Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 10/6/83; site ihuxm.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!ihuxm!gjphw From: gjphw@ihuxm.UUCP (Patrick H. Wyant) Newsgroups: net.physics,net.religion Subject: Re: Scientific Creationism - A Summary Message-ID: <652@ihuxm.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Oct-83 18:53:43 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxm.652 Posted: Thu Oct 20 18:53:43 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Oct-83 00:42:46 EDT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il Lines: 117 I would like to join the melee created by A. England's (ihuxb!alle) entry on Scientific Creationism. The article submitted was incomplete, but still provides ample ground for criticism. The sentiments expressed by R. Noe (ihlts!rjnoe) seem strong but are probably appropriate for the individuals that subscribe to the scientific creation interpretation. We should be reminded of the treatment given to Velikovsky (sp?) and his "Worlds in Collision" books. The scientific establishment both ignored his ideas, and once formally refuted them (Carl Sagan led this). Independent of the approach, Velikovsky considered his ideas to be under attack because of the "danger" they presented to the established scientific beliefs. He claimed that this attack constituted the evidence supporting his ideas. And, since the combatants have their minds all made up, they are not likely to be confused by either argument or facts. Only those who are open to question will gain something from a discourse as invited by scientific creationism. I would not think that there would be much argument against the basic viewpoints presented in Allen's article, though the three points are not universally accepted truths. Most of human history, and many present day countries around the world, have very close ties between religion and daily life (e.g., Iran). At least in the western industrialized countries, the current attitude is to separate religion from public school education. Scientific creationism strikes me as an attempt to introduce religion into public education under the trappings of science. Being a church-going Christian, I recognize the intentions of creationism, but do not agree with the methods. Religion has many valuable things to say about our relationships to one another (morality), but it is not appropriate for religion to dictate our view of the physical and biological worlds. Public, and parochial, schools should clearly teach the methods and structure of secular science. Parochial education can then include the necessary adjuncts from religion. From my experience, a underlying force for scientific creationism requires that the proponents misunderstand the assumptions and techniques of science, and attempt to use that misunderstanding to reinterpret a variety of observations. As pointed out by L. Mammel (ihuxr!lew), the speed of light is interrelated to many phenomena, by current establishment understanding, so a changing speed of light would have profound consequences both at the microscopic (e.g., atomic) and macroscopic (e.g., cosmological) scales. It is far from a minor point to assert that the speed of light has made significant variations at any time. And considering the central role played by light in the theories of physics and astronomy, any challenge to the accepted paradigm for light will undoubtedly draw lots of heat from alot of bright physicists (I used to be one) and astronomers. W. Ewell (astrovax!mwe) has put forth refutations against several points expressed by Dr. Walter Brown. For those few who haven't made up their minds, I would like to amplify and add to Web's comments. 1. The theory of evolution is a descriptive theory, not a predictive one as most people would learn from physics and chemistry. Evolution is used to organize and structure a large body of observations and supposition, but is relatively useless at predicting where a particular species will go next. Claiming that the arguments are outdated, illogical, and wishful is not a strong enough assertion for me to reject evolution. Isaac Asimov wrote in one of his science columns that the only strong objection that people who opposed the concept of evolution ever expressed to him was that they were particularly unsettled by the idea that human beings had come from some "lower" animal. Most creationists want to keep humans distinct and separate from the fauna and flora of this planet. 2. A classic argument used by creationist to refute evolution is the second law of thermodynamics (i.e., entropy). Since all systems progress toward greater disorder, they assert that no mechanism could have led to such a complex organ as an eye or any living organism (e.g., dogs and cats). Any legion of mathematicians and physicists who work in statistical mechanics will be quoted in support. What is conveniently overlooked is the prerequisite condition for the application of the second law: thermal equilibrium. If the temperature within a system is uniform, then the system will proceed to greatest disorder. However, very few systems in the world are at thermal equilibrium. If you hold your hand out in the sun, the top side will be warmer than the bottom (shady) side. Thermal equilibrium will not be found here. I. Prigogine, a Nobel prize winner for his work in thermodynamics, has conducted experiments showing that in the presence of strong thermal gradients, fluid systems spontaneously develop ordered flow. Chemical systems can generate even more complex patterns in the absence of thermal equilibrium. 3. While my present readings in science have been reduced to the popular magazines (e.g., Science News), I have not heard of any evidence pointing to a younger Earth. I suspect that this is merely an assertion without support. Unfortunately, the technique of uranium dating makes an assumption about the composition of the material at the time the solid was formed. In any particular sample, the uranium-lead ratio is assumed to be exclusively uranium at the time of formation. Dating is performed by measuring the U-Pb ratio and employing the presumably well-known decay time and scheme for uranium. Using this technique, the Earth is in excess of 3.5 billion years old (consistent with Web's figure) and the solar system is about 4.55 billion years old (using data derived from meteorites). Any evidence to the contrary would be big news. 4. Noah's Ark may have existed, but I don't know if anyone has found it. There are many flood legends found around the World, and most are quite reasonable considering the importance of rivers and oceans to life and commerce. The great Flood in Genesis is sufficiently close to the Babylonian and Sumerian flood myths that they must have had a common origin. Creationists make a great case for themselves by invoking a literal interpretation of the Bible in support of their arguments. In summary, I would like to assert that scientific creationism exists to reintroduce religion into secular education under the guise of science. It is primarily an attempt to refute the concept of evolution and reestablish human beings as separate, distinct, and of a different origin than the other animals on this planet. The adherents attempt to refute the scientific establishment by using misinterpretations of science, and then claim that their view must be accepted since science is inconsistent. In making scientific creationism the default (if not science, then you must believe this), creationists make a serious logical error and demonstrate that they do not appreciate or utilize the methods of science. -- Patrick Wyant AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL) *!ihuxm!gjphw