hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (02/04/85)
CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS, PART I
This will be a regular post of various creationist arguments.
Please feel free to augment or correct any parts posted. As
a scientifically oriented person, I do not claim to be abso-
lutely right on anything. (It's amazing how creationists do
make claims of knowing the "truth".)
I will begin with the commonly used argument using the second
law of thermodynamics. Creationist say that the second law
dictates that everything in the universe go toward greater
randomness. It is impossible, therefore, to allow for evo-
lution since evolution does exactly the opposite.
1. The second law of thermodynamics in simple terms: As time
marches on, the pool of "available energy" (available to do
work) becomes less in any given closed system. It is possible
for it to remain the same, but it is not possible for the pool
to increase. For example, given two steel balls in contact:
Ball A with higher temperature. Putting the two balls in a
closed system (no influence by or interactions with the outside
on any scale), ball A will always transmit its energy to ball B
until the two approach the same temperature. Ball B will never
cool, and ball A will never heat. Note that ball B is gaining
energy, but it is not a closed system since it is receiving
energy from an outside source, ball A.
2. The creationist argument is an application of the law in
an inappropriate example.
A. Evolution occurs in an open system. The earth is de-
finitely NOT closed. It receives, among other things,
solar energy, which coincidentally, drives photosyn-
thesis. Photosynthesis, coincidentally, is the fun-
damental process which drives all life forms on this
planet presently.
B. Now there is the problem of complexity. How does one
define complexity? Might one say that complexity is
equivalent to randomness? (Obviously, creationists do
not want to use this equivalence.) Could one say that
complexity is the number of different constructions
in any given system. (Creationists would NOT want
to use this equivalence either. For those creationists
who do not understand why you would not want to use it,
please note that one could find a lot of systems of
non-living things that would be more complex than any
system of living things.) In any case, complexity is
a subjective concept. Therefore, one cannot use it
objectively to argue, especially in a scientific context.
The same applies to the word "ordered" or "organized".
(For example, one could easily show that a salt crystal
is far more orderly than any life form.)
C. Pseudo-arguments: There are some people who insist on
rewriting science to fit the Bible. Henry Morris of the
Institute for Creation Research points out that the
second law must have been tested in open systems. After
all, how many closed systems do you know of? Therefore,
the second law must really apply to open systems! (For a
sarcastic response to that, please refer back to my pre-
vious post.) He forgets, deliberately or accidentally,
that scientists do not expect perfection from anything.
Experiments are performed in environments that closely
approximate the ideal. It is far too costly, if not im-
possible, to create an ideal environment for any experi-
ment. The second law, like any other law of science, was
tested on systems that are essentially closed. That is,
any outside influence or interaction is negligible.
I welcome anything which you would like to add or correct.
Until next time ...
-Keeblerdimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (02/04/85)
[This has nothing to do with creationism vs. evolutionism] > Photosynthesis, coincidentally, is the fun- > damental process which drives all life forms on this > planet presently. On `The Living Planet' the other night, they mentioned colonies of life which are totally unsupported by photosynthesis. They live on the deep ocean floor, around ruptures in the earth's surface. Bacteria live on the gases ejected, other life forms live on the bacteria, and so on.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/08/85)
In article <3570003@csd2.UUCP> dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) writes: >[This has nothing to do with creationism vs. evolutionism] > >> Photosynthesis, coincidentally, is the fun- >> damental process which drives all life forms on this >> planet presently. > >On `The Living Planet' the other night, they mentioned colonies >of life which are totally unsupported by photosynthesis. >They live on the deep ocean floor, around ruptures in the earth's surface. >Bacteria live on the gases ejected, other life forms live on the bacteria, >and so on. You are I suppose talking about chemosynthetic bacteria. This is still an *open* system, that is it is getting its energy outside. In this case the source of energy is the heat differential between the surface of the Earth and its interior. Furthermore this sort of energy metabolism represents a *very* small portion of the total energy processed by living things, so it is of little significance in determining the application of the second law of thermodynamics to living systems. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (02/11/85)
> CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS, PART I > > C. Pseudo-arguments: There are some people who insist on > rewriting science to fit the Bible. Henry Morris of the > Institute for Creation Research points out that the > second law must have been tested in open systems. After > all, how many closed systems do you know of? Therefore, > the second law must really apply to open systems! (For a > sarcastic response to that, please refer back to my pre- > vious post.) He forgets, deliberately or accidentally, > that scientists do not expect perfection from anything. > Experiments are performed in environments that closely > approximate the ideal. It is far too costly, if not im- > possible, to create an ideal environment for any experi- > ment. The second law, like any other law of science, was > tested on systems that are essentially closed. That is, > any outside influence or interaction is negligible. > > I welcome anything which you would like to add or correct. > > Until next time ... > > -Keebler As I understand it, the second law of thermodynamics isn't a physical law in the normal sense. Rather, it is a tendency that is overwhelming in large-scale systems. The strength of this tendency is derivable from the mathematical definition of entropy. This definition is based on the probability of the various possible states of the system in question. The second law of thermodynamics states that physical systems have an extremely strong tendency to go to more and more probable states. This can only be guarnteed for closed systems; energy coming into the system can perform the work necessary to reduce entropy (that is, go to a less probable state) within the system . The argumentthat the second law of thermodynamics was derived from experiments on non-closedsystems is false because this law was not derived from experiments; rather, it was mathematically derived from more fundamental physical laws and the definition of entropy. If anyone has the opportunity to hear him state his position, ask him which experiments he is referring to. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (02/11/85)
[] > You are I suppose talking about chemosynthetic bacteria. >This is still an *open* system, that is it is getting its energy >outside. I wasn't advancing them as an example of a closed life-supporting system, but just correcting a misstatement in the original article. Also, I think many other organisms (including some vertebrates) live in these colonies, not just bacteria, although the bacteria support the other organisms. Incidentally, if you haven't seen the program I referred to (The Living Planet, on PBS), I'd recommend it. It has some absolutely amazing film from all over the planet. I can't remember a program that kept surprising me the way this one did. The strongest impression I came away with was of the incredible variety of environments that life has managed to adapt itself to, in one way or another. Isaac Dimitrovsky
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (02/12/85)
[Replace this message with your line] > >On `The Living Planet' the other night, they mentioned colonies > >of life which are totally unsupported by photosynthesis. > >They live on the deep ocean floor, around ruptures in the earth's surface. > >Bacteria live on the gases ejected, other life forms live on the bacteria, > >and so on. > You are I suppose talking about chemosynthetic bacteria. > This is still an *open* system, that is it is getting its energy > outside. In this case the source of energy is the heat differential > between the surface of the Earth and its interior. Furthermore > this sort of energy metabolism represents a *very* small portion > of the total energy processed by living things, so it is of little > significance in determining the application of the second law of > thermodynamics to living systems. Actually, this came up before in this discussion. It was before net.origins when this was being argued in net.misc. The energy source in question is the heat in the core of the Earth, which is supplied by the decay of radioactive material. I pointed out that these seafloor communities are the only present example of terrestrial communities subsisting entirely on nuclear energy. To my chagrin someone else (I wish I could remember who) pointed out that I was forgetting the families of employees of the nuclear power industry. ***************************************************************** This is a generic disclaimer. As such it may contain unsightly impurities. However, these impurities are guaranteed to be purely cosmetic. They should have no effect on the functioning of the disclaimer. ***************************************************************** "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712