On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 18:03:11 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>PM>We agree that creationists are partially if not totally
>responsible for the 'misconception'.
>SJ>No. We "agree that creationists are partially" (*not*
>"totally") responsible for the 'misconception'". The other part of
>the responsibility is with anti-creationists, who are only too ready
>to see creationists in as worse a light as possible.
PM>To a large extent creationists are to blame for this perception.
>The highly visible ones like Morris and Gish for example have given
>scientific creationism a 'bad rap'.
I am happy with "To a large extent". We finally agree on something!
:-)
>PM>Even now there are plenty of websites and 'creationists' who keep
>making the same mistaken claim through an inclusive use of the word
>evolution to imply that there is a problem for Darwinian evolution.
>SJ>That is entirely possible. But one would have to examine what
>they said on a case-by-case basis.
PM>Indeed.
More agreement. This is becoming a worry! :-)
>PM>Morris is not innocent of such confusing behavior himself for
>instance in "Scientific creationism" he is talking about solar
>energy reaching the earth to support evolution (p 44) and 'we are
>warranted then in concluding that the evolutionary process (the
>hypothetical principle of naturalistic inovation and intergration)
>is completely precluded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
SJ>Again, this is the tail end of a long section concerning "the
>Second Law of Thermodynamics" and "the evolution model", which
>starts with: "It seems obvious that the Second Law of
>Thermodynamics constitutes a serious problem to the evolution
>model...." (Morris H.M., "Scientific Creationism", 1985, p40)
>
>There follows five points over five pages, which Morris then
>concludes with your quote:
[...]
>SJ>The whole section is about the overall "evolution model" of which
>biological evolution is but a part.
PM>Come on. Evolution was used here by Morris clearly limited to the
>biological evolution process. And of course his suggestion that the
>SLOT is a problem for evolution is completely wrong.
No. "biological evolution" is but one part of "the overall `evolution
model' ". This is Ratzsch's point:
"Perhaps the most prevalent of the misconstruals of creationism
involves the Second Law of Thermodynamics....Creationists nearly
unanimously claim that this Second Law poses a nasty problem for
evolution. Unfortunately, exactly what creationists have in mind
here is widely misunderstood....One reason is that...most popular
creationists use the term evolution ambiguously-sometimes to refer to
the cosmic evolutionary worldview (or model) and sometimes to refer
to the Darwinian biological theory....One has to read extremely
carefully in order to see which evolution is being referred to, and
some critics of creationism either have simply not noticed the
ambiguity or perhaps have misjudged which meaning specific
creationists have had in mind in specific passages....when claiming
that the Second Law flatly precludes evolution, major creationists
almost invariably have in mind evolution in the overall cosmic,
"evolution model" sense...What Morris and others mean to be claiming
is that any such view according to which the entire cosmos is itself
in a process of increasing overall order is in violation of the
Second Law." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings", 1996,
pp91-92)
[...]
PM>He surely leaves the opinion that he is discussing evolution at
>the same level at which evolution is defined. If Morris is confusing
>the issue by using an alternate definition of evolution (which from
>his own comments he freely mixes) then let him take the blame.
I thought we agreed that "creationists are to blame for this
perception" only "To a large extent"? That leaves part of the
"blame" with anti-creationists. Also, Darwinists are routinely
guilty of "confusing the issue by using an alternate definition of
evolution" which they "freely mix". You do as much yourself!
[...]
>SJ>...If "evolution in the" cosmic evolution model sense violates
>"thermodynamics" then it is inevitably a problem for "evolution in
>the Darwinian sense".
PM>Wrong. That a big bang might have violated the SLOT (assuming for
>the moment that you are correct)
I said nothing about "a big bang might have violated the SLOT".
Please stick to what I say and don't try to put words in my mouth.
PM>does not make it necessarily a problem for darwinism. Especially
>since Darwinism does not rely on the cosmic evolution problem.
This is not the point. "Darwinism" may "not rely on...cosmic
evolution", in a narrow sense, but it must be consistent with it. If
there is a universal fundamental law of physics that says that all
things in the long run tend to move from order to disorder, then
"Darwinism" which claims that living things tend to move over the
long run from disorder to order, then there is a prima facie
"problem" to be explained. How did non-living matter, which is
subject to the disorder-> order law of physics, self-organise itself
in the first place to set in motion the disorder -> order law of
biology?
>SJ> If there is no cosmic evolutionary principle of order from
>disorder, and there is a cosmic physical principle of disorder from
>order (ie. the second law of thermodynamics), then how did
>"evolution in the Darwinian sense" get started?
PM>How it got started need not be pointing to a problem for
>evolution. It merely describes how it evolved. You seem to be under
>the false impression that if SLOT is a problem for one aspect that it
>therefor is a problem for a subset. This would mean that everything
>is violating the SLOT since in the beginning it had to 'get started'
This assumes that "everything" "started" itself. If an Intelligent
Designer "started" "everything", then there is no "problem".
PM>Such an assumption is of course anti-scientific and irrelevant.
>anti-scientific and irrelevant
More "argument by assertion". Please explain *why* it is
"anti-scientific and irrelevant".
[...]
>PM>Wrong again. Check your local sky around noon and observe the
>source of the energy. Chemical evolution benifits strongly from its
>presence in our sky.
>SJ>The question is not whether there is "energy" but whether there
>are "energy conversion systems and coded programs that can convert
>raw energy into organised complexity".
PM>Do there have to be coded programs for this to happen ? Of course
>not. Cnversion of raw energy into organised complexity can happen
>naturalistically.
Agreed. Plants do this all the time. But they use a "coded
program" called DNA and an "energy conversion system" called "the
photosynthetic reaction centre". Give some examples of the
"Conversion of raw energy into organised complexity" that "happens
naturalistically" *without* using "energy conversion systems and
coded programs".
>SJ> At present, the photosynthetic reaction centre, a fantastically
>complicated system that converts photons into electrons and then
>into sugar, is the only mechanism that can do this.
PM>Only if you define organised complexity as living. But you are
>limiting yourself to the photons of the sun, ignoring how initially
>solar energy could have contributed to increase in complexity of
>chemicals leading to this 'fantastically complicated mechanism' of
>photosynthesis
I am "ignoring" *nothing*! Please explain *how* "initially solar
energy could have contributed to increase in complexity of chemicals
leading to this 'fantastically complicated mechanism' of
photosynthesis"?
>SJ>I saw a recent news clip on TV where an electronics engineer had
>duplicated that with a solar cell and electronic circuitry. Of
>course his best effort was probably a million times bigger than
>nature's masterpiece. The fact is that no one has ever published an
>account of how the photosynthetic reaction center developed:
PM>That also is incorrect but such accounts leave necessarily for a
>lot of speculation.
Please briefly outline such "accounts" and their references in the
scientific literature.
PM>And furthermore you ignore completely once again that the sun
>does provide the energy and that photosynthesis is not the only way
>to increase complexity.
I "ignore" *nothing* Pim. For the umpteenth time I *accept* that
"the sun does provide the energy"!
And I never said "that photosynthesis is...the only way to increase
complexity". You are putting words into my mouth again. What I want
you to show is how "photosynthesis" *began* - ie. *before* there was
an energy conversion system.
[...]
>PM>True but this does not preclude local movements in the opposite
>direction. A common misunderstanding in creationism.
>SJ>No. Creationists understand perfectly well that there can be
>"local movements in the opposite direction" of the second law of
>thermodynamics:
PM>Some do, some don't. If they understand that there can be local
>motions in the opposite direction then claims that slot is violated
>by evolution (in the common sense of the word) is mistaken.
Again, as Ratzsch points out this is part of "Perhaps the most
prevalent of the misconstruals of creationism".
>SJ>"When discussion turns to evolution in the more restricted sense-
>biological evolution on the earth-then obviously it is highly
PM>Of course the strawman is to use the word evolution to imply more
>than it's common meaning.
Darwinists do it all the time. You do it too - perhaps without even
realising it. Start using prefixes like Cosmic- Chemical- Macro- and
Micro- before "evolution" and you will see what I mean.
BTW, what is the "common meaning" of "evolution"?
>SJ>relevant to point out that the earth is not a closed system and
>that thus the Second Law by itself does not directly preclude
>evolution. But Morris, Gish, Wysong and others admit that, and have
>for decades, although not always in a terribly clear manner."
>(Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings, 1996, p92)
PM>That's an understatement if any.
Nevertheless, they "have for decades" admitted that "the earth is not
a closed system and that thus the Second Law by itself does not
directly preclude evolution."
>PM>And since natural laws as we know them came into existance after
>the big bang and we do not have knowledge about time before it is
>inappropiate to apply these laws to the origin of the cosmos.
>SJ>Sorry, but if there is no God, then the "natural laws" must have
>existed in some form *before* "the big bang":
PM>that is an assumption which requires more than just an assertion.
OK. Please explain how "the big bang" happened *before* there were
"natural laws".
Davies points out:
"In fact, the laws of physics don't exist in space and time at all.
They describe the world, they are not "in" it. However, this does
not mean that the laws of physics came into existence with the
Universe. If they did-if the entire package of physical Universe
plus laws just popped into being from nothing-then we cannot appeal
to the laws to explain the origin of the Universe. So to have any
chance of understanding scientifically how the Universe came into
existence, we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal
character. The alternative is to shroud the origin in mystery and
give up." (Davies P., "The Day Time Began", New Scientist, Vol.
150, No. 2027, 27 April 1996, p34)
[...]
>PM>Evolution and god can coexist peacefully, each in its own realm.
>SJ>The fact that you must de-capitalise "God" argues against your
>own claim. And since God's "realm" is the entire cosmos,
>"Evolution" *is* part of God's "own realm".
PM>Why? My god prefers to be refered to in lower-case characters.
And she co-exists quite peacefully in her own realm.
Please tell me more about your "god". Is "she" real, or just a
figment of your imagination?
PM>Sure but in science, god is not part of the equation and will
>never be.
Why not?
PM>Nor is any explanation which requires an active participation of
>god in the stages of evolution an explanation which has scientific
>merrits.
Maybe not your "god"!
But why does "any explanation which requires an active participation
of" God "in the stages of evolution" not "an explanation which has
scientific merits"?
[...]
>SJ>Granted there are some "evolutionists" (ie. theistic
>evolutionists) who do not "claim evolution operates at this highest
>level" and therefore "evolution" does not "function for them as a
>substitute for God". But otherwise, for non-theistic
>"Evolutionists", who "claim evolution operates at this highest
>level", "for them", "evolution functions "as a substitute for God".
PM>Assuming that they need a substitute for god. For many evolution
>is not a god but a mere naturalistic fact of life.
The fact that you have to de-capitalise "God" leads me to suspect
that "evolution" is *more* than "a mere naturalistic fact of life".
>SJ>But the second law denies them evolution as an explanatory
>principle at this highest level. That's why evolutionists must
>shift the argument down to lower levels.
>PM>On the contrary, evolution is well defined and only creationists
>seem to obfuscate the issue by defining it to mean something it
>isn't.
>SJ>I would appreciate then you positng your "well defined" meaning
>of "evolution".
PM>Fact of evolution:
>
>Organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors.
This is the "fact" that "Organisms have descended with modifications
from common ancestors". It is not necessarily the "Fact of
*evolution*". A Creator could have created by progressive
"modifications from common ancestors":
"Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built into
it so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling it with any
sort of divine guidance. It would still be perfectly possible for
theists to reject that theory of evolution and accept instead a
theory according to which natural processes and laws drove most of
evolution, but God on occasion abridged those laws and inserted some
crucial mutation into the course of events. Even were God to
intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject essential new
genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the
emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous
and deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged
such key theses of evolutionary theory as that all species derive
ultimately from some common ancestor. Descent with genetic
intervention is still descent-it is just descent with nonnatural
elements in the process." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings",
1996, pp187-188)
PM>Theory of evolution:
>
>Changes have been brought about by a combination of mutations and
>natural selection.
What is left of the "Fact of evolution" when you deduct the "Theory
of evolution"?
>SJ>The "correct scientific sense" of the word "evolution" includes
>"evolution in a wide sense":
>SJ>"Although this article is concerned with biological
>evolution...the concept of evolution is much broader.... There is
>also cosmic or inorganic, evolution, and evolution of human
>culture...." ( Dobzhansky T., Evolution, in 10 Encyclopedia
>Americana, 1982, p734)
>PM>That there are other forms of evolution is not the issue.
It is *precisely* the issue! You claimed that:
---------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 23:23:17 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[...]
PM>Evolution is defined quite well, extrapolating it to evolution of
>the universe, origin of life, origin of the universe is inappropiate
>and confusing.
---------------------------------------------------
Now you are admitting "That there are other forms of evolution"!
Which is precisely the point when creationists use "evolution" to
refer to the "evolution" model, not just biological "evolution".
PM>However in biology, paleaontology and in common usage alike,
>evolution has a very well-defined meaning.
That's OK, but when Morris & Co. use "evolution" and preface it with
"evolution model", etc., that does not mean that they are referring
only to "evolution" in "biology" or "paleaontology".
BTW please state what is the "very well-defined meaning" of
"evolution" that applies to "biology, paleaontology and in common
usage alike".
>PM>Attempts to increase confusion by discussing evolution in its
>wider realm and then imply that this shows problems for evolution
>(biological) of course are both misleading and incorrect.
Disagree - "evolution in its wider realm" has a bearing on
"evolution" in its narrower realms, eg. "evolution (biological)".
If there is a "wider" order -> disorder law in "evolution in its
wider realm" then the postulation of an disorder -> order
process must be covered by that "wider" law.
[continued]
Regards.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------