lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (10/16/84)
[this line has not evolved out of existence]
[#1 in a series of 3 articles at this time. #2 is general responses.
#3 deals with Richard Carnes article on Scientific theory.]
Since Mike Ward, Ethan Vishniac, and many others have apparently kept
themselves in the dark rather than doing any research on their own about
scientific models for creation and have ignored previous postings
regarding a scientific model for creation, I suppose posting the
following *again* will mean little to them. Nevertheless, I can hope it
will.
"The creation model thus postulates a period of special creation
in the beginning, during which all the basic laws and categories
of nature, including the major kinds of plants and animals, as
well as man, were brought into existence by special creative and
integrative processes which are no longer in operation. Once the
creation was finished, the processes of *creation* were replaced
by process of *conservation*, which were designed by the Creator
to sustain and maintain the basic systems He had created.
"In addition ..., the creation model proposes a basic principle
of disintegration now at work in nature (since any significant
change in a *perfect* primeval creation must be in the direction
of imperfection). Also, the evidence in the earth's crust of
past physical convulsions seems to warrant inclusion of
post-creation global catastrophism in the model."
Morris, _Scientific Creationism_, p.12
A key difference between this and the evolutionary model that is so
often presented in this group can best be stated by Byron Howes' own
admission:
"Evolutionary theory doesn't have to deal with the genesis of
matter because the scope of evolutionaty [sic] is only (!) the
development of life forms. Creationists explicitly include the
unobservable as the creator of life forms."
Evolutionists thus neatly dodge some very basic issues, such as origin
of life and origin of the universe. Unfortunately, the evolution model
cannot escape its uniformitarian basis; thus it is not out of line for
creationists to force the concurrent study of all three origins. (My
appreciation to Professor John N. Moore of Michigan State for noting the
three parts of origins study in _How to Teach Origins (Without ACLU
Interference)_.) My question is "Why are the evolutionists unwilling to
deal with the *entire* issue of origins?"
One of the building blocks of the creation model is the recognition
"...that the evolution model ... assumes that natural laws and
process suffice to explain the origin and development of all
things. The creation model ... says that present laws and
processes are *not* sufficient to explain the phenomena found in
this present world."
Morris, op. cit., p.92
Some postulate the existence of matter/energy at some point, dismissing
any further study as "beyond the realm of science." This is the very
pseudo-science that evolutionists accuse creationists of. Even if the
events appear not to have left any evidence, there still remains the
study to see whether natural laws and processes, operating as they do
now, would have been sufficient to account for what is. And it is the
claim of creation scientists that they are *not* sufficient, thereby
justifying the pursuit of other possible causes.
Inevitably (as Ray Mooney did), the philosophical question of "First
Cause" arises. And well it should - the evolution model CANNOT provide
a satisfactory answer to it. Yet it must, for by its statements, all
things must have an answer within what we see. The creation model, on
the other hand, admits to a realm beyond science, where a First Cause is
fully possible.
Apart from the study of "what was before," we can study "what it was
like as far back as we can see." In this, the evolution and creation
models separate. Evolution views a very simplistic world, later to be
built up both biologically and geologically. Creation views a completed
world, later to degenerate. The geology of the evolutionary world was
built fairly uniformly. The geology of the created world was broken down
and restructured by catastrophes. We can study the implications of the
two models as they pertain to geologic features.
Ethan Vishniac presented his views to support his ideas that overthrusts
actually occurred. Among his six points are the following implicit
observations or fallacies:
1. That sections of the Earth's surface appear to be moving
relative to one another at typical rates of about 1"/year.
2. That these motions are persistent?
Observation: how do we know that the 1"/year has been so for the 4.5
billion years of Vishniac's point 3?
4. That 4.5 billion years * 1"/year = 71,000 miles.
5. That the above points imply that continents have more than
enough time to collide repeatedly.
Observations: would the continents "collide repeatedly"? If the 1"/year
motion has been continuing for 4.5E9 years, the continents would have
all come back together again!
The big problem with "overthrust geology" is the complete lack of
evidence that it ever occurred. The challenge to the evolutionist: APART
FROM THE ASSUMPTION OF EVOLUTION, what evidence is there that
overthrusting has occurred? There is very good evidence that it hasn't -
* we're not talking about a few small boulders moved by a flood (:-);
these rocks are HUGE and the distances on the order of 35 miles!
* a noticeable absence of brecciation at the contact plane (i.e., moving
the top rock into place should have devastated the surfaces of both
rocks. The contact plane is particularly noted because later surface
erosion could not occur there).
* the rock on top rests very comfortably on the rock below - not a very
natural occurrence, yet distinctly present in all "overthrusts."
To the contrary of Bill Jefferys claim, it is not Flood Geology which is
preposterous, it is evolutionary geology which has more holes than a tax law.
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab
You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.gjphw@iham1.UUCP (10/23/84)
This article is being written to critique specific arguments advanced by
L. Bickford (qubix!lab) in a recent series of submissions. I will deal with
only certain items or topics rather than the total collection of comments made
by Mr. Bickford. A summary follows at the end. At the time of this writing,
two other articles by S. Tynor (gitpyr!tynor) and R. Hartley (cvl!rlh) have
appeared in reply to the original posting with which I agree. My goal is to
amplify the criticism of creationism concerning topics ancillary to evolution.
First, there does appear to be ample confusion concerning the specific
proposals of creationism. The Institute for Creation Research, headed by
H.M. Morris, favors a specific proposal call "special creation" which
resembles the Biblical description of Genesis. While Larry B. quotes from
Morris extensively, it is not clear if he personally subscribes to the special
creation scenario. However, I will also quote from Morris because he is most
accessible. Mr. Bickford has said that creationism does not necessarily
depend upon the Bible. Unfortunately, the principal author of special
creation has been quite specific about the relationship between the Bible and
the ISR proposal, for in Morris (*Biblical Cosmology*, pg 33) we can read:
...no geological difficulties, real or imagined, can
be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements
and necessary inferences of Scripture.
Additionally, this attitude also expresses a clear disregard for independent
data.
As an aside, one of the important points of creationism is a return to
catastrophism (especially floods) from uniformitarianism (introduced in the
seventeenth century) to describe Earth geology. There is at least one book
which reintroduces the term catastrophism into mainstream geology, though the
catastrophies (large meteor impacts with the Earth) and the time scales
(approxmately every 33 million years) are not quite what the creationists
advocate.
From the three major requirements for a scientific theory, I, too, agree
that *prior observations* refers to the requirement that any theory must
correlate the data known before the theory is formulated. It does not refer
to a need to explain events beyond the (time) domain of the theory. This
interpretation would require that any theory in any discipline deal with all
phenomena in the universe (e.g., an acceptable theory for evolution would also
entail quantum mechanics). Creationism alone requires a wholesale revamping
of science (including my favorite subject - physics).
The second criterion for a theory requires that its continued use suggests
new relations and stimulate research. The third criterion seeks predictions
that can be tested and solutions of practical problems. According to a
quotation provided by Mr. Bickford from Morris, creationism includes a
statement that the processes that led to the creation of the universe are no
longer in operation or, presumably, observable. It seems contradictory for a
scientific theory to have, as one of its basic tenants, unobservable
phenomena. And, as reinforced by D. Gish (in *Evolution? The Fossils Say
No!*, pg 42),
We cannot discover by scientific investigation
anything about the creative processes used by
the Creator.
Most creationists appear comfortable entertaining an unempirical hypothesis
while labeling it science. Any proposal that incorporates unobservable
processes fails the requirements for empirical testability or allowing growth
through further research. On the other hand, one of the failings that
Mr. Bickford has claimed of evolution is that it lacks any treatment of
ultimate origins (for life, the universe, and everything). It does appear
that he seeks a theory of evolution that includes quantum field theory among
other details. I do not think that any one theory need be so all encompassing
to be valuable or scientific.
Finally, due to the impression that both evolution and creationism do not
satisfy the criteria for a scientific theory, both are labeled models. When I
went through graduate school (physics), a model was considered to be more
restrictive in domain and applicability than a theory, but both had to satisfy
all of the requirements of a theory. In other words, models, usually
consisting of mental pictures and an appropriate set of equations, were more
specific and less general than theories, which were more abstract and had
fewer conditions. Models are special cases of theories, or an application of
theories and mathematics to a particular situation or system, and not
sufficiently different from theories so that different criteria of
acceptability apply.
Next, I will deal with specific phenomena that creationists in general, and
Mr. Bickford in particular, see as shortcomings of modern geology and,
consequently, support for creationism (generating an artificial dichotomy that
evolution or creationism are the only possible descriptions of nature). The
majority of the doubts about mainstream geology are derived from Morris, the
director of the ISR. Once again, in *Biblical Cosmology* (ppg 59-62), Morris
lists 23 major geological differences between special creationism and
empirical research, then proceeds to reject the geological findings because
they conflict with special creation (i.e., the theory is used to validate the
data).
> Decay of earth's magnetic field
In a related submission, Mr. Bickford properly cautions us about extrapolating
the presently observed values for continental drift back through the entire
lifetime of the Earth. It could have, and probably was, different at
different times. Yet, when presented with the currently observed value for
the decline in the field strength of the Earth's magnetic field, he accepts a
simple extrapolation back through time. Geology textbooks tell of being able
to detect the reversal of the Earth's magnetic field in igneous rocks, so that
both the field strength and polarity of the Earth's magnetic field has changed
over time. When the field strength reaches zero, it merely reverses polarity
and gains strength in continuation of an aperiodic cycle.
> Influx of radiocarbon into the earth system
The details of this argument are unclear to me. Radioactive carbon, or
carbon-14, is generated through a nuclear reaction in the upper atmosphere
between cosmic rays and nitrogen (which is 78% of Earth's air). As long as
the Earth has air and cosmic rays impact the air, radioactive carbon will be
one of the products. Carbon-14 is only useful for dating once-living objects
less than 5E4 years old, so it is unclear how this is related to the supposed
age of the Earth and solar system. Some recent discussion has surfaced
concerning variability in the cosmic ray intensity with time, but these
variations might be periodic (and therefore correctable) and would not affect
age estimates by even an order of magnitude (factor of 10).
> Efflux of He-4 into the atmosphere
The most common isotope of helium, and second most common element in the known
universe, has two sources for the Earth. First, helium has the cosmogenic
source (e.g., novae, supernovae, and the Big Bang) and the second is a mode of
radioactivity called alpha decay. The solar system is presumed to be formed
from second generation material (i.e., material ejected from novae or
supernovae) to explain the enhanced abundances of heavy chemical elements
compared to observed galatic abundances. Virtually all of the cosmogenic
helium has escaped the surface and atmosphere of the Earth. However, the
alpha particle, emitted during alpha decay (clever naming convention, eh?), is
a helium nucleus. It can capture two electrons and form itself into a helium
atom without any difficulty. As long as radioactive materials exist in the
Earth that emit alpha particles, there will be helium detectable on Earth.
The sole commercial source of helium today comes from oil wells where the gas,
generated from alpha decay of radioactive material, sits at the top of oil
cavities deep underground. Helium seeps slowly through rock and can escape
into the atmosphere on its lonesome.
> Decay lines of galaxies
> Expanding interstellar gas
I am unfamiliar with these phenomena, and they are getting beyond the arena of
my personal competence, so I will not comment further.
My final comments concern radiometric dating techniques. It appears as if
creationists in general, and Mr. Bickford in particular, feel that they have
some new insight concerning radiometry that geologists and physicists have not
considered over the 60+ years that radioactivity has been studied. Geological
radiometry does not rely on a single radioactive species but rather employs
three major elements (potassium-40, uranium-238, and rubidium-87) and two
minor elements (uranium-235 and thorium-232). The best results are obtained
from a sample where all three major dating isotopes can be used. Each isotope
has its own chemical properties and correction technique to allow for daughter
elements present at its formation (potassium is the best for this). It is
only after examining thousands of samples from the Earth and meteorites that
confidence has been built up in an estimate for the age of the solar system of
4.55E9 years (moon samples have been a recent addition that contribute to the
confidence of the age estimate).
The invariability of decay rates has been extensively studied, for if there
is one thing that physicists like, it's constants of nature. There are
specific radioactive decay modes of specific isotopes that do show a
dependence upon chemical composition, but the largest variation known is 3.2%.
This is far too small to permit the many orders of magnitude difference
between 4.55E9 of geology and 7E3 of special creation. The vast majority of
radioactive elements, including the standard elements used for radiometry,
have not displayed any variability in their decay rates with chemical
concentration, pressure, temperature, or time for ordinary matter (solid,
liquid, or gas; if interested in radioactive decay in the plasma phase, e.g.,
the sun, then such radioactivity would be the least of my worries). The
insensitivity of radioactive decay rates is one of the items incorporated into
nuclear theory (in physics, the class of theories and models that describe the
nucleus of atoms are lumped together as nuclear theory). It would be
necessary to radically alter nuclear theory in order to accommodate the
variability in decay rates that are suggested by creationists.
If there is more substance to this variability of decay rates issue than
*...since it can be imagined, therefore it must be so*, it has yet to be known
in the American Physical Society publications. If Mr. Bickford has specific
reasons to suspect the invariability of radioactive decay rates, I would like
to know them. One oblique reference has been made to an article concerning
this in a creation science journal, but I do not have ready access to such
publications.
In summary, we must recognize that long standing controversies rarely
concern what they purport to concern. If the creationism-evolution
controversy were a matter of science, it could readily be resolved.
Evolutionists and creationists have argued as if the issues were scientific
ones, resolvable by appeal to the data. Since creationism predates
evolutionism, and the debate goes on, the cause of the conflict must lie
elsewhere.
Creationism requires the extensive rewriting of science throughout all
disciplines, and exits primarily by criticizing mainstream science even about
issues that have been resolved. Creationists have not gotten beyond the level
of the popular misconceptions concerning science because science is not their
goal. By manipulating these popular misconceptions, creationists seek to win
a battle before the public (e.g., certain textbooks used in schools), not
before the scientific community. They have a point to make (i.e., the
inerrancy of the Bible) and will not be dissuaded by any data. Further
argumentation on the broader issues of evolution is fruitless.
--
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!iham1!gjphw