ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (10/20/84)
[]
Larry Bickford has done a marvelous job of expounding the philosophy of
"scientific creationism". He has pointed out the difference between
matters of faith and matters of science. He has also made it very clear
that to make matters of science consistant with matters of his faith
requires an all-out atack on modern science. He of course refers to it
as evolution. He likes to pretend that he's only disagreeing with the
theory of evolution. But what he calls evolution, the rest of the
world calls science. Here are a few of the disciplines that Larry
Bickford calls evolution: Astronomy (the distance of the Galaxies),
Geology (the overthrusts), Biology (differing amino acids),
Paleantology (the Hominid Fossils), Physics (the Decay of Isotopes).
In order to build a model of creation that is consistent with a literal
interpretation of Genesis, virtually the entire body of modern science
must be discredited.
Speaking of models, it is very clever of Larry to try to define
scientific theory in such a way as to eliminate the possiblity of a
theory of evolution. Since the creationist claim that any theory was
as good as any other has been thoroughly thrashed, they are now trying
to move the debate to the realm of models. It is a lot easier to make
such a claim for models, since models need not explain anything, and
the criteria for them is much less rigorous than for theories. Ralph
Hartley makes a mistake that is common with scientist in dealing with
creationists when he states that this is just a matter of semantics.
Scientists tend to believe that creationists are just like themselves:
honest people in search of the truth. They therefore expect their
opponents to follow pretty much the same rules - finding evidence,
making theories, finding more evidence. They are quite unprepared for
the fabrication of evidence and the shifting of rules that constantly
occurs in this debate. The creationists, on the other hand, seem to
feel that, because scientists have come to conclusions that contradict
their interpretation of holy books, that the scientists are evil, and
any means to defeat them is permitted. And Larry Bickford calls it
hypocritical when there is a lag between the very latest developments in
science and what is taught in schools. (This is not to be construed as
a comment on Larry Bickford's honesty. Since I know nothing about him,
I cannot make any such comment.)
Well, the shift from theory to model as not just a matter of semantics,
but a fundamental shift in the rules, and cannot be allowed to go
unchallenged.
Larry accused scientists of holding a double standard when it comes to
creationists, yet he is guilty of the same thing when it comes to the
question of ultimate origins. He falsely states that only creationists
recognise an area beyond the realm of science, then goes on to claim
that creationists have explained the ultimate origin. Of course,
science recognises a realm beyond science. All things in reality that
leave no evidence lie beyond the realm of science. And, of course,
all that is accomplished by the introduction of a creator is the
introduction of another layer of complexity. Once one postulates a
creator into scientific discourse, one must then discuss the origin of
the creator, the nature of the creator, and the means by which the
creator did the creating. Since there is absolutely no evidence for
the existence of a creator, the above questions will make scientific
discourse sound amazingly like theology.
I do not believe, as has been stated, that creationism will cause the
destruction of science. I merely point out the obvious: that
creationism is an attack on science. I have absolute faith that the
people of the nation, and of the world, have enough sense to see the
truth; and that the duplicity that is being put forth as scientific
creationism will be seen for what it is: an attempt to force us all to
accept the beliefs of a minority religious cult.
--
"The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct."
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307gjphw@iham1.UUCP (10/25/84)
While I have read it elsewhere, I was reminded of a significant point in
Larry Bickford's recent apology for *scientific creationism*. It seems that
most creationists, L. Bickford among them, consider creationism superior to
evolution because, among other details, it includes the issue of origins
(evolution starts with the assumption that life exists); creationism subsumes
a cosmogony. It is as if all the laws of science are mere consequences of,
and deductions from, the ill-defined creation processes. If I misstate
this position, I trust that the creationists on the net will correct me.
Recently, M. Ward (hao!ward) has submitted a general rebuttal to
creationism by arguing that it challenges and rejects virtually all modern
science. For as Walter Lammerts (a creation science organizer) wrote (*Why
Not Creation*, pg 2),
Our aim is a rather audacious one, namely the complete
reevaluation of science from the theistic viewpoint.
I would like to focus on the implications of creationism for certain
scientific issues ancillary to the evolution issue. In mainstream science,
a theory is valid as long as it reproduces the known data, makes valuable and
observable new predictions, and includes clear initial values (assumptions)
and boundary conditions (domain of applicability). This tradition also
leaves some work for the other branches of science (specialization) to do.
Creationism apparently does not agree with the traditions of specialization
developed in mainstream science, so to deal with this claimed inadequacy in
evolution, all science must be marshaled in response.
It is difficult to discover any specific requirements or predictions of
creationism except that a creator exists who made the cosmos. There appears
to be no bound or limitation on what such a creation processes can accomplish.
In contrast, the Big Bang theory of cosmology generates some consequences such
as residual heat, hydrogen/helium ratios, etc. that can, in principle and
practice, be observed. Since such specifics are not clearly defined for
creationism, I will merely take some of the topics mentioned in L. Bickford's
recent trilogy and earlier submissions.
The second law of thermodynamics, as used in physics and chemistry, is
defined by two parts. Coming from the idealization of empirical studies on
simple gas systems, the older part is called thermodynamics. Entropy is a
property or state function of a system. The more recent contribution or part
comes from statistical mechanics, which uses Newton's laws of mechanics to
calculate the statistical behavior of molecular systems. In statistical
physics, the concept and measure for the order of a system is associated with
entropy.
a. creationism predicts that all systems decrease in order (everything is
degenerating)
b. physics says that entropy leads to decreasing order only for systems at
equilibrium (uniform temperatures and chemical concentrations); order can
increase for some localized systems not at equilibrium
Related to entropy is a quantity that is used to predict the outcome of
chemical reactions. Chemists use the Gibbs thermodynamic potential to help
decide if the chemicals under consideration will combine into a compound. As
with thermodynamics, these rules are empirically based (not derived from a
theory but from experience).
a. creationism says that no chemical compounds can form spontaneously
b. chemistry says that if the Gibbs potential is favorable, compounds will
form spontaneously (no introduction of heat or other chemicals required).
Ever since radioactivity was discovered (about 1890), it has been studied
for its constancy, properties, and what it can reveal about the structure and
dynamics of the nucleus of atoms. Over a dozen different decay modes are
known, with the alpha, beta, gamma, and fission decays being the most famous.
The decay rates (half-lives) of the major radionuclides have been repeatedly
measured because of the interest in using these isotopes as tracers, timimg
standards, and for the study of nuclear structure.
a. creationism seems to require significant variation of radioactive decays
rates
b. physics has not observed any variation for most radionuclides, especially
the ones used for radiometry
Astronomy is a largely observational science, since experimentation with
planets and stars is still beyond present technology. The interpretation of
astronomical phenomena depends on the current knowledge and understanding of
physics, chemistry, and mathematics. The best recent experiments in this
subject have been provided by space travel and timing signals from landers and
orbiters sent to neighboring planets. Any characterization of space, either
curved (Riemannian) due to mass in Einstein theory or flat (Euclidean) in
Newton's physics, is based on the path that light follows (and light always
travels the shortest distance between two points).
a. creationism seeks to establish a small cosmos in support of a recent
cosmogony (6E3 years for special creation)
b. astronomy sees a large cosmos, using either Newtonian physics or
Einsteinian physics (for what it is worth, no variation from Newtonian
dynamics has been noticed for spacecraft traveling within the solar system)
Finally, the issue of the speed of light has been raised in the past.
Since sight is an important sense, scientists' fascination with light merely
reflects a common human trait. Recalling that a successful theory also serves
to summarized known data as well as predicting new, the speed of light (in a
vacuum) is pivotal to the understanding of phenomena in many areas: the basic
electrical and magnetic properties of space and matter (Maxwell's equations
for electromagnetism), the absorption and emission of light (atomic physics
and quantum electrodynamics, the most accurate theory in science today), and
the unchanging (invariant) qualities of matter (Einstein's special theory of
relativity, a principal and unifying concept for all physics).
a. creationism has no problem with a speed of light that varies over
historical time periods (5E3 years), and may require this to support a
recent cosmogony
b. physics treats the speed of light as a fundamental constant of nature, and
its rapid variation violates the understanding of space and matter as
expressed by many successful physical theories
As M. Ward suggests, examining the consequences of creationism for science
outside of evolution provides a clear contrast between empiricism and
creationism. To be consistent, what must accompany a demand for equal
treatment in the biology classroom (creationism vs. evolution) is a demand
for equal treatment in physics (*creation physics*) and chemistry (*creation
chemistry*) classrooms (there is supposed to be a high school earth science
text conforming to creationism). It would prove interesting for creationists
here to admit their efforts to reformulate all science and thus directly
challenge, among others, the oldest and most highly developed of the
scientific disciplines - physics (creationism comes to my turf!).
In short, creationists in general (e.g., Morris and the gang of engineers
at the Institute for Creation Research) have set themselves up against
accepted interpretations of major aspects of every discipline in science.
For in their trials to establish the value of creation and the Creator (the
Watchmaker's Watchmaker?) as a science, they are attempting to prove that
every major scientist from Newton to Einstein and Lavoisier to Pauling (name
dropping anyone?) has seriously misunderstood nature. Noting that
creationists appear insensitive to evidence presented on topics peripheral
to evolution (e.g., thermodynamics and atomic theory), and seem unwilling to
go beyond the popular misconceptions of science, indicates that they have no
objective in understanding the subtle thoughts of these great minds.
--
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!iham1!gjphwhua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/25/85)
______________________________________________________________________ Larry, The contents of the letter that you sent me concerning my post on the creation model should be posted rather than sent to me personally since some of the areas that you touch upon are not known to me at this time. I do expect that you will post the evidences and explanations re- lating to them. Here are your mistakes: > { From: Larry Bickford, {amd,sun,decwrl,idi,ittvax,cbosgd}!qubix!lab } > > You didn't do a very good job of keeping your a priori biases hidden. You did not mention any biases/assumptions to support this statement and yet you bring it up twice. Please substantiate. > "Sudden creation" != "Big Bang" especially as Robert Gentry has noted > with both attempted synthesis of granite and radiohalo experiments, the > earth congealed *rapidly* (no "bang" model allows for that) and not from > any knowable natural cause. Explain this, somebody. Do you know anything about the Big Bang model? If so, why in the world do you think that it does not allow for what you claim above. Please also define "rapidly" as it is rather vague. (Per- haps this will come with the explanation of earth's "congealing rapidly".) If you will note in my original comments, I said that Special Creation MIGHT be allowable under the Big Bang theory, if one ignores the time delay problem. The creation model is okay in that respect only! If you want to push the 7-day rule along with it, you can trash Special Creation. > Further, since time is unstoppable, either > the universe has not existed from eternity, or the rules of the game > have changed. I would like to see you prove this statement and its stated assumption. And what are these rules of the game? > The remainder of your remarks show an incredible lack of knowledge about > the evidence available, particularly the huge and systematic gaps > between small, cohesive groups. The evidence to indicate any major > change (contrary to the creation model) simply doesn't exist. Further, > attempts at change via selective breeding continually run into limits. Since you have brought it up, I will ask you to show me how systematic are these gaps that creationists complain about. By systematic, I mean "show me the rule that tells you the gaps that you expect". By the way, who said selective breeding had anything to do with evolution? > You say "kind" is not well-defined. Well, surprise! Neither is "species." First, read my remarks and understand them. The main thrust of my remarks concerning "kind" discredits its scientific use, and not its vagueness ... I will repeat: "kind" is not a scientific term, no matter how you slice it. "species" is. "species" is part of a hierarchy of words that help scientists analyze the different living organisms through some systematic classification. The reason for which "species" (and all of the other terms) is not well-de- fined is because the similiarities between different organisms are too great. It's amazing how you creationists prefer to ignore such blatant similarities as coincidence rather than admitting that they are evidences of common an- cestry and/or adaptation under similiar environments, and yet you will re- peatedly bring up the silly "watch-watchmaker" argument, which is both much less likely and altogether illogical. > Gobs of geologic data (such as fossils extending through several layers > of strata) indicate catastophic origin, not uniformitarian. Gee, I guess it will not take too much of your time to bring up one or more of the huge quantity of evidences that suggest catastrophism, so I will look forward to reading many of them in the near future. > And you (by naviete or bias) are completely unaware of the many > challenges to popular dating techniques (including radiometrics) and the > evidence for a young earth. Gee, I guess it will not take too much of ... (much I say it again?). Just so you will not waste too much of your time, don't bother with the "earth's decaying magnetic field" argument as that is already dis- creditted. (I do have confidence that you will dig up, and more likely make up, more inane gripes to waste our time.) > Please - research before speaking, or else let us know your a priori > bias. Your analysis is not scientific - it is religious. Once again for the record: baloney. You better get some evidence, which you claim to be so abundant, for your silly accusations and misguided statements. Incidentally, on what grounds are you accusing me of being religious? I don't recall any of my remarks being religious. In fact, if you follow my posts on net.religion, you never would have made that statement. I do have one assumption which ALL scientists must make. All scientific laws have always applied, do apply, and will always apply to everything. That is to say, nature is consistent. It does not change whimsically at the discretion of some mythical creator. (Why do pseudoscientists gripe at this? After all, we are talking about NATURAL science, aren't we?) ______________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/28/85)
>> You didn't do a very good job of keeping your a priori biases hidden. >> [LARRY BICKFORD] > You did not mention any biases/assumptions to support this statement and > yet you bring it up twice. Please substantiate. [KEEBLER] Ah. It's nice to hear that some things never change. How ya doing, Lar? :-) -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr