amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (01/30/84)
A. Ray Miller has written a response to my attack on creationism that I must answer. First, I must say that he is right and I am wrong on one matter. It is not the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) that requires of its members an oath of allegiance to Biblical inerrancy, but rather the Creation Research Society (The actual text of the oath is: "The Bible is the written word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of historical truth."). Not being a member of either, I find it easy to confuse these two organizations with similar names and similar aims. I certainly knew that I would raise a lot of hackles with the statement that "Creationists, in their 'scientific' arguments, tend towards double-talk, mis-quotation, mis-representation, and outright fraud". Perhaps I should have toned it down somewhat--but no, that is the way I really feel. I feel also that I gave a not-unreasonable, although far too short, summary of one specific creationist argument. Having been present at one of Duane Gish's presentations, my perception of it was a set of arguments of the form "All right, let's see you explain this one." He hurtled challange after challenge, jumping from atomic physics to zoology, trying--and eventually succeeding, in this case--to wear down his opponent with a catalogue of nature's enigmas. BTW, when Miller was contrasting what I wrote with what Henry Morris wrote, he always referred to me as "Hobson", while Morris was "Dr. Morris", a time-honoured debater's device. Ray, how do you know that I don't have a Ph.D. as well? Actually, for those of you who want to know, Morris has a doctorate in hydraulic engineering, while I have a B.S. in Math (U of Wisconsin), the equivalent of a Masters in Theology from the University of Louvain in Belgium, an Associate Degree in Data Processing from the Fox Valley Technical Institute in Appleton, WI, and 12 credits towards an MS in Computer Science from the Illinois Institute of Technology. (Big hairy deal.) More on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I just looked up Morris' definition of the second law, and it is as follows: The second law of thermodynamics is the law of increasing entropy, stating that all real processes tend to go towards a state of higher probability, which means greater disorder. This applies to all known systems, both physical and biological, a fact which is universally accepted by scientists in every field. --Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, p. 98. In this quotations, the words "closed system" are not mentioned. Morris goes on to say that the rejoinder that the earth is not a closed system is "an extremely naive argument" (p. 123). He says that: Obviously growth cannot occur in a closed system; the Second Law is in fact *defined* in terms of a closed system. However, this criterion is really redundant, because in the real world closed systems do not even exist! It is obvious that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to open systems as well, since they have only been tested and proved on open systems! --ibid, p. 125. (Italics in original.) How fortunate we are to have Dr. Morris to set us straight. The concept of thermodynamically closed system, like that of a frictionless plane or a rigid body, is an idealization. The laws of thermodynamics, like the ideal gas laws, can be tested and confirmed (*not* proved) by investigating systems that are only approximately closed. What we cannot do is to apply these laws to systems in which the energy flow across the boundries is significant with respect to the energy transactions within these boundries. That would be like using rigid body mechanics to examine the motion of blobs of Jell-o. Saying that "Open, closed, what's the difference?" displays a hopeless misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics and a remarkable ignorance of the uses of idealization in physics. A second answer of Morris, which lies at the heart of Miller's response, is what I shall call the "evolving junkyard" argument: It should be self-evident that the mere existence of an open system of some kind, with access to the sun's energy, does not of itself generate growth. The sun's energy may bathe the site of an automobile junk yard for a million years, but it will never cause the rusted, broken parts to grow together into a functioning automobile. A beaker containing a fluid mixture of hydrochloric, water, salt, or any other combination of chemicals, may lie exposed to the sun for endless years, but the chemicals will never combine into a living bacterium or any other self-replicating organism. More likely, it would destroy any organism which might accidently have been caught in it. Availability of energy (by the First Law of Thermodynamics) has in itself no mechanism for thwarting the basic decay principle enunciated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. *Quantity* of energy is not the question, but *quality*. --ibid., p. 123. (Italics in original.) This might look like a clever objection, but the issue has been shifted. Evolutionary theory was originally challenged to reconcile its claims of increasing organization and complexity with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The challenge is met by saying that the Second Law does not apply in this case since the earth is not a good approximation to a closed system. The creationists now ask why some open systems show decreasing entropy and others (cars in junkyards) do not. The simple answer is that this is an "apples and oranges" comparison. A more detailed answer would be to explain just how both living things and automobiles change. No one alleges that having an open system is sufficient for decreased entropy. Evolutionary theory says that decreased entropy is possible in an open system, not that it is necessary in any open system. This is an interesting example since, if you look at it, Morris begins by misstating the Second Law. Then, he considers a response that does not correct the formulation. This makes it look like the evolutionists have fallen back on closed systems as a desperate ploy. He continues by distorting the role of idealization in science, and ends by changing the question. My opposition to Larry Bickford's "compact divine intervention" stems from its real non-scientificness. Let me expand. In "Evolution: The Fossils say No!", Gish (associate director of the ICR and professor of natural science at Christian Heritage College) laments "The reason that most scientists accept evolution is that they prefer to believe a materialistic, naturalistic explanation for the origin of all living things."(Page 24) He's right, of course-- because scientists are constrained to frame all their statements in "naturalistic" terms simply in order to be able to test them. When a scientific-creation model such as Bickford's, avers that the origins of the universe, the earth, and life are the result of specific and non-repeatable divine intervention, the are automatically excluding themselves from the realm of science. Taking Alexander Pope's injunction "Presume not God to scan/The proper study of Mankind is Man" to its literal extreme, creationists would have us not look into just how origins came about, except to say that they must be taken on Biblical faith (and not just any Biblical faith, *their* Biblical faith). John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-7293 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/03/84)
In response to John Hobson's following comments:
More on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I just looked up
Morris' definition of the second law, and it is as follows:
The second law of thermodynamics is the law of increasing
entropy, stating that all real processes tend to go towards
a state of higher probability, which means greater disorder.
This applies to all known systems, both physical and
biological, a fact which is universally accepted by
scientists in every field.
--Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, p. 98.
In this quotations, the words "closed system" are not mentioned.
Morris goes on to say that the rejoinder that the earth is not a
closed system is "an extremely naive argument" (p. 123). He says
that:
Obviously growth cannot occur in a closed system; the Second
Law is in fact *defined* in terms of a closed system.
However, this criterion is really redundant, because in the
real world closed systems do not even exist! It is obvious
that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to open systems as
well, since they have only been tested and proved on open
systems!
--ibid, p. 125. (Italics in original.)
How fortunate we are to have Dr. Morris to set us straight.
The concept of thermodynamically closed system, like that of a
frictionless plane or a rigid body, is an idealization. The laws of
thermodynamics, like the ideal gas laws, can be tested and confirmed
(*not* proved) by investigating systems that are only approximately
closed. What we cannot do is to apply these laws to systems in
which the energy flow across the boundries is significant with
respect to the energy transactions within these boundries. That
would be like using rigid body mechanics to examine the motion of
blobs of Jell-o. Saying that "Open, closed, what's the difference?"
displays a hopeless misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics
and a remarkable ignorance of the uses of idealization in physics.
A second answer of Morris, which lies at the heart of Miller's
response, is what I shall call the "evolving junkyard" argument:
It should be self-evident that the mere existence of an open
system of some kind, with access to the sun's energy, does
not of itself generate growth. The sun's energy may bathe
the site of an automobile junk yard for a million years, but
it will never cause the rusted, broken parts to grow
together into a functioning automobile. A beaker containing
a fluid mixture of hydrochloric, water, salt, or any other
combination of chemicals, may lie exposed to the sun for
endless years, but the chemicals will never combine into a
living bacterium or any other self-replicating organism.
More likely, it would destroy any organism which might
accidently have been caught in it. Availability of energy
(by the First Law of Thermodynamics) has in itself no
mechanism for thwarting the basic decay principle enunciated
by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. *Quantity* of energy is
not the question, but *quality*.
--ibid., p. 123. (Italics in original.)
This might look like a clever objection, but the issue has been
shifted. Evolutionary theory was originally challenged to reconcile
its claims of increasing organization and complexity with the Second
Law of Thermodynamics. The challenge is met by saying that the
Second Law does not apply in this case since the earth is not a good
approximation to a closed system. The creationists now ask why some
open systems show decreasing entropy and others (cars in junkyards)
do not. The simple answer is that this is an "apples and oranges"
comparison. A more detailed answer would be to explain just how
both living things and automobiles change. No one alleges that
having an open system is sufficient for decreased entropy.
Evolutionary theory says that decreased entropy is possible in an
open system, not that it is necessary in any open system.
This is an interesting example since, if you look at it, Morris
begins by misstating the Second Law. Then, he considers a response
that does not correct the formulation. This makes it look like the
evolutionists have fallen back on closed systems as a desperate
ploy. He continues by distorting the role of idealization in
science, and ends by changing the question.
My first objection to this argument is technical and maybe nit-picky.
John presents these arguments as if they were a result of his own
research when in fact the above is lifted nearly verbatim (including
the quotations of Morris) from Philip Kitcher's book "Abusing Science"
(see pp. 89-95). I have no objection to Kitcher's arguments being
presented, but I think that John should give credit where credit is due.
Doing this does not support his claim to having read creationist books
extensively. I believe that he has read some, because of a personal
conversation that I had with him. But here I am tempted to believe that
his view of creationism is largley a product of anti-creationist writing
and not of an objective reading of both creationist and anti-creationist.
Moving away from that, I found that Kitcher, in his haggling over the
proper definition of the laws of thermodynamics, does not really solve
the problem of why entropy law does not present a problem for evolution.
In particular Kitcher never once deals with Morris' objections to Stanley
Miller's experiments with abiogenesis (his famous amino acid soup). Kitcher
is right in pointing out that the evolving junk yard analogy is not a
good one. But all he says is that DNA is different material than a junkyard.
(pp. 94-95). In the previous section, "The Randomness Ploy", Kitcher
involves the reader in a semantic argument, maintaining that creationists
insist evolution depends on *irreducible randomness* (like a tornado in
a junkyard) when it does not. I find it interesting that, in all his
research, Kitcher never bothers with Coppedge's book "Evolution: Possible
or Impossible", especially since Morris cites Coppedge's work in "Scientific
Creationism". Also Kitcher confuses the issue by applying the creationist
"randomness" argument exclusively to genetic mutation, and not abiogenesis,
to which it mainly applies. For evolutionists to settle this issue
I would like to see a sound refutation to the article "The Probability of
Life from Non-Life", by Terry Brown, which I posted a week ago.
Also, I would like to take issue with some of the examples of entropy decrease
cited by evolutioists.
The first one is the formation of snowflakes. They are definitely of a
more complex structure than the water vapor of which they are formed.
But how does this example support evolution? The molecular structure
has not changed (it's still H2O), only the arrangement of molecules.
Also the energy vector is in the wrong direction. Supposed evolutionary
processes depend on energy being added to the system not subtracted from
it.
A second example was cited by an evolutionist in a recent local debate
with Duane Gish. That is the "burning" of hydrogen atoms in a star or
atom bomb produces heavier, more complex elements. Yet this also does
not seem to lend much support for abiogenesis. Elements (atoms) are
not molecules. One must wonder how stable these products of an atomic
reaction are, and I don't think any biologist would suggest that the
first life forms came about as the byproduct of such a reaction.
It seems to me that if you generate enough heat to break an atom apart
it's no wonder that the parts will soon combine again into a stable
atom of some element. The same cannot be said of organic molecules.
I think the "apples and oranges" objection can definitely be applied here.
In closing this note I would like to say that I found many more serious
problems with Kitcher's attack on creationism. Time doesn't permit me
to go into any more of them. This whole origins debate is getting very
boring in light of the fact that I have a new, 1 1/2 day old daughter
to take care of. Loving this little darling is bound to take up a lot
of my time in the near future. ... and I'm going to love every minute
of it.
Regards,
Paul Dubucamigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (02/06/84)
You're right, I did lift it from Kitcher. I was just too tired to look it up myself. (I am not usually in the habit of plagarizing, and I apologize to everyone on the net for having done so.) I still think that the argument is correct. I was looking over some more of the creationist literature and I felt just too depreseed by the whole thing. John Lind from digi-g (somewhere in Minnesota?) sent me the following mail (reprinted without permission): >> I grow increasingly distressed by the arguments in the >> Creation/Science controversy. This falls into the class of >> polarizing arguments, wherein the conflict encourages both >> sides to tend to their extremes. In this case, I have heard >> rather absurd and unfounded remarks from both sides of the >> fence, and I have seen this argument foster a lot of hate >> and anger, which I do not believe is a desired end of either >> camp. >> >> The people called "Creationists" (there goes another >> perfectly good word from general service and into the ranks >> of conotatively hot words like gay, making love, et al.) >> have one major valid point, which is that evolution and >> associated topics are presented quite dogmatically. We have >> done that time and again, and the list of things which have >> been taught as irrevocable fact down through the millenia >> only to be revoked and debunked by greater knowledge and >> learning (I am sure a listing of these would be old news to >> you). >> >> That does not mean that I question or dispute the scientific >> method. Being a senior programmer rather means that I rely >> upon it. I do wonder when we will learn to be more careful >> in our practices of teaching and learning, though I frankly >> have little hope of it. >> >> I belong to the Restoration movement, which is a group of >> fundamentalist Christians dedicated to the Biblical >> principles of unity. I resent the factionalizing that the >> "Creationist" camp spawns. Neither can I reject them >> outright without being guilty of the same transgressions >> that I see in them. >> >> I am also a scientist (my degree is from the Institute of >> Technology and is a BS) and I am rather ashamed of the >> behaviour of some of our own in this discussion. It seems >> to be that the prejudices against things that the >> "Creationists" attempt to represent are as strong as those >> in the other direction. Name calling by either group is >> inappropriate and degrades the discussion. >> >> At the last, I see very little point in the discussion at >> all. God does not require us to defend him. If he can't >> take care of himself, he falls rather short of omnipotent. >> I do not preceive evolution to be an attack on him, anyway. >> My religion is not afraid of honest scientific scrutiny. I >> also do not see any disagreement between the Biblical and >> scientific views of the origin of the universe. On the whole, I tend to agree, especially with the last two paragraphs, with this voice of reason and moderation. I am also a practicing (practice makes perfect, one of these days I'll get it right) Christian and I think that one of my main objections to Morris et al. is their attitude that one cannot be a true Christian and be an evolutionist (Morris says this in as many words somewhere in the Institute for Creation Research's magazine Acts & Facts.) This is a remarkably arrogant attitude, and I tend to react to it in exactly the same way I do when I see the bumper sticker on a car: "Warning, in case of rapture, this car will be driverless." This I translate as "I'm going to heaven, and you, you poor jerk behind me, are going to hell." There is something called the sin of presumption, which this, it appears to me, is a perfect example of. There is also something called the sin of pride (I like the Latin name, superba) which many of the creationists seem to sin against. "We know the truth, and all others are agents of Satan" (I once saw a piece of creationist literature, a comic book by someone named Chick(sp?), that said that people who taught evolution were condemning others to hell--the same publisher also had some virulently anti-Catholic issues). Consider this to be my withdrawal from the creationist/evolutionist fight on the net. I think that the creationists are wrong, that they work from an incorrect belief on Biblical truth, and that they also go too far when they insist on working their beliefs into the science classroom. What they teach is not science, but an offshoot from one particularly restricted version of Christian doctrine. Science has established evolution as a fact. That not all of the details of how evolution works have not yet been discovered is beside the point; in the minds of the vast majority of thinking people, evolution is as firmly established as the second law of thermodynamics, and I don't think that it is going to be wholly overturned. Creationists think that the rethinking of evolutionary theory is like the fight between the phlogiston theory of the generation of heat and the oxygenation theory. Rather, it is like Einstein's theory of relativity, which did not overturn Newtonian mechanics, but instead included it as a special case. This is one of the worst written articles I have ever done, but I am going to send it off now, and wash my hands of the controversy henceforth. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-0193 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/09/84)
===============
conversation that I had with him. But here I am tempted to believe that
his view of creationism is largley a product of anti-creationist writing
and not of an objective reading of both creationist and anti-creationist.
Paul Dubuc
===============
Are we then to assume that reading non-creationist literature is a bad
thing? Or that all creationists came up with the same ideas from their
own objective consideration of the evidence (not the scientific literature)?
How on earth are we supposed to understand even a tiny fraction of what
science has discovered, without reading about it? We can't replicate
all the experiments ourselves, and according to Larry Bickford, we can't
even in principle replicate the experiments that might lend some
credibility to the creationist view.
I agree with Dubuc that this "debate" is getting boring, but it is also
frustrating to see people misconstruing science so badly as the
creationists do. If science isn't enquiry into things that seem odd,
then what is it? They seem to think science is a recitation of facts,
and since they have the facts (from their Good Book), they also should
be considered to be scientists.
Scientists have been known to consider data pointed out by creationists
as difficult to explain by current theories. Usually, as with ESP data,
they turn out to be naively misinterpreted, fraudulent, or otherwise
untrustworthy. But there always may be some nugget on which a revolution
in scientific understanding may turn. That revolution will not come
about by accepting the assertion that there is nothing to explain, because
it was God's work.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt