Impossible! Yet there you are.

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    SC says: “Impossible! Yet there you are.”

    Very true. My family genealogy reveals that ten generations back my founding ancestor was merely a friend of the family.

  6. Babu’s minor in biology was very minor indeed.

    Actually it could be a big minor, maybe even his real major. Note that SC said that it was in “what that school calls Biology.” Since it’s BJU, what it calls “biology” is really “How to misrepresent biology.”

    Anyway, Babu’s excellent education should make him well-equipped to run a Pakistani restaurant in NYC.

  7. SC but your math for my prediction to be here is BS. The probability is 100%, cuz Here I am! And the probability of me coming back is 0% (despite so called reincarnation). So the probability of a person being here is 100% or 0%.

  8. Sorry But after a few seconds of skeptical thought I have to retract my post!!! With the odds as you state there is NO WAY I can prove that there is no other ME thru time. So a ME can be born at the predicted rate (no not reincarnation but another ME). And since the definition of ME is fussy anyway I suppose there could be another in 10 million years. After all Are you there????

  9. @SC

    I think that it is even more impressive if you just use the 1/2 probability that any one of one’s ancestors survived to maturity. That, combined with the doubling of ancestors each generation quickly runs up to some impressive
    improbabilities. Actually, of course, that doubling of the number of ancestors quickly runs out of the number of people in the world, so it would be better to put a cap on the number of ancestors – just suppose a large amount of intermarriage and limit it to a small number like 8 per generation, and counting back to Noah about 4500 years ago, 4 generations per century 8x4x45=1440 ancestors, and the probability that all of them surviving to maturity = (1/2)^1440 ~ (1/1000)^144 = 1/10^432.

  10. Okay, I took a whack at leaving a comment at the newspaper. Let’s see if it shows or sticks.

  11. Evidently my lengthy comment (at the Mercury) has to go through moderation first. Not a good sign.

  12. Lurker, I tried to leave a short, but critical comment at the paper, but they don’t like those, and it was removed. Good luck with your comment!

  13. I, too, offered a comment. The good people at the Mercury are not as fast at approving comments as their name would suggest.

  14. Okay, it’s been posted, along with comments by Mark Germano.

  15. Just because something exists in nature doesn’t mean it was invented or made by nature. If all the chemicals necessary to make a cell were left to themselves, “Mother Nature” would have no ability to organize them into a cell. It requires an already existing cell to bring about another cell. The cell exists and reproduces in nature but nature didn’t invent or design it! Nature didn’t originate the cell or any form of life. An intelligent power outside of nature had to be responsible.

    And just because you say it’s so doesn’t make it so.

    Mutations are accidents in the genetic [sic], are mostly harmful, and have no capability of producing greater complexity in the code. … Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance.

    Ahem. “Mostly” harmful? What about the rest? As for increasing complexity, mutations can do that easily, when genes or chromosomes are duplicated and then evolve separately, the different “copies” accumulating different sets of mutations which over time lead to differing functions.

    Just to take one simple example of increasing complexity, some flowering plants sometimes occur in tetraploid form, when their chromosomes fail to divide properly and they end up with twice the usual number.

  16. @Eric Lipps

    I am tempted to point out that we have no example of intelligent design ever producing anything like a cell. Without, anyway, from pieces of a cell, and without copying a process that nature does.

    This does not prove that intelligent design can not do it. But I’d take it as a hint to look elsewhere for a process.

    Oh, by the way, I know that intelligent design can turn out plans which are impossible to implement, like a “Penrose triangle”; or difficult to implement, like a superconducting supercollider or a centaur. I’d say that something else would be needed to produce a living cell.

  17. @TomS:

    Then what happens when (human) intelligence does produce a replicating cell (starting with only molecules that are known to be formed in nature outside of cells)? IDers will crow that it was designed. Biblicals might even add it to the case against common descent.

    You know the drill, but for the benefit of other readers:

    Before that happens, we need to alert everyone of the biggest flaw in the design argument. Which is that it only works when there’s independent evidence of a designer of that approximate level of intelligence (humans, other apes, etc.). Even then, it’s only a “shortcut” explanation, because that’s all that’s needed, e.g. to convict a criminal, or to determine if a stone “tool” was deliberately chipped. And yet, even with those shortcut explanations, the investigators continue to obtain some whats, whens, where’s and hows. ID – admittedly lacking that essential independent evidence of a designer – refuses to do even that, and instead plays word games.

    ID scammers can’t have it both ways. If their job is only to detect what they think is design, and not “connect dots,” then that job was done 20 years ago, and they have wasted every second since. But If they really think they have been working on a testable alternate to evolution (they don’t of course) then they have to admit 20 years of failure.

  18. Update: A couple of comments not directly relevant to the posted article/letter have been deleted. Apparently the Mercury folks don’t like back-and-forth banter/informational commentary between commenters.

    Additionally, the web page is behaving strangely in Firefox. I’d advise caution, though it may just be a bad ad that’s trying to come up.

  19. It would seem that Babu didn’t learn much organic chemistry at Bob Jones University.

    Well, he’s probably not alone in that.

  20. @Frank J

    Babu’s excellent education should make him well-equipped to run a Pakistani restaurant in NYC

    I think you may start getting angry letters from Pakistani restaurants in NYC.

  21. @Lurker111
    I just got around to looking at the responses, and I have to say I liked your reply about the GishGallop.

  22. @TomS: Thanks.

    Update: All comments have suddenly returned at the Mercury site. And, the site appears to be behaving again. Just FYI.