Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxq.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
From: amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: More on Creationism
Message-ID: <564@ihuxq.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Jan-84 14:34:37 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxq.564
Posted: Mon Jan 30 14:34:37 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Feb-84 11:06:35 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 141

A. Ray Miller has written a response to my attack on creationism
that I must answer.  First, I must say that he is right and I am
wrong on one matter.  It is not the Institute for Creation Research
(ICR) that requires of its members an oath of allegiance to Biblical
inerrancy, but rather the Creation Research Society (The actual text
of the oath is:  "The Bible is the written word of God, and because
we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are
historically and scientifically true in the original autographs.  To
the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in
Genesis is a factual presentation of historical truth.").  Not being
a member of either, I find it easy to confuse these two
organizations with similar names and similar aims.

I certainly knew that I would raise a lot of hackles with the
statement that "Creationists, in their 'scientific' arguments,
tend towards double-talk, mis-quotation, mis-representation, and
outright fraud".  Perhaps I should have toned it down somewhat--but
no, that is the way I really feel.  I feel also that I gave a
not-unreasonable, although far too short, summary of one specific
creationist argument.  Having been present at one of Duane Gish's
presentations, my perception of it was a set of arguments of the
form "All right, let's see you explain this one."  He hurtled
challange after challenge, jumping from atomic physics to zoology,
trying--and eventually succeeding, in this case--to wear down his
opponent with a catalogue of nature's enigmas.

BTW, when Miller was contrasting what I wrote with what Henry Morris
wrote, he always referred to me as "Hobson", while Morris was "Dr.
Morris", a time-honoured debater's device.  Ray, how do you know that
I don't have a Ph.D. as well?  Actually, for those of you who want
to know, Morris has a doctorate in hydraulic engineering, while I
have a B.S. in Math (U of Wisconsin), the equivalent of a Masters in
Theology from the University of Louvain in Belgium, an Associate
Degree in Data Processing from the Fox Valley Technical Institute in
Appleton, WI, and 12 credits towards an MS in Computer Science from
the Illinois Institute of Technology.  (Big hairy deal.) 

More on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  I just looked up
Morris' definition of the second law, and it is as follows: 

	The second law of thermodynamics is the law of increasing
	entropy, stating that all real processes tend to go towards
	a state of higher probability, which means greater disorder.
	This applies to all known systems, both physical and
	biological, a fact which is universally accepted by
	scientists in every field.
		--Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, p. 98.

In this quotations, the words "closed system" are not mentioned. 
Morris goes on to say that the rejoinder that the earth is not a
closed system is "an extremely naive argument" (p. 123).  He says
that: 
	Obviously growth cannot occur in a closed system; the Second
	Law is in fact *defined* in terms of a closed system. 
	However, this criterion is really redundant, because in the
	real world closed systems do not even exist!  It is obvious
	that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to open systems as
	well, since they have only been tested and proved on open
	systems!
		--ibid, p. 125. (Italics in original.)

How fortunate we are to have Dr. Morris to set us straight.

The concept of thermodynamically closed system, like that of a
frictionless plane or a rigid body, is an idealization.  The laws of
thermodynamics, like the ideal gas laws, can be tested and confirmed
(*not* proved) by investigating systems that are only approximately
closed.  What we cannot do is to apply these laws to systems in
which the energy flow across the boundries is significant with
respect to the energy transactions within these boundries.  That
would be like using rigid body mechanics to examine the motion of
blobs of Jell-o.  Saying that "Open, closed, what's the difference?"
displays a hopeless misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics
and a remarkable ignorance of the uses of idealization in physics.

A second answer of Morris, which lies at the heart of Miller's
response, is what I shall call the "evolving junkyard" argument:

	It should be self-evident that the mere existence of an open
	system of some kind, with access to the sun's energy, does
	not of itself generate growth.  The sun's energy may bathe
	the site of an automobile junk yard for a million years, but
	it will never cause the rusted, broken parts to grow
	together into a functioning automobile.  A beaker containing
	a fluid mixture of hydrochloric, water, salt, or any other
	combination of chemicals, may lie exposed to the sun for
	endless years, but the chemicals will never combine into a 
	living bacterium or any other self-replicating organism. 
	More likely, it would destroy any organism which might
	accidently have been caught in it.  Availability of energy
	(by the First Law of Thermodynamics) has in itself no
	mechanism for thwarting the basic decay principle enunciated
	by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  *Quantity* of energy is
	not the question, but *quality*.
		--ibid., p. 123.  (Italics in original.)

This might look like a clever objection, but the issue has been
shifted.  Evolutionary theory was originally challenged to reconcile
its claims of increasing organization and complexity with the Second
Law of Thermodynamics.  The challenge is met by saying that the
Second Law does not apply in this case since the earth is not a good
approximation to a closed system.  The creationists now ask why some
open systems show decreasing entropy and others (cars in junkyards)
do not.  The simple answer is that this is an "apples and oranges"
comparison.  A more detailed answer would be to explain just how
both living things and automobiles change.  No one alleges that
having an open system is sufficient for decreased entropy. 
Evolutionary theory says that decreased entropy is possible in an
open system, not that it is necessary in any open system.

This is an interesting example since, if you look at it, Morris
begins by misstating the Second Law.  Then, he considers a response
that does not correct the formulation.  This makes it look like the
evolutionists have fallen back on closed systems as a desperate
ploy.  He continues by distorting the role of idealization in
science, and ends by changing the question.

My opposition to Larry Bickford's "compact divine intervention"
stems from its real non-scientificness.  Let me expand.  In
"Evolution:  The Fossils say No!", Gish (associate director of the
ICR and professor of natural science at Christian Heritage College)
laments "The reason that most scientists accept evolution is that
they prefer to believe a materialistic, naturalistic explanation for
the origin of all living things."(Page 24)  He's right, of course--
because  scientists are constrained to frame all their statements in
"naturalistic" terms simply in order to be able to test them.  When
a scientific-creation model such as Bickford's, avers that the
origins of the universe, the earth, and life are the result of
specific and non-repeatable divine intervention, the are
automatically excluding themselves from the realm of science. 
Taking Alexander Pope's injunction "Presume not God to scan/The
proper study of Mankind is Man" to its literal extreme, creationists
would have us not look into just how origins came about, except to
say that they must be taken on Biblical faith (and not just any
Biblical faith, *their* Biblical faith).

				John Hobson
				AT&T Bell Labs
				Naperville, IL
				(312) 979-7293
				ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2