Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site linus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!sidney
From: sidney@linus.UUCP (Sidney Markowitz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Response to flames
Message-ID: <377@linus.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-May-85 13:31:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: linus.377
Posted: Tue May 14 13:31:53 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 04:31:51 EDT
References: <253@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA> <303@scgvaxd.UUCP> <1518@hao.UUCP> <310@scgvaxd.UUCP> <311@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: sidney@linus.UUCP (Sidney Markowitz)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Lines: 294
Summary: 

I don't know why I'm bothering, but somehow I just can't let such obvious
illogic go unchallenged. I have this faint, irrational hope (is that faith?)
that Dan might actually think through the logic of an argument if it is
presented in sufficiently small and simple steps. So even if I am
perpetuating the sin of arguing nits instead of ignoring them and continuing
to press the creationists for a theory, here goes...

In article <311@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes:
>
>  WOW! What a series of flames. But so far all I got was name-calling
>  and NO SCIENCE!!

For the sake of (minimization of) argument I will concede that the
particular responses you selected are "flames" and will present "scientific"
alternative answers: (By the way - Dan, would you please use the ">"
convention in your quotes -- It was very hard to tell who wrote what in your
messages. Thanks)

>DAN:
> More positive evidence for creation is in the Second Law! The universe
> is running down. It can't be running down forever. Somewhere it must
> have been wound up; a starting point.
>FLAME:
>Are you just looking for flames or what?  Do you even know what the
>second law says?  Obviously not.

Non-flame alternative answer:
The laws of thermodynamics state that entropy increases in a closed
system. The implication is that the universe will die a heat death. Another
implication is that there is some kind of starting point. As entropy
increases, everything "winds down", meaning that a direction is imposed on
time. By looking at what is happening at what rate we can extrapolate back
to some "beginning". This extrapolation seems to indicate that some billions
of years ago, the universe was at such a low entropy that it has taken this
long to get to the current level of overall "disorder", and it has quite a
few more billions of years to play itself out.
1) In quoting the second law and talking about its implied beginning to the
universe, are you really conceding that the special act of creation you are
talking about was a super-low entropy universe billions of years ago? That
seems to be the implication.
2) "Entropy" is not exactly the same as lack of "order" or "complexity".
When used in thermodynamics it represents a mathematical quantity which is
more closely related to the concept of "concentration of energy". So in a
closed system, everything will tend to get to the same temperature. In the
case of water, it takes less energy for the molecules to fit snugly together
in a regular crystalline structure. So, if increasing entropy means that when
the available energy is spread around evenly the molecules don't have enough
energy to keep themselves apart, you'll have ice. If there is more total
energy in the system, then each molecule will have more and you'll have
water. The point is that the second law does not talk about order or
complexity. It talks about concentrations of energy. It allows for
snowflakes and people to come into being without a violation of the second
law for each individual. It even allows for energy concentrated in the sun
to be distributed to the earth where it could lead to DNA forming in a soup
in a process that takes *much* longer than the formation of a snowflake.
3) Calling the second law of thermodynamics a "law" is a bit misleading,
just like Newtons "laws" of motion. Thermodynamics provides an organizing
principle for observations made at a certain level of detail of size, speed,
time, energy, etc. Newton's laws proved to be inaccurate for the very large,
very fast and very small. Same thing with thermodynamics. The "laws" work
well in the world of direct experience -- we don't see cups of water
spontaneously boil at room temperature and pressure, we don't have to worry
about all the air molecules in the room suddenly going off in one direction.
But if you extrapolate the state of the universe far enough back in time you
get to such extreme conditions of concentration of energy that we have to
say that further research is needed to explain how things behaved under
those conditions. Before you take this to mean that scientific laws are
therefore inexact and therefore nonsense, let me add: Just like Newton's
laws of motion continue to validly describe objects well below light-speed,
current scientific theories do very well at describing the universe since
approximately 1e-32 seconds or so after the "Big Bang". If you want to
explain the remaining portion as a special act of a creator, go ahead, but I
would allow at least another 1e-64 seconds or so that may yet be explained by
physicists over the next few years. ( :-) )

>DAN:
> Evolutionists say the Second Law does not apply to the earth because
> it is an open system. However the universe is a closed system. Given
> this, how could it have started in the first place. Before Evolution
> could have started on earth, it first had to produce earth, in a closed
> system; The Universe!
>FLAME:
>Evolution "started"?  "on earth"?  you mean evolution actually had a
>beginning?  you mean evolution does not occur elsewhere?  PLEASE!  Get
>some real understanding of what you criticize before you begin criticizing
>it!  Evolution is not limited to the earth!  What do you think we are?
>Special?  Evolution does not have a beginning!  Evolution is just another
>name for the natural flow of things.  There is no reason to believe that
>there is actually a beginning for the natural flow of things.
>DAN:
> Do you know how the English language works. I said, "Before E. could
> have started on earth...it first had to produce earth"
>
> Where did I say that it started "ON" earth. Who is quoting who out
> of context?

Non-flame answer:
"Evolution" within the context of this newsgroup usually refers to the set
of explanations for the development of life in its current form on Earth
that attempts to account for such evidence as the fossil record,
similarities in proteins, etc. by describing mechanisms by which species can
change (evolve) over long time periods. "Creationism", in contrast, seems to
be the belief that life in its current form was created on Earth all at
once. (I would like to say that it is an explanation for the development ...
that attempts to account for evidence ..., but I've yet to see any
creationist theory presented in that form. Unlike Evolution, the belief
comes first.) Given those definitions, you can believe anything you want
about the origin of the "closed system" of the Universe and still be on
either side of the Evolution/Creationism "debate". By this definition,
Evolution did not produce Earth, it is a set of explanations about what
happened on Earth afterwards. In regards to the production of the Earth
without a special act of creation, that is not contradicted by the laws of
thermodynamics. Given the proper initial conditions, a planet will form.
Just like given the proper initial conditions a snowflake will form. How did
those initial conditions arise? From the immediately preceding conditions.
And so on. You can extrapolate back about 10 billion years or so that way
before scientists don't know anymore. As I said before, if you want to call
the origin of the universe at the time of the big bang act of special
creation, go right ahead (until physicists extend their theories a little
further back and you have to extend your act of creation back, too.)

> Evolution had no beginning? Sounds like Hinduism! What kind of science
> is this? Is this net.ORIGINS or net.naturalflow?

Here I will flame:
I resent your implied criticism of Hinduism! If you want to flame about the
ignorant pagans who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior,
please do so in net.religion.bigot!!!

>FLAME!
>  Why do you say that ice is more ordered than liquid water?
>
>				      Dan
>
>Because it is less random; the molecules are not free to wander around
>to the same extent that they can in a liquid.
>DAN:
>
> In other words, water, when acted upon by an external energy source,
> (electricity), with a driving mechanism and a program for specific
> work, (refrigeration), is transformed to a state of higher order.
> But when left to its own devices reverts back to a lower order or
> random state.
>
> Remember this:
> Every system when left to its own devices always tend to move from order
> to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed to lower levels of
> availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and
> unavailability for further work.

Non-flame answer:
Ice may be "more ordered" than liquid water, but that's not what entropy
means. When water is placed in a cold environment, increasing entropy
implies heat transfer from the water to the environment.  When ice is placed
in a warm environment, increasing entropy implies heat transfer to the ice.
In the one case, increasing entropy leads to ice, in the other to liquid. A
simpler explanation for water freezing in the refrigerator is that it's cold
in there! Take the water to Antartica and you will see water, left to its
own devices, turn into ice. How do I think this is this relevant to a
discussion of evolution/creationism? It illustrates the point that you can't
apply the second law of thermodynamics to an arbitrary definition of "order"
when it really talks about a mathematically defined notion of "entropy".

>FLAME:
> Darwinism is on its way out! If you don't think so, you are not up
> on current Evolution theory. Punctuationism is whats happening and this
> is just as much magic as you say Creation is. What is the difference
> between God creating Adam, and a reptile giving birth to a bird?
>
>Come on!  No punctuated equilibriumist will tell you that a reptile ever
>gave birth to a bird!  Quit misrepresenting things which you obviously
>know little about!

Non-flame answer:
Punctuated Equilibrium is an evolutionary theory that claims that
evolutionary changes tend to cluster in relatively short (on the order of
10,000 years) periods, in between relatively long (millions of years)
periods of stability. The scientists who espouse P.E. tend to avoid magical
explanations quite as much as other scientists do, and would be as unlikely
to claim that reptiles give birth to birds as they would be to claim that
all humans are descended from the Adam (and Eve) of Genesis.

>FLAME:
> "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"!
>
>Fool!  You people never give up, do you?!  Would you care to explain
>how one defines "design"?  (I warn you, I will nail you to the wall
>if you even try 'cause I know you will have to strain logic beyond
>its limits to do this.)
>DAN:
> Design - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary - verb. To conceive and plan
> out in the mind. To have as a purpose. To devise as for a specific
> function or end. To conceive or execute a plan.
> noun. A mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down.
> A particular purpose held in view by an individual or group.
> Deliberate purposive planning!
>

non-flame answer:
The original proposition was "(1) Design is evidence of a designer. (2) Living
things are obviously designed. (3) Therefore there is a designer." [my
paraphrase]

There are actually three words to define here, "design" (noun), "designer"
and "design" (verb). Webster's New Collegiate  (9th edition) provides 7
definitions for the noun form of "design", of which you mentioned only #2,
#1a and b. Definition 5a "an underlying scheme that governs functioning,
developing or unfolding: PATTERN, MOTIF <as in: the general design of the
epic>" is the only one that does not contain an element of "deliberate
purposive". Webster's definition of "designer" is: "one that designs: as a)
one who creates and often executes plans for a project or structure; b) one
that creates and manufactures a new product style or design, esp: one who
designs and manufactures high-fashion clothing." The verb form is as you
stated, although you didn't distiguish between the transitive and
intransitive forms. (Saying something was designed is a use of the
transitive form.)
So, with these definitions, we have:
1) "Design is evidence of a designer" is tautologically true -- the
applicable definitions of "design" all imply a designer who planned it.
Alternatively, you could allow the word "design" to mean "pattern or motif"
and then this statement is not true for that use of the word "design". So
we'll continue the line of reasoning, remembering not to use that definition
of "design" in this context.
2) "Life is obviously designed" -- Here is the flaw in the argument. All the
definitions of "design" (verb, trans.) include purposive planning. Just
using the word implies a designer. The source of your error is revealed in
the next quote:

> Design can be described as that which has irreducible properties of
> organization.

Here's the problem. By this definition (ignoring the ambiguities) life can
be called "designed". Or perhaps you can stretch it a bit more and say that
life "has design", and then use that to say that it "is designed". But --
you have just made up a new definition of design in terms of organization.
Webster does not say anywhere that design == organization. So, according to
Webster, you should say "life is highly organized" instead of "life is
designed". Implying structure, rather than purposive planning.

> For example, what does it take to make an airplane fly? Creative
> design and organization. Take off the wings and see if they will
> fly! Take out the engine and see if it will fly. In other words,
> an airplane is a collection of non-flying parts! But what makes it
> fly? Creative design and organization.

And here you add the word "creative" to the "design == organization"
assumption. The organization ( == structured relationship) of the parts is
necessary for the plane to fly. The creative design is something else, that
went into building it. (I won't argue with the statement that someone
designed and built that airplane.)

> Second, among all the molecules that translate DNA into protein, there'e
> not one molecule that is alive. Not a single molecule in your body is
> alive. A living cell is a collection of non-living molecules. What does
> it take to make a living cell alive? Design and CREATION!

And now you have dropped the word "organization" and turned the phrase
"creative design" into "design and CREATION". Those three phrases do not
mean the same thing. If you eliminate the fallacial equivalence of "design"
and "organization", then you are left with: airplanes fly because of the
organization of non-flying parts; cells live because of the organization of
non-living parts.

> The difference between a tumbled pebble and an arrowhead, an automobile
> and a junkyard, a statue and a mountain, a human being and a pile of
> chemicals is that one is a result of time, chance, and inherent properties
> of matter, and the other has irreducible properties of organization that
> were produced by design and creation.
>
>					Dan (A created being)

How is it that your arguments allow for you to have arisen from your
parents, and not through an individual act of special creation? Do you
consider that God set a process in motion by creating Adam and Eve, and that
process continues today? Is that how snowflakes come to be? If so, how would
believing in a creator that started things off with the big-bang and a very
well thought out set of laws contradict any of your arguments?

I too find wonder and delight in the beauty of the construction of the
universe, the way everything fits together so that the chaos of a big-bang
can lead to the joy of a baby's laughter. I think of the quarks trapped in
a cloud of virtual gluons in their hadron bubbles in that tumbled pebble,
and it is every bit as wonderous an example of the organization of the
universe as is a human being.

Anyway, my apologies for such a long posting -- I hope that I have at least
sufficiently dealt with the second law and the "design ==> designer"
arguments in a way that can be easily understood.

-- 
					Sidney Markowitz

ARPA:	sidney@mitre-bedford
UUCP:	...{allegra,decvax,genrad,ihnp4,philabs,security,utzoo}!linus!sidney