Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!whuxle!pyuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!mhuxm!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!miller From: miller@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: creation / evolution - (nf) Message-ID: <5219@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 28-Jan-84 03:27:27 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5219 Posted: Sat Jan 28 03:27:27 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 31-Jan-84 03:19:28 EST Lines: 83 #N:uiucdcs:10600133:000:5275 uiucdcs!miller Jan 28 01:02:00 1984 Having not bothered to read net.misc for almost a year, it seems like I missed quite a bit. However, I'd like to start in again with a response to John Hobson's criticisms of scientific creationism. There are a number of things in his articles with which I disagree, but I'll simply address a few since I don't want this to be too long. Specifically, Larry Bickford claimed that "by far the vast majority who believe in evolution have also believed the straw man that evolutionists have created from the Genesis account and then ridiculed". Hobson takes offense at this, claiming "I, for one, have done extensive reading in the works of Henry Morris, R. L. Wysong, Duane Gish, et al." Presumably then, Hobson should be able to accurately review and criticize the creationists' position. But does he? Let's look at the record. Hobson writes "Creationists, in their 'scientific' arguments, tend towards double-talk, mis-quotation, mis-representation, and outright fraud". In his attempt to justify his statement, he does exactly what he alleges the creation- ists do. He discusses the second law of thermodynamics argument, and attri- butes many positions to the creationists they simply do not hold. I'll alter- nately quote from Hobson's note and then from Dr. Morris' "What is Creation Science" to demonstrate the straw man. Hobson: Central to their reasoning is the notion that "uphill" processes cannot occur naturally. [He then gives a counter-example of snowflakes, half suggest- ing that creationists don't believe in the possibility of their formation.] Dr. Morris: Evolutionists frequently charge creationists with saying that the Second Law makes all systems go downhill. They then triumphantly point to a crystal or to a growing plant and say: 'See! If the system is open, it can increase in order and complexity.' Now despite such evolutionist allegations, no knowledgeable creationist ever says that all systems go downhill. [He then continues his discussion of when and under what conditions entropy decreases.] Hobson: They misinterpret the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics refers specifically to closed systems, but the earth's biosphere is not a closed system, since it is constantly receiving energy from the sun. Dr. Morris: Many evolutionists insist that evolution could take place locally and temporarily. The earth is an open system, and there is energy enough from the sun to sustain evolution ... Having an open system is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. [He then discusses sufficient conditions.] Notice the pattern? Hobson's review is not a true picture of what crea- tionists claim. Hence to attack the image of creationists Hobson has built is to prove nothing. Indeed, Morris makes a good point and many evolutionists recognize it. For example in "Life: An Introduction to Biology" Gaylord and Beck write "The simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifica- tions; it requires information on how to proceed." (They just mentioned one of the other conditions for entropy decrease, by the way...) Jeffrey Wicken says it even more strongly in "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermo- dynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion" which appeared in the "Journal of Theoretical Biology" when he wrote "Evolutionary processes are *anamorphic*, or complexity generating. The passage of evolutionary time is accompanied by the emergence of structures having progressively greater morphological and functional complexity. But the essential feature of evolutionary anamorphosis remains enigmatic. It has not been successfully derived from or identified with more fundamental physico-chemical laws, particularly those of thermodyna- mics; nor has it been adequately explained at its own phenomenological level by evolutionary theory. Neo-Darwinism in particular seems to have enormous diffi- culty in accounting for this fundamental feature of evolutionary processes." Thermodynamics is a complex subject, which I may go into more detail at a later date. But this time, let me point out just one more comment which really jumped out at me. Hobson writes "Remember that, in order to become a member of the Institute for Creation Research, one must sign an oath saying that one believes implicitly and without reservation in the literal truth of the Bible." This is false on the face of it by virtue of the fact that ICR is a non-member- ship organization. Perhaps he was thinking of the Creation Research Society? It's not a big mistake, but it's one someone who has done "extensive reading" should not have made. Well, that's all I have time for now. I like to talk about this subject, but only have so much time. Besides, it seems creation / evolution notes have been spread across net.[misc, general, space, physics, religion, philosophy, and books] at one time or another. No way I'm going to read all of that. Next time, I'll try and go into the Paluxy River tracks as I have first hand know- ledge of that site. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois