Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-gandalf!hua
From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Creationist arguments, PART I
Message-ID: <204@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 3-Feb-85 16:50:37 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-g.204
Posted: Sun Feb 3 16:50:37 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 07:09:09 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 76
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 ...
-Keebler