Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site iham1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!iham1!gjphw From: gjphw@iham1.UUCP Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Response to Larry Bickford Message-ID: <243@iham1.UUCP> Date: Thu, 25-Oct-84 15:39:30 EDT Article-I.D.: iham1.243 Posted: Thu Oct 25 15:39:30 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 26-Oct-84 09:01:01 EDT References: <1223@hao.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 150 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!gjphw