| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Mark Morgan on 10/21/2001; 6:08 PM Certainly this interview with Tom Willis is the most disturbing thing I've read this year. How can this man claim to be trained in logic and then say the things he does? I'm not afraid of the big bad fundamentalist. I've criticized the woman with the highest IQ in the world. After that, a mere peasant like Tom Willis holds no fear for me. Complexity, thy name is deceitOut of the starting gate, Willis makes a recurring fallacious creationist argument, the "watchmaker" argument. The standard form of this is if you find a watch, you cannot reasonably argue that it was created at random. Willis uses a comb--explain how a comb could be created at random. I can't, and evolutionary biologists don't. They say that the randomness of nature is constrained by the forces of natural selection. Take the hemoglobin molecule, complex as all hell. Surely the odds against that are too high to have evolved at random. Well, no. First, hemoglobin did not evolve at random. It evolved in the framework of natural selection. Second, what's so special about hemoglobin? Maybe there are ten million different molecules that could do hemoglobin's job; if there is a on in ten million chance of any of them evolving by random, then one will.(1) My point is not that I know anything about how hemoglobin evolves; my point is that neither does Tom Willis. Nothing in evolution is completely random; all of evolution happens within the constraints of environment and survival of the fittest. It's an argument with flawed logic. Technically, it is called a straw man argument: create a false version of your opponent's argument, then demolish that. Evolution does not say life evolved out of pure randomness; but if you claim it does, you can easily demolish that claim. You attack the straw man, and not the reality. Further, quite frankly, people are not the best designed things in the world. Our eyes have parts that are backwards and upside down. Most engineers could design a better system than the lower back for supporting the weight of our bodies. It just doesn't hold water to say that we must have been designed. I dunno, maybe we are, but the evidence is not as clear as Willis and other Intelligent Design Creationists would have the world believe. "Obviously we are designed to wear spectacles; look at how the nose is perfect for spectacles!" The Pointless Accusations of Evil GameBut that kind of bush-league non-logic should not bother any of us. Surely the schools, if they had any damn backbone, could teach children the critical thinking skills necessary to see around such crap arguments. But then Willis begins to play the Game. "You can argue that the Inquisition and the Crusades came from Christianity. But you cannot defend either from Scripture. But you can easily defend Nazi and Communist behaviour from evolutionary theory. Certainly, before Hitler started shooting at Joe Stalin you would not have found many people defending an anti-Hitler view, even in the great bastion of freedom in the United States. That's important. It's important to realise that was a scientific view. Hitler's views were argued to be scientific by many men on every side of the pond, and they managed to carry the day in Eastern Europe. If you recall, Hitler walked into Austria without firing a shot. That's how popular his views were. It is not just an idle notion that men will believe things that are silly and call them scientific."Oh, you insidious bastard. Keep reading, and he goes on to tell us that evolution is "[O]ne of the best-crafted apologetic systems for evil that I've seen in history." On the one hand he blithely dismisses the Inquisition and the Crusades, and on the other he blames biology theory for the Holocaust. Well. I shan't play the Game back, since I keep score and I have to remain neutral and all that. I'll resist the urge to find Scripture that could be quoted by a Hitler to justify his claims (which Hitler did, I am sure--any tool in the propoganda toolbelt). But I will talk briefly about Social Darwinism, which is what Hitler and the Nazis practiced. Social Darwinism is the idea that the weak of society should be allowed to die to allow the strong to survive. First, it's relationship to Darwinism: the name. That's it. Social Darwinism makes the classic mistake of confusing the "is" with the "ought." It makes the same mistake Indian Buddhism makes: people "are" some place in society, so they "ought" to be in that place in society. They call it Karma, and it's the main reason I'm not a Buddhist any more. But there is nothing in evolution that supports this argument. It's based on a distorted view of natural selection, that to prosper it must be at some others' expense. But evolution proposes no goal and no direction, so anything that makes you prosper is Good Enough. A lot of biology is dependent on cooperation. You have bacteria in your intestines that break down foods so you can absorb it. It's a cooperative relationship. Evolution no more automatically implies a dog-eat-dog philosophy than Christianity autmomatically implies a world that God put for us to do with however we wish. Okay, a little bit of the Game, blaming Christianity for the destruction of the environment. I promise that's it. Politics, science, and GodWillis' goals are clearly not to find a better answer; it is for schools and society to accept his answer, and abandon the scientific enterprise. "You virtually never hear a Christian defend evolutionism from the Bible." He tries to position evolution as politics, or another religion. But science is neither. Humans are inherently political, but scientists come from all walks of life and sometimes can't stand to be in the same room. Science is apolitical, so it is obvious that Willis is just trying to tell you what's wrong with you. Don't let him. Science is the only human endeavor that is better than we are. I might be pushing my political agenda in my research on species diversity, but when the researcher in Malaysia tries to duplicate the findings, how likely is it that they are pushing the same agenda? Or that they have exactly the same biases? I might fudge my data, but after putting my paper through blind peer review--where they don't know who I am when they eviscerate my paper--and then the results are published where everyone can see them, how likely is that to survive? Take the recent flap National Geographic caused by rushing into publication some supposed fossil evidence. No peer review. And the second the scientific community took a look at it, the flaws in the research stood out like a sunburn after a day at the beach. The public nature of science is such that science is inherently apolitical and areligious. Particularly now, when research is conducted, in public, all over the world. I'm sorry that Willis feels it is necessary to lie to you about evolution, to attack it as evil and harmful, to claim a political agenda where there is none. I will merely say what I always say: check the evidence, and decide for yourself. But do take the time to really try and understand evolution in particular, and science in general, before you fall under the spell of such as this man. (1)This part of my argument has engendered some debate. Might I be misusing probablity as badly as I claim others are?
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 4/25/2000; 10:50 PM Great essay. Doubt I'd have the energy to put something like that together so quickly, but then I'm more of a "live and let live" person. Only thing I have a question about is his last statement, which you didn't respond to. I'm not really surprised that he says that you can't really tell if the Earth moves around the sun or the sun moves around the Earth. But... the guy claims to be a scientist. I'm no scientist, but wouldn't proving which moves around which be ridiculously easy? And doesn't it seem that the Smashmouth song "Then the Morning Comes" being used an awful lot in commercials and the beginning of Dateline segments lately? (Ah, Dateline. Trial by media. Who couldn't love it?)
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Mark Morgan on 4/25/2000; 11:20 PM Under relativity, the Earth moves around the Sun if you look at it that way, or the Sun moves around the Earth if you look at it that way. It's mildly deceptive to say you can't say at all--you can agree to use the Sun as the common reference point for the solar system because it vastly simplifies explaining the mechanics of the solar system. But technically speaking, one center for the solar system is as equally "correct" as another.
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 4/26/2000; 1:24 AM That's pretty much what I figured. And wouldn't Occam's Razor come into play here since, as you say, it simplifies things to have the sun as the agreed-upon point of reference? All I can say is, the guy's a moron with an argument that we've all heard a million times before. Give it a rest.
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Mark Morgan on 4/26/2000; 2:23 AM Something has been bothering me all evening, though. Did New Scientist deliberately choose the most offensive Creationist they could find because he was an easy target? Some of their questions seemed like setups for him to say the ridiculous things he said. And none of this would matter except that these people are influencing school boards and state legislatures and curriculum development and teaching; if it's to be trench warfare for the education of our children, so be it. It's too important to ignore.
If you're going to take on creationists, don't use unsound claims By: Brian Carnell on 4/26/2000; 10:39 PM Not to be a pain in the ass stickler, but you did ridicule the creationists hold on logic, which is fine since they are generally nut cases (ad hominem, I know), but then almost immediately after you appear to make a fallacious statement yourself: "Maybe there are ten million different molecules that could do hemoglobin's job; if there is a on [sic] in ten million chance of any of them evolving by random, then one will." This does not appear to be an accurate statement. The odds of a coin coming up heads rather than tails is 1 in 2 for each flip, but it doesn't follow that if I flip a coin twice that one of the results *must* be heads.
RE: If you're going to take on creationists, don't use unsound claims By: Mark Morgan on 4/26/2000; 11:37 PM Hrrm...I was thinking of a roulette wheel with ten million slots. So there is a one in ten million chance of hitting any particular slot, but it is guaranteed that at least one slot will be chosen. But you're right, that's not what I wrote.
Re: If you're going to take on creationists, don't use unsound claims By: Mark Morgan on 4/27/2000; 12:48 AM The more I think on this, the less tenable my argument sounds to my own ears. My main point is that Creationists claim that some things are too unlikely to have evolved in the lifetime of the universe; but we just don't know enough to calculate the probabilities properly. And Mark shouldn't be claiming that Creationists don't understand probability theory and then go not understand probability theory himself. I may just cut that whole argument, as it weakens the piece (and includes a typo!). Thinking, thinking, thinking. . . . .
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Andrew on 1/12/2001; 11:14 AM Hi. Just wanted to add a reply to your essay. First, if I am not mistaken there is a so called 'law' in science that you can not get order from chaos. The 'Big Bang' would have been very chaotic. Life on earth in essence is very orderly. I digress. Your desire to teach children critical thinking skills "necessary to see around crap arguments" would in fact lead children to discredit the evolutionist theory. Of course Hitler could have quoted scripture to justify his means. That is the whole problem with 'religion'. People quoting the bible to justify themselves. The bible is not to be used as a means to point out how right you are. But how right God is and how fallible you are. It is impossible to blame 'Christianity' for the enviornmental problems we have. Blame yourself. Blame me. We all contribute. The bible actually commands us to care for the earth. Everything is political. Whether we realize it or not. There is a greater political war going on than you can see right now. Good vs. Evil. You are so quick to defend science, yet so quick to dismiss creationism. Was the theory of Ether scientifical? Of course, in the days before Einstein shattered that theory. In fact there has been numerous scientifical facts disproven throughout the ages. Has anyone disproved Creationism in over 4000 years. No. So ask yourself which side of the fence are you on? Is your argument really without an agenda? You also write "Science is the only human endeavor that is better than we are", which frankly doesn't make much sense. If it is a human endeavor, how can it be better than human? What you are really saying is that you trust science more than humans. That you love science more than humans and you think that the creation is better than it's creator. Which is your whole misguided problem in the first place. Just to make myself clear; I do think that the Universe and everything in it is worth studying, analyzing and theorizing over. I do not, however, believe it is right for anyone to say "I have discovered it, thus, it is so!" You and I both know we can barely go through a day without lying, if not to someone else than surely ourselves. Our intelligence is amazing. Just ask us. We are able to create and destroy. But there is one who is revealing Himself through time, who will make the laws we have observed in the universe irrellevant. Study Quantum physics for an eye opener. respect. Andrew.
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Brian Carnell on 1/12/2001; 12:40 PM At 10:30 AM 1/12/01 -0500, Andrew wrote: >Hi. Just wanted to add a reply to your essay. First, if I am not mistaken >there is a so called 'law' in science that you can not get order from >chaos. The 'Big Bang' would have been very chaotic. Life on earth in >essence is very orderly. This is incorrect. I assume you're referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that closed systems tend toward increased entropy. What that means is that over time the amount of energy available in the universe available to do work must decline (assuming the universe is a closed system). That, however, does not preclude order coming from chaos provide that order ends up using less energy which is exactly what happens. When, for example, hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to form water molecules, although there is more "order" to our minds, the result is also an increase in entropy since the amount of useable energy in the universe just declined. Look at our own little system here with the Earth and the Sun. Regardless of how life began on our planet, the reason it is able to continue is the enormous amount of energy our planet receives from the sun. Because of that enormous influx of that energy, life on Earth has been able to create a dizzying array of complexity. The Sun-Earth system, however, is highly entropic -- only a small portion of the energy given off by the Sun is converted into work, the rest of it ending up as waste heat. To use currently popular terms, the Earth's current use of energy is unsustainable and assuming the sun doesn't got supernova or something eventually the energy must run out and then life on this planet is in serious trouble (we've only got a few billion years I believe). Many creationists try to claim that the Second Law forbids complex structures from arising out of simple structures, but in fact all that it requires is that energy be dispersed over time. BTW, *if* the Second Law actually strictly meant that complex structures couldn't arise spontaneously from simpler structures, then life itself would be literally impossible even if God created the world yesterday (i.e. if God exists and created the universe, he created it with physical laws that do not make evolution impossible, at least on this point). > Everything is political. Whether we realize it or not. There is a > greater political war going on than you can see right now. Good vs. > Evil. You are so quick to defend science, yet so quick to dismiss > creationism. Was the theory of Ether scientifical? Of course, in the > days before Einstein shattered that theory. In fact there has been > numerous scientifical facts disproven throughout the ages. Has anyone > disproved Creationism in over 4000 years. No. So ask yourself which > side of the fence are you on? Is your argument really without an agenda? The problem is that the theory about ether was scientific in the sense that it could be disproved. I don't think Einstein had anything to do with falsifying that theory, but there were tests that in theory could be done that would disprove that theory. Just as there are in principle tests that could disprove relativity. The problem with creationism is that often it is unfalsifiable -- there is no possible result that would prove it wrong. And if something can't be proven wrong, it is simply not a scientific theory (which doesn't mean, however, that it might not be true -- there are lots of things that can't be proven scientifically that are nonetheless true.) > You also write "Science is the only human endeavor that is better > than we are", which frankly doesn't make much sense. If it is a human > endeavor, how can it be better than human? What you are really saying is > that you trust science more than humans. That you love science more than > humans and you think that the creation is better than it's > creator. Which is your whole misguided problem in the first place. I understood him to mean that the process of science allows us to accomplish things greater than the sum of a given human being or group of human beings. > Just to make myself clear; I do think that the Universe and > everything in it is worth studying, analyzing and theorizing over. I do > not, however, believe it is right for anyone to say "I have discovered > it, thus, it is so!" You and I both know we can barely go through a day > without lying, if not to someone else than surely ourselves. Our > intelligence is amazing. Just ask us. We are able to create and > destroy. But there is one who is revealing Himself through time, who > will make the laws we have observed in the universe irrellevant. Study > Quantum physics for an eye opener. For the most part quantum phsyics seems to be largely irrelevant to most of these debates. Everybody's always trying to bring in quantum physics -- and more particularly a single interpretation of some of the results of quantum physics -- to back up non-scientific theories, but most of that's pseudoscience (there are people, for example, who use the Copenhagen interpretation to defend ethical relativism).
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 1/12/2001; 3:25 PM and more particularly a single interpretation of some of the results of quantum physics What interpretation might this be? Just curious. I get the feeling it'll come up again, it might be handy to have an explanation ready.
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Brian Carnell on 1/12/2001; 3:32 PM Matthew wrote: >and more particularly a single interpretation of some of the results of >quantum physics > >What interpretation might this be? Just curious. I get the feeling it'll >come up again, it might be handy to have an explanation ready. When most people say "quantum physics" they really mean the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics formulated by Heisenberg, Bohr, etc. which generally requires the collapsing of a wave form in order for an event to occur a la the famous Schrodinger's Cat paradox.
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Ben Cohen on 1/12/2001; 7:42 PM And here all this time I thought "The Dark Knight of Creationism" was some stupid Batman skit at my friend's church that he made me go see when I was twelve. I remember thinking to myself, "I don't remember Adam West being so preachy on TV." Good vs. Evil.-Andrew G vs. E!!! THAT'S WHAT IT IS!!! Anyway, good essay Mark. Did you e-mail it to that Bruce Willis guy?
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Ben Cohen on 1/12/2001; 7:46 PM By the way, didn't the Kansas school board vote to put evolution back in the classroom a couple of weeks ago? I remember hearing a blurb about it on Nipper(that's NPR for all you non-Ben Cohen types out there).
Re: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 1/12/2001; 9:06 PM in article Conversant-41553@dns2.macrobyteresources.com, Ben Cohen at trapperben@yahoo.com wrote on 12-1-2001 1746: > By the way, didn't the Kansas school board vote to put evolution back in the > classroom a couple of weeks ago? I remember hearing a blurb about it on > Nipper(that's NPR for all you non-Ben Cohen types out there). Yes, indeed they did, or are expect it to. There was a bit about it in the newspaper here a few days ago.
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Mark Morgan on 1/12/2001; 9:11 PM Andrew: it appears that you signed up under a fake e-mail address. Please e-mail me from a valid address, and I'll change your membership to wherever you mail me from and make your address anonymous to everyone but me and the server administrators at my ISP. Thanks. Please don't change your e-mail address yourself; I'll take care of it so I can keep track of any problems. I don't think there will be any, but I'm a belt and suspenders kind of administrator. As for the topic at hand, the best general introduction to the science of evolution, including what evolution is, and offering a refutation of most creationists claims is Talk.Origins Archive. Cites the primary scientific literature, which is vital in any scientific debate.
Re: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Mark Morgan on 1/12/2001; 10:00 PM >You are so quick to defend science, yet so quick to dismiss creationism. >Was the theory of Ether scientifical? Of course, in the days before >Einstein shattered that theory. In fact there has been numerous >scientifical facts disproven throughout the ages. Has anyone disproved >Creationism in over 4000 years. No. So ask yourself which side of the >fence are you on? Is your argument really without an agenda? Actually, I do have a political agenda: to keep science in the public classroom, and a specific kind of fundamentalist Christianity out of it. "Ether" not only could be disproved, it was, by way of the Michelson-Morely experiment. My books are packed so maybe ScottN or Brian Carnell can discuss the details. However, as Brian states Creationism cannot be tested. Because there is simply no scientific test for God. Assuming the existence of a God, God controls the results of your test; your test could fail to show God and you would have learned nothing. God could have been hiding from your test in a way that natural phenomena cannot. > You also write "Science is the only human endeavor that is better than >we are", which frankly doesn't make much sense. If it is a human endeavor, >how can it be better than human? What you are really saying is that you >trust science more than humans. That you love science more than humans and >you think that the creation is better than it's creator. Which is your >whole misguided problem in the first place. Science is purely human endeavor. In my opinion, science is a process that weeds out the self-deceptions and human errors we make. The results of science are human thought and human experience, cleansed of our prejudices and biases and blindness. Scientists of course are as vulnerable to bigotry and ignorance and self-deception and bad thinking as anyone else; but the nature of the process is to reduce these factors. You write that we can't go a day without lying to ourselves. Perhaps. But it is very difficult to lie through double-blind randomized testing that is published in a peer-reviewed journal where your results can be double-checked and challenged by people who know as much or more than you do about it. Science may not be perfect, but it is the most precious thing we have.
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Seth Dillingham on 1/12/2001; 10:23 PM On Friday, January 12, 2001 at 9:16 PM, Mark Morgan wrote: >Science may not be perfect, but it is the most precious thing we have. I disagree with that sentence, but that's OK because it was an entirely unprovable, unscientific thing that you said. :-) Seth
Re: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Richard Davidson on 1/12/2001; 10:48 PM When most people say "quantum physics" they really mean the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics formulated by Heisenberg, Bohr, etc. which generally requires the collapsing of a wave form in order for an event to occur a la the famous Schrodinger's Cat paradox. Oh yeah? Your momma! You think you're so smart! I'm sorry, that's all I could think of to refute you. Have any of you guys ever considered that you're TOO smart, since you're smarter than me, and I was planning on setting the standard? I think I've stumbled on some sort of "intellectual conspiracy" here, and frankly, I find it disturbing, and immoral. Obviously, the liberal conservative rabble is at work again, and I'm wondering if you all worship Stalin, or if it's just gas. If it IS just gas, I suggest a nice glass of milk before bed, and that you stay far away from me. However, if it's Stalin, we've got a serious problem here. This will require weeks of desensitizing, at my private compound, here in Palm Springs, Nebraska. I WOULD invite each and every one of you, but I'm not sure I like you all that much, so far. Please spend a few minutes telling me in what ways you're more civilized than an overwrought Yak. Include a stamped, self-addressed envelope, which I will immediately throw away, no, I'll start a small fire. Yes, that would be toasty and warm, that's what I'll do, ha ha!, and then maybe take some of those meds. I hope I've made myself very clear on the issue of Horse Sterilization, and let that be a lesson to any and all of you who thought you had me on this one. And now I bid you good day. Good day.
Re: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: ScottN on 1/12/2001; 11:11 PM Schroedinger's Cat and the Copenhagen Interpretation. The Uncertainty Principle The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to measure the Earth's motion relative to the ether. Essentially it was set up to measure the speed of light in two perpendicular directions at once. If the Earth was in motion relative to the ether, the speed of light would be different in those directions. Here's where the ether becomes a scientific theory -- it was testable. When they ran the experiment, they found no difference in the speed of light. When others ran the same experiment, they found the same results. It was testable by multiple experimenters, who could compare independent results. Special Relativity explained the failure of the M-M experiment. It's interesting to note that Special Relativity was very much a "child of it's time", and many theoreticians were on the track to get there. Einstein simply got there first, and if I recall correctly, he didn't really know about the M-M experiment when he devised Special Relativity. Rather, he was working from Maxwell's equations, and trying to figure out what a light wave would look like if you ran next to it at the speed of light. The problem that occurs is that an EM wave is a changing magnetic field giving rise to a changing electric field which gives rise to a changing magnetic field... ad infinitum. If you keep up with the EM wave, there is no changing electric or magnetic field, which causes the entire thing to collapse. Also, if you think about it, Maxwell's equations lead almost directly to the constancy of the speed of light regardless of the observer's speed, since there is no mention of relative velocity in them, and c falls out of them as a constant. In other words, no matter how fast you are moving when you perform the experiments with batteries and magnets and whatnot that Maxwell used, you will always measure a constant speed of light...
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: ScottN on 1/13/2001; 1:36 AM There are many interpretations of Quantum Reality... There is the Copenhagen Interpretation, which has survived so long as a result of This is the one we are familiar with, that things don't exist unless we are looking at them. Things exist in a wave, that collapses when observed. The problem here is what constitues an observation? David Bohm has another interpretation, the Hidden Variables Interpretation, where there is both a particle and a "pilot wave" (I'm simplifying immensely here). When you measure the wave aspect of an object, you are observing/tweaking it's pilot wave. Cramer has something called the transactional interpretation, which is similar to Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory of light. Essentially, when you solve the Dirac equation (the relativistic version of the Schroedinger equation), you get two results: one corresponding to "retarded waves" - waves going forward in time, and one corresponding to "advanced waves" - waves going backward in time. The standard quantum equations actually recognize this fact -- Born's equation for probability [(psi)*(psi)] multiplies the wave function by it's complex conjugate. Any first year physics student (or at least one who has studied classical wave equations) can tell you that when you invert the sign of the imaginary component of a wave equation, you reverse time. So, the standard probability equation actually takes this theory into account. There are other interpretations as well, that I can't recall off the top of my head right now. The Transactional Interpretation is my current favorite, mainly because it keeps reality, independent of the observer, and tends to explain some of the quantum paradoxes in a more elegant manner (remember the simplicity discussion?)
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Brian Carnell on 1/15/2001; 4:30 AM Scott: Thanks for the succinct delineation of interpretations of quantum mechanics. I think where Andrew was going is that one of the claims made by theists about the implications of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that the observation issue implies God (all events require an observor, nonetheless there were events that occurred before there were any observors, QED God.)
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: ScottN on 1/30/2003; 5:55 PM From the original essay... It makes the same mistake Indian Buddhism makes: people "are" some place in society, so they "ought" to be in that place in society. They call it Karma, and it's the main reason I'm not a Buddhist any more. I thought that was Hinduism, not Buddhism?
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 2/20/2003; 9:34 AM Well, since it seems everyone so far has disagreed with Andrew, I felt like backing him up a tad. Since I am one of those illogical weirdos who believe God did something similar to calling the world into life. In reply to Carnell >Hi. Just wanted to add a reply to your essay. First, if I am not mistaken >there is a so called 'law' in science that you can not get order from >chaos. The 'Big Bang' would have been very chaotic. Life on earth in >essence is very orderly. This is incorrect. I assume you're referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that closed systems tend toward increased entropy. What that means is that over time the amount of energy available in the universe available to do work must decline (assuming the universe is a closed system). That, however, does not preclude order coming from chaos provide that order ends up using less energy which is exactly what happens. When, for example, hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to form water molecules, although there is more "order" to our minds, the result is also an increase in entropy since the amount of useable energy in the universe just declined. Look at our own little system here with the Earth and the Sun. Regardless of how life began on our planet, the reason it is able to continue is the enormous amount of energy our planet receives from the sun. Because of that enormous influx of that energy, life on Earth has been able to create a dizzying array of complexity. The Sun-Earth system, however, is highly entropic -- only a small portion of the energy given off by the Sun is converted into work, the rest of it ending up as waste heat. To use currently popular terms, the Earth's current use of energy is unsustainable and assuming the sun doesn't got supernova or something eventually the energy must run out and then life on this planet is in serious trouble (we've only got a few billion years I believe). Many creationists try to claim that the Second Law forbids complex structures from arising out of simple structures, but in fact all that it requires is that energy be dispersed over time. BTW, *if* the Second Law actually strictly meant that complex structures couldn't arise spontaneously from simpler structures, then life itself would be literally impossible even if God created the world yesterday (i.e. if God exists and created the universe, he created it with physical laws that do not make evolution impossible, at least on this point). -----=================--------------------------- First, Andrew, for shame, you should not speak ill of science! If indeed this world is created by God, then the study of the world, science, is a very honorable practice. Secondly, I had this curious thought that world was like a strange 3D fractal... All the energy gets fractured into smaller and smaller bits, the groups, organisms, cells and the way they are processed are little reflections of a larger thing... Anyway.. > Everything is political. Whether we realize it or not. There is a > greater political war going on than you can see right now. Good vs. > Evil. You are so quick to defend science, yet so quick to dismiss > creationism. Was the theory of Ether scientifical? Of course, in the > days before Einstein shattered that theory. In fact there has been > numerous scientifical facts disproven throughout the ages. Has anyone > disproved Creationism in over 4000 years. No. So ask yourself which > side of the fence are you on? Is your argument really without an agenda? The problem is that the theory about ether was scientific in the sense that it could be disproved. I don't think Einstein had anything to do with falsifying that theory, but there were tests that in theory could be done that would disprove that theory. Just as there are in principle tests that could disprove relativity. The problem with creationism is that often it is unfalsifiable -- there is no possible result that would prove it wrong. And if something can't be proven wrong, it is simply not a scientific theory (which doesn't mean, however, that it might not be true -- there are lots of things that can't be proven scientifically that are nonetheless true.) ------=============---------------------- Good vs Evil? well... How about this: People want a way to attribute their existence to nature and probability in order to deny the existance of any sentinent being which could have greater power than they. If such a being did not exist, there would be no standard for behavior that had foundation, since human standards are so wide and varied. Everything goes. There is also an aversion to being under anyone's control, especially when you feel the control is unfair, or deprives you of something you believe is your right. Free will, for instance. I think however, as much as Creationism is unfalsifiable, while evolution is unproven and theoretical, it is just as unscientific to say that creationism is false and evolution true, as to say the opposite. I honestly believe that an objective study of science would lead to a non-evolution viewpoint, but I can't prove that (: It is also evident that science should never be taught without an emphasis on thinking for one's self and actively seeking truth (as in reality). > You also write "Science is the only human endeavor that is better > than we are", which frankly doesn't make much sense. If it is a human > endeavor, how can it be better than human? What you are really saying is > that you trust science more than humans. That you love science more than > humans and you think that the creation is better than it's > creator. Which is your whole misguided problem in the first place. I understood him to mean that the process of science allows us to accomplish things greater than the sum of a given human being or group of human beings. -----=========------------------ I agree with Mark that science is a great human endeavor, but I'd say not the only one greater than we are. Or rather, I'd make a broader category. The search for truth(reality) is the only human endeavor greater than we are. Because I think that finding out the truth about whether God exists or not, understanding who I am, and science are all the same thing. But Andrew has a point. If God did exist, but you began science with an assumption that he didn't, your outcome would be rather lopsided. The problem is not that you don't know if God exists or not, but simply rather that you didn't objectively begin without assumptions. Science relies on what we observe. But to say that something does not exist because you are unable to observe it would be highly nonscientific. If you told scholars of the past of cells and, oh, golgi apparatii, but they had no microscopes, they would say you were wrong. But they'd be wrong, not because they couldn't see the proof, but because they refused to look hard enough beyond their current technology into something unbelievable and ridiculous at best. Science progresses when we admit that we don't know everything, but want to find out. Which is basically what Andrew says below... > Just to make myself clear; I do think that the Universe and > everything in it is worth studying, analyzing and theorizing over. I do > not, however, believe it is right for anyone to say "I have discovered > it, thus, it is so!" You and I both know we can barely go through a day > without lying, if not to someone else than surely ourselves. Our > intelligence is amazing. Just ask us. We are able to create and > destroy. But there is one who is revealing Himself through time, who > will make the laws we have observed in the universe irrellevant. Study > Quantum physics for an eye opener. For the most part quantum phsyics seems to be largely irrelevant to most of these debates. Everybody's always trying to bring in quantum physics -- and more particularly a single interpretation of some of the results of quantum physics -- to back up non-scientific theories, but most of that's pseudoscience (there are people, for example, who use the Copenhagen interpretation to defend ethical relativism). ------==========-------------------- I don't think the laws of the universe are irrelevant at all. Rather they are beautiful manifestations of an awesome intelligence. I mean really, I'd give anything to be able to make light, gravity, (maybe something more practical like another brain, body, etc...). So many things we take for granted. I can learn how everything works in school, but how to create these things for myself...! As to quantum physics, I think they are cool. The whole world should be a revelation about whether there is a god, but like in statistics, variables are biased and confounded. The desire for a god and the desire for no god are going to keep us from ever convincing each other that we are right. What we lack is faith, and faith being that annoying sort of thing which can neither be proven to exist, nor proven to be true, (until God reveals it to everyone), those who don't have it will always question it. But I don't expect you to believe that statement. (: Oh and Mark, there were a few more technical errata in your essay... But it's nice when people can have civil discussions on such controversies. I guess Mark has to keep himself from sitting in the bleachers. (mwahahah)
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: ScottN on 2/21/2003; 3:41 AM You sound almost like a Deist there, Chie!
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 2/21/2003; 5:43 AM Oh? but hmm. I think God's still messing with us in an amusedly loving and equally annoyed sort-of way. If one can be amused, loving, and annoyed at once. Brings images of alanis m doing handstands and showing her underwear. Hmmm
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: R.A.B. on 2/21/2003; 9:22 AM Alanis on handstands and showing her underwear...eeeww...there's no picturing that.
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 2/21/2003; 11:32 PM dogma. funny movie
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: R.A.B. on 2/24/2003; 4:35 AM Mark I can't access The Cauldron of Stories. The damn log on page keeps on saying that I'm using an Invalid username and password even though I am using my correct username and PW, and no I didn't hit any buttons wrong 'cause it's been going on for weeks now. Please fix it 'cause I'm missing out on lots of great stuffs.
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: R.A.B. on 2/24/2003; 10:28 AM Nevermind Mark I got it.
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: rvdsm on 2/25/2003; 9:19 PM Two things. Energy and life. Energy and life have nothing to do with one another. Energy and life have no origin. There is no beginning of life and there is no beginning of energy. They have always existed. Energy requires no life to exist. Life requires no energy to exist. Life. Energy. Things that cannot be answered. God is a concept. There is no science. There is only life and energy. To say there is no evolution is to say that nothing changes. To believe that nothing changes is to live blind. Creationism is a circle where no progress is made because all answers end where they begin. Evolution is a circle where no progress is made because all answers end where they begin. Each circle can be expanded and contracted to any degree of understanding of each viewpoint. The study of who we are is empty. The study of where we come from is cold. The study of where we are going is futile. There is no "real" question. There are only questions. There is a life stream from which all life springs forth. It has no beginning and has no end. Its' size and reach is too far to be calculated or probed. All life exists within the stream. The life stream is a flow of consciousness that is not conscious of itself. We are the physical manifestation of conscious thought. At some point the physical and the cerebral unite. We are imprisoned, but we are not prisoners. We are free.
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: R.A.B. on 2/26/2003; 8:31 AM >To say there is no evolution is to say that nothing changes. To believe that nothing changes is to live blind. The statement of yours ,rvdsm ,that I've quoted above is one othe ultimate truths in this world. Those who don't belive this are those who don't exist. rvdsm, your statement here seems to be some kind of neo-platonistic belief, I'm not sure though for my History of Philosophy is a little bit rusty,however , I believe that God is not a concept, he cannot be explained by science, I think nothing can fully explain what he is but, he is not a concept but rather, he is true. True because he can be partialy explained by life. Don't get me wrong, I am not religious but I am a believer. As we journey towards life, from the very beginning we encounter things that rationality alone can't explain. Things that even the smartest of men can't comprehend like God, he is the truth that we don't know, we can't see, we can't hear and we can't understand but we believe because we have faith. Faith is what leads us to trust and believe in him even though we are at odds with his existence because to have faith is the only thing we can do. To have faith in our fore fathers that started the your so called "concept of God". We may not always like what we hear but because of Faith it doesn’t matter. Eaith is also the reason why millions of people in the world believe that he exists. To end this argument I want to quote a short poem of the great American poet Emily Dickinson, it does not involve something about the existence of God but it do explain a lot about faith which is the basis of my argument. It goes like this: "Faith" is a fine invention When Gentlemen can see- But Microscopes are prudent In an Emergency. read this poem carefuly and try to interpret it carefuly becuase when you do you would know what I am talkinga
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 2/27/2003; 9:29 AM I think i disagree with your nihilisismismism. To say there is no evolution is to say that nothing changes. To believe that nothing changes is to live blind. Well i dont believe in macro evolution. I do believe in micro. but that's merely technical terminology. Knowledge is important
RE: Jousting With the Dark Knight of Creationism By: R.A.B. on 2/27/2003; 10:23 AM To live blind is different than to not exist. To live blind is to look away from reality, to pretend not to see it and to look away from it although you know it. But to not exist is to be null of everything; to not give a damn about anything at all. Not to care about anything. Sometimes it's tempting to be like this but in reality it hurts. Well...at least that's what I think. Anyway to disagree is good, you can't let any topic as delicate as this go on unchallenged right? ALTHOUGH RESISTANCE IS FUTILE MWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!(Just joking with this part)
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|