alle@ihuxb.UUCP (10/18/83)
I heard a presentation today on Scientific Creationism by Dr. Walter Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation. I took notes during the presentation and I will try to present his major points. I will try my utmost not to editorialize and will try to present his viewpoint as I heard it. I would welcome comments from interested persons, especially those pertaining to scientific evidence for or against his viewpoint. *************** Beginning of Presentation ************************* Basic Viewpoints 1. No religious doctrines should be taught in public schools. 2. Theories on the origins of life and the universe should be taught at the appropriate grade levels in the public schools. 3. If evolution is taught, then evidence contradicting evolution should also be taught. Basic Points of Discussion 1. The Theory of Evolution is Invalid. - Evolution has never been observed. (Ed. note: He cited as reference, the multitude of fruit fly experiments which have never resulted in the evolution of a more complex fly species.) - All arguments for evolution are outdated, illogical and wishful thinking. - New research shows that the requirements for life are so complex that chance and billions fo years alone cannot explain life. (Ed. note: He cited numerous studies by mathematicians challenging evolution.) 2. The Universe, Solar System, Earth and life were recently created. - Most dating techniques point to young Earth. (Ed. note: This is a quote) 3. The Earth has experienced a world-wide flood. - Noah's Ark exists. - Geological evidence indicates a global flood occurred. - Many unexplained geological features of the Earth can only be explained by a flood. E.g., -> Salt Formations beneath the surface in South East US. -> Formation of Mountains. Supporting Evidence All dating techniques assume that the velocity of light has been constant since the beginning. Analysis of measurements of the speed of light taken over the last 300 years indicate that the measured velocity of light has been steadily decreasing. (Ed. note: He stated that the function which best mapped to the data points for the speed of light was csec**2 function and that the rate of change in the speed of light had leveled off after 1960. The speed of light approached infinity approx. 6000 years ago and had steadily decreased to its current measured value.) This phenomenon explains the very large red [Doppler] shifts of many galaxies and also explains the blue shift of some nearby galaxies (Ed. note: Can anyone verify that some galaxies have a blue shift in their spectrum? I thought that all observed objects in the universe were apparently moving away from the earth.) The fact that the Moon is recessing from the earth points toward a young Earth - Moon system. If the Moon was indeed 4 billion years old, then it should be much farther away from the Earth. The rate of accretion of dust on the surface of the Moon indicates that the Moon could not have existed for 4 billions years since the volume of dust on the moon is not nearly large enough. Leading evolutionists are aware of problems with the theory of evolution, but are suppressing contradictory evidence. *********************** End of Summary ************************** Any comments? Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
mwe@astrovax.UUCP (10/18/83)
The "scientist" in question doesn't know what he is talking about, and his evidence on many points is just plain wrong. First though, it is true that a few nearby galaxies are blueshifted, Andromeda being the best example. The Hubble Law, which says that distance is proportional to redshift is true only on average. Random motions of galaxies are superimposed on this "Hubble flow". Andromeda is close enough to us that it is falling toward us under the influence of gravity. The point about the best evidence indicating a young earth is rubbish. The best dates are gotten from ratios of radioactive isotopes with long half life, usually Uranium. They give a LOWER LIMIT of about 4 billion years for the age of the earth. The salt flats is the southwestern US are understood as far as I know. The geologists have said for years that most of the southwest was under a shallow sea in the past. A flood would have to last longer than the supposed 6000 years available to produce the observed effects. Finally, the speaker obviously knows nothing about cosmology other than the fact that he doesn't believe it. Letting the speed of light be such a strong function of time is not only unreasonable, it does not explain the observations as it claims. First, it seems suspicious that the speed of light leveled off in value just about the time accurate measurements were availlable. Why isn't it still slowing down now? More importantly, while one could argue that an increase in the speed of light would produce a redshift, one cannot explain the relation between the brightness of galaxies and redshift using this hypothesis. Also, this change in the speed of light would have effects on all other aspects of physics. Galactic structure would change in time in a manner not observed. Atoms would not have the same properties that they do now in even the recent past. In short, this changing speed of light predicts all sorts of things that are just not observed. There is one final point to be made about "Scientific Creationism". It is not science in any way. Scientist make observations and try to objectively understand and explain them. There are many times in the history of science where the "establishment view" has been overthrown by better evidence and better theories. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the two most recent and dramatic examples. If the creationists could come up with some convincing evidence that their views were correct, (the bible is NOT evidence) then they could eventual convince the scientific community. The reverse is not true. The Creationists are close minded, and will stick by their pre-chosen answer despite all reason. web ewell astrovax\!mwe P.S. I don't read net.religion, so if anyone wants to reply to me, please do so by mail.
gjphw@ihuxm.UUCP (Patrick H. Wyant) (10/21/83)
I would like to join the melee created by A. England's (ihuxb!alle) entry on
Scientific Creationism. The article submitted was incomplete, but still
provides ample ground for criticism.
The sentiments expressed by R. Noe (ihlts!rjnoe) seem strong but are
probably appropriate for the individuals that subscribe to the scientific
creation interpretation. We should be reminded of the treatment given to
Velikovsky (sp?) and his "Worlds in Collision" books. The scientific
establishment both ignored his ideas, and once formally refuted them (Carl
Sagan led this). Independent of the approach, Velikovsky considered his ideas
to be under attack because of the "danger" they presented to the established
scientific beliefs. He claimed that this attack constituted the evidence
supporting his ideas. And, since the combatants have their minds all made up,
they are not likely to be confused by either argument or facts. Only those
who are open to question will gain something from a discourse as invited by
scientific creationism.
I would not think that there would be much argument against the basic
viewpoints presented in Allen's article, though the three points are not
universally accepted truths. Most of human history, and many present day
countries around the world, have very close ties between religion and daily
life (e.g., Iran). At least in the western industrialized countries, the
current attitude is to separate religion from public school education.
Scientific creationism strikes me as an attempt to introduce religion into
public education under the trappings of science. Being a church-going
Christian, I recognize the intentions of creationism, but do not agree with
the methods. Religion has many valuable things to say about our relationships
to one another (morality), but it is not appropriate for religion to dictate
our view of the physical and biological worlds. Public, and parochial,
schools should clearly teach the methods and structure of secular science.
Parochial education can then include the necessary adjuncts from religion.
From my experience, a underlying force for scientific creationism requires
that the proponents misunderstand the assumptions and techniques of science,
and attempt to use that misunderstanding to reinterpret a variety of
observations. As pointed out by L. Mammel (ihuxr!lew), the speed of light is
interrelated to many phenomena, by current establishment understanding, so a
changing speed of light would have profound consequences both at the
microscopic (e.g., atomic) and macroscopic (e.g., cosmological) scales. It is
far from a minor point to assert that the speed of light has made significant
variations at any time. And considering the central role played by light in
the theories of physics and astronomy, any challenge to the accepted paradigm
for light will undoubtedly draw lots of heat from alot of bright physicists (I
used to be one) and astronomers.
W. Ewell (astrovax!mwe) has put forth refutations against several points
expressed by Dr. Walter Brown. For those few who haven't made up their minds,
I would like to amplify and add to Web's comments.
1. The theory of evolution is a descriptive theory, not a predictive one as
most people would learn from physics and chemistry. Evolution is used to
organize and structure a large body of observations and supposition, but is
relatively useless at predicting where a particular species will go next.
Claiming that the arguments are outdated, illogical, and wishful is not a
strong enough assertion for me to reject evolution. Isaac Asimov wrote in
one of his science columns that the only strong objection that people who
opposed the concept of evolution ever expressed to him was that they were
particularly unsettled by the idea that human beings had come from some
"lower" animal. Most creationists want to keep humans distinct and separate
from the fauna and flora of this planet.
2. A classic argument used by creationist to refute evolution is the second
law of thermodynamics (i.e., entropy). Since all systems progress toward
greater disorder, they assert that no mechanism could have led to such a
complex organ as an eye or any living organism (e.g., dogs and cats). Any
legion of mathematicians and physicists who work in statistical mechanics
will be quoted in support. What is conveniently overlooked is the
prerequisite condition for the application of the second law: thermal
equilibrium. If the temperature within a system is uniform, then the system
will proceed to greatest disorder. However, very few systems in the world
are at thermal equilibrium. If you hold your hand out in the sun, the top
side will be warmer than the bottom (shady) side. Thermal equilibrium will
not be found here. I. Prigogine, a Nobel prize winner for his work in
thermodynamics, has conducted experiments showing that in the presence of
strong thermal gradients, fluid systems spontaneously develop ordered flow.
Chemical systems can generate even more complex patterns in the absence of
thermal equilibrium.
3. While my present readings in science have been reduced to the popular
magazines (e.g., Science News), I have not heard of any evidence pointing to
a younger Earth. I suspect that this is merely an assertion without
support. Unfortunately, the technique of uranium dating makes an assumption
about the composition of the material at the time the solid was formed. In
any particular sample, the uranium-lead ratio is assumed to be exclusively
uranium at the time of formation. Dating is performed by measuring the U-Pb
ratio and employing the presumably well-known decay time and scheme for
uranium. Using this technique, the Earth is in excess of 3.5 billion years
old (consistent with Web's figure) and the solar system is about 4.55
billion years old (using data derived from meteorites). Any evidence to the
contrary would be big news.
4. Noah's Ark may have existed, but I don't know if anyone has found it.
There are many flood legends found around the World, and most are quite
reasonable considering the importance of rivers and oceans to life and
commerce. The great Flood in Genesis is sufficiently close to the
Babylonian and Sumerian flood myths that they must have had a common origin.
Creationists make a great case for themselves by invoking a literal
interpretation of the Bible in support of their arguments.
In summary, I would like to assert that scientific creationism exists to
reintroduce religion into secular education under the guise of science. It is
primarily an attempt to refute the concept of evolution and reestablish human
beings as separate, distinct, and of a different origin than the other animals
on this planet. The adherents attempt to refute the scientific establishment
by using misinterpretations of science, and then claim that their view must be
accepted since science is inconsistent. In making scientific creationism the
default (if not science, then you must believe this), creationists make a
serious logical error and demonstrate that they do not appreciate or utilize
the methods of science.
--
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!ihuxm!gjphw