gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) (07/09/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR FAVORITE MYTHS ***
Before he went on vacation, Ron Kukuk gave us several installments of
Walter Brown's theses in support of creationism (or, more precisely, in
critique of contemporary science). Trying to avoid both quoting the original
submission and going outside of my expertise, I would like to make selected
comments on some of the items.
46. The First Law of Thermodynamics applied to the universe.
Since thermodynamics is an empirical study, its applicability to the entire
universe is suspect. Energy conservation is a trusted principle in science,
but not sacred or countlessly tested. Refer to my comments on "Re: A new
voice" for more detail.
47. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applied to the universe.
Since classical thermodynamics assumes systems at equilibrium (no gradients
or localized concentrations) without long-range correlations (long-range
forces include electrostatics and gravitation), the arguments about the second
law do not apply to the universe as a whole. Notice also that whether or not
the universe is isolated in a thermodynamic sense is different than the issue
of whether or not the universe is open or closed in a dynamic sense (due to
self-gravitation). The original statement proceeds in assuming a resolution
to the isolated universe question (If...) without explicitly discussing the
answer.
54. Not seeing any stars being born.
Since a nova or supernova produces many orders of magnitude more light than
a star undergoing formation, it is not unreasonable that star births would be
much more difficult to observe. In fact, novae or supernovae are often
observed where no star was observable before. Recently, a few articles have
appeared discussing the observations of possible stellar formations. This
issue seems to be more of a sampling or observational problem than a property
of nature. Below a certain mass limit, stars die quietly by going through
successive dwarf stages, and these deaths would not be readily observable
either. Note that the only reference given here is for a creationist text.
56. Galaxies do/do not evolve from one type to another.
When just beginning graduate school, I recall that galactic evolution was
still treated as a research topic. The increasing availability of
supercomputers should assist in evaluating this issue. Perhaps some
astronomer can provide us with the latest thinking on this. Again, the only
references supplied are for creationists' texts.
57. Dates prior to written records assume a dating clock.
This appears straight out of Newton's concept of an absolute time standard.
The mention of a dating clock does not seem to bear on any scientific issue
though science uses several dating methods. The requirement that a single
dating clock exists seems superfluous. Also, the statement implies that
written records serve as an accurate dating clock, which is not correct if the
problems between the biblical and Egyptian/Greek/Babylonian chronologies, and
Old and New Testament genealogies, are examined. Where applicable,
radioactive decay is about as reliable as you might want. Before the
development of the maser, the timing standard (cesium clock) derived from
radioactive decay.
(To be continued)
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!iham1!gjphwgjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) (07/09/85)
58. Radioactive decay rates are unreliable and use unknown mechanisms.
A bit of intentional semantic confusion appears to be introduced here. In
science, what is known is often considered synonymous with what can be
calculated accurately, even though the description may be later shown to be
incorrect (e.g., Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction) or an explanation may be
essentially missing (e.g., tidal tables constructed by the ancient Egyptians).
The area of study called nuclear theory deals with the many properties of the
nucleus of a atom. The constancy of nuclear decay, while directly checked for
only 70 years, is incorporated into nuclear theory. Nuclear decay is
consistent with other known properties of the nucleus, so that direct
laboratory observation is not the only support for constant radioactive decay
rates. It is not correct to state that no one knows what causes radioactive
decay. G. Gamow calculated alpha decay in the 1940's, beta decay has been
calculated and is an important component in the recent theory unifying the
weak nuclear force and electromagnetism. One decay mode, positron decay, was
calculated before it was observed in the laboratory. There are twelve known
radioactive decay modes. The reference provided for variable decay rates is
from someone (Gentry) who appears to be a creationist. When his proposals
were presented in scientific journals, others found different explanations for
his observations that did not rely on variable decay rates.
60. Radiocarbon dating is unreliable.
When I left graduate school, there was some discussion in the journals
concerning variability in the rate at which carbon-14 (radiocarbon) was being
produced in the Earth's atmosphere. However, most authors wrote of variations
of 10%-15% and were engaged in a study to see if these variations were
periodic (and therefore correctable in dating). No one that I read suggested
an order of magnitude (factor of 10) variation as would be required to confuse
5E4 years with 5E3 years. Again, the only references are creationists' texts.
73. Trace elements are rapidly accumulating in the oceans.
If I asked some of my physical oceanographer friends, they could probably
come up with several explanations for the residence times and concentrations
of trace elements in the oceans. The problem would then be deciding which of
the mechanisms is most important.
75. Meteoritic dust should be rapidly accumulating on the Earth's surface.
Before the space program, the rate at which dust was accumulating on
planetary bodies (e.g., Earth, moon) was speculative. Most estimates were
high compared to present estimates. The references are taken from articles
written before space flight became "routine", in an obvious attempt to support
a point that is no longer valid.
76. If extrapolated into the past, the Earth's magnetic field is too big.
This was convincingly refuted by someone on the net who presented careful
evidence that T. Barnes purposely ignored data from the oldest rocks and fit
an exponential to the remaining data when there was no reason for choosing
that particular function for fitting. This point is not supported anywhere in
the recent scientific literature.
(To be continued)
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!iham1!gjphwgjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) (07/10/85)
79. The moon should have a very thick layer of dust.
This is related to point 75 dealing with dust accumulation on the Earth.
One of the contributors to A. Montagu's book *Science and Creationism* showed
how the creationist author purposely picked through old discussions, ignoring
more recent estimates, to support an argument for a young solar system. The
original Scientific American author was even referenced out of context in
order to arrive at the thick dust estimate (the uncertainty was ignored).
82. Jupiter and Saturn are radiating more energy than they receive.
Yes, Jupiter and Saturn appear to be radiating more energy in the far
infrared than they are receiving from the sun. The article then lists the
major energy sources for proto-suns, and proceeds to assert that this excess
radiated energy comes from cooling off. What happened to these planets that
they must cool off? What generated the original heat? Surely creation is not
a heat generating process!
85. The sun is shrinking by 0.1% per century.
This item was just breaking when I finished graduate school. There was
discussion about its effects on the Earth's climate and if some terrestrial
evidence might be found to support or refute the shrinking sun claims. Some
of the early problems included establishing the magnitude of the effect, and
disentangling it from different observational techniques and the Earth's
recession from the sun. Anyone have more recent information?
88-95. Support for the existence of Noah's Ark.
While not possessing any evidence one way or another concerning the
existence and location of Noah's Ark, the references that were provided are of
the same style as descriptions of the Yeti and Bigfoot. All of these may
exist, but they have proven very difficult to document and record clearly.
97. Glaciers and the ice age are better explained by a flood.
There is evidence for a series of ice ages. Does that mean that this
evidence also provides support for several worldwide floods?
104. Extinction of the dinosaurs are better explained by a flood.
However, a flood does not explain the simultaneous extinction of marine
life at the time of the dinosaur extinctions. With evidence of several mass
life extinctions, I am intrigued by the possibility of periodic catastrophes
such as large meteoric impacts at 26-33 million year intervals.
114. Practically every culture has flood legends.
An additional example of the same logical fallacy: A million flies can't
be wrong. Eat manure!
(To be continued)
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!iham1!gjphwgjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) (07/12/85)
In summary
The shotgun technique used by W. Brown (as posted by R. Kukuk) to critique
science relies on several fallacies. One is the assertion that contemporary
science and creationism contain the only explanations for the genesis of life
and the universe. A second is that it is sufficient to refute science in
order to establish creationism.
Science is more accurately viewed as a dynamic process with many
participants. The issues of establishing a fact, the interpretations of
facts, and what constitutes sufficient support or refutation of any theory or
collection of theories are thorny enough among legitimate investigators, but
the introduction of unscrupulous players with a hidden agenda sets these
difficulties into relief. Any snapshot of science will reveal its
contradictions and inconsistencies, but then a snapshot usually renders an
incomplete picture of a process.
As has been used for unexplained archeological artifacts where
extraterrestrial influences have been claimed, some creationists (e.g.,
W. Brown) have seen fit to select particular explanations for certain
partially understood phenomena. In most cases, a half dozen non-creation
explanations are also possible. These alternative natural explanations are
not often given prominent coverage in the research journals because the
evidence to support them is not available. This supporting evidence is what
distinguishes a theory from speculation (one of my favorite activities).
Popular science magazines are much better sources of speculation than academic
journals.
Creationism also seems to depend on the treatment of science as intuitively
obvious based on ordinary experience. Science has progressed because its
contributors struggled past everyday experiences to develop a new intuition.
Unfortunately, this need to step beyond typical experience often renders
science beyond the ready grasp of the common man (or engineer).
It seems that resting support for a proposal on the ignorance of a
designated competitor is fraught with danger. Creationism seems to be saying
that science knows all that it ever will, and that the inconsistencies and
uncertainties that exist are proof of its failure. At times, it appears as if
creationists are faulting science for failing to support cultural biases and
popular misconceptions. Creationism solves these difficulties by proposing
temporary suspensions of natural processes that are beyond further scientific
investigation.
The language and concepts of the Bible figure prominently in the writing of
the creationists. The inerrancy of the Bible is an important tenant of the
leading creationist organizations. Yet what is the resolution when
contemporary science and fundamental Christianity come in conflict? I have
read that there is considered to be ample biblical support for an Earth-
centered universe, but this is in conflict with space-borne observations. The
philosophers of science that I have read consider that science makes its best
progress when all authorities are rejected. The current age of science began
in the mid-1800's, as did Christian fundamentalism.
This is enough of my ramblings. W. Brown's shotgun technique makes an
effective and comprehensive defense of science difficult. I have tried to
deal with the few topics with which I have some personal experience. I trust
that the patient reader will not confuse the incompleteness of science with a
failure of science, and can recognize an insidious attack.
(The end....for now)
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!iham1!gjphwdubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/13/85)
> An additional example of the same logical fallacy: A million flies can't > be wrong. Eat manure! Yes, many of us read the net regularly. ":-)" -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |