Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!miller From: miller@uiucdcs.UUCP (miller ) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: creation/evolution - (nf) Message-ID: <5392@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 5-Feb-84 03:26:47 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5392 Posted: Sun Feb 5 03:26:47 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 05:13:30 EST Lines: 76 #N:uiucdcs:10600137:000:5197 uiucdcs!miller Feb 5 01:12:00 1984 Before I submit my note tomorrow on the Paluxy River fossil footprints, I need to respond to several creation/evolution notes that have already appeared. First, to John Hobson since he has been the most prolific writer. [BTW John, it really makes no difference to me as to your title. I simply didn't know last time. Let me know what you prefer and I will be happy to comply.] Last week, John wrote a note criticizing creationists' entropy arguments. His entire argument was summed up when he said creationists "...misinterpret the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics refers spe- cifically to closed systems, but the earth's biosphere is not a closed system". My reply last week showed that's John's portrayal of creationists was extremely distorted; creationists acknowledge the earth is an open system. But they point out that is a *necessary* but not *sufficient* condition. Changing tactics this week, John now claims creationists say "Open, closed, what's the difference?" To help support this allegation, he quotes a definition of the 2nd law by Dr. Morris and then writes "In this quotation, the words 'closed system' are not mentioned". Well, had he read onto THE VERY NEXT PAGE, he would have seen where Dr. Morris begins a discussion of open/closed systems and their implications. Later, John writes "No one alleges that having an open system is suffi- cient for decreased entropy" (despite the fact that that was his sole objection last week). Finally, we agree; it is not sufficient. Indeed, there are three other conditions which must be met. I refer you to chapter 4 of "What is Crea- tion Science?" by Drs. Morris and Parker for a list and evaluation of those conditions. I leave the topic of thermodynamics for now with a quote from Dr. Eden, in EE and info science, and an evolutionist. Writing in "Inadequacies of Neo- Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory" which appeared in "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" (recommended read- ing for everyone) he says "No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequence which expresses its sentences. Meaning is almost invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones. I would conjecture that what one might call 'genetic grammaticality' has a de- terministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection pressure acting on random variation." (Also, Dr. Schutzenberger (also an evolutionist) in the same symposium, was trying to explain some probability and simulation studies he had done on some computers. The results were not pleasing to the chairman, Dr. Waddington, who got so frustrated, that he cut Dr. Schutzenberger off in mid-sentence with "We are not interested in your computers!" So much for objectivity...) Next, several people got annoyed that creationists like to quote evolu- tionists a lot. Why is this so? Well, if a creationist like Dr. Gish is to say something like "Golly, there sure are a lot of gaps in the fossil record", then evolutionists reply something like "*yawn* sure buddy, that's what you say". So instead, to document the particular point they are trying to make at that time, they will quote an evolutionist like Dr. Kitts writing "Despite the bright promise that paleontology [which is the study of fossils] provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and pal- eontology does not provide them." Do the people being quoted still accept evo- lution? Of course, the statement would not be useful to creationists other- wise. They are merely used to document some point or other that normally would be laughed off by "open minded" people like Dr. Waddington. The last comments I wish to make are about initial conditions, as everyone seems mad with Larry Bickford on that point. The reasoning seems to follow the line: since creation is a non-repeatable event, it is outside of the scientific method. This was stated in a variety of forms by several people. Well, anyone reading any books *by* creationists, instead of *about* creationists, would know that they concede that point. Strictly speaking, yes, it is outside of the scientific method. But the same is true of evolution! The big bang, origin of life on this planet, rise and fall of the dinosaurs, etc. etc., are all events which occurred in the *past*. They cannot be repeated. There is a difference between a legal and a scientific proof. That is not to say science has nothing to say on the matter, however. Just as science gives evidence as to whether or not George Washington ever lived, so can it give evidence as to the origin of the universe. But neither can be repeated, and neither is strictly within the scientific method. BTW, the man who formulated and established the scientific method was Sir Francis Bacon. Although he lived before the time of Darwin, he strongly believed the concept of special creation. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois