Enlightenment

Posted by eman on September 15, 1998 at 17:26:34:

In Reply to: RE: Creationism posted by Dealer on July 20, 1998 at 03:21:35:

I feel compelled to respond to the errors in your responses to the previous authors question.

: : : DNA- How exactly do you define a 'creationist?' Someone who believes in a dogmatic, literal interpretation of Genesis?

: : Yes.

: Nope, It's someone who believes that the order present in the universe didn't just appear by accident which would be contrary to the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

No. The first answer is more accurate. You misunderstand the laws of thermodynamics if you feel that evolution violates these laws. The first law basically says that energy is conserved.
If you feel that the "Big Bang" theory states that everything started from nothing, then you are incorrect. First of all, the Big Bang theory is seperate from evolution. I believe that the
Big Bang theory states that there was matter/energy to begin with. It's just that it was concentrated in one spot prior to the Big Bang. So all this matter and energy to start everything
out did not just appear out of nothing...it was already there.
The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased
in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or
randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it
grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried
by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes,
stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature.

: : Would you call me a 'flat-earther' if I told you that I believe that God created everything?

: : No.

: The Christian God really doesn't have much to do with the subject of creationism. Evolutionism can be the God's method of creating life.

What do you mean by that response? Creationism is a belief that the account of the creation of the universe as presented in Genesis is
literally true and not an allegory. Creationists believe the Creator of everything is the Christian God. It is difficult for me to understand
how you can seperate the two. Creationism is a metaphysical, religious theory, not a scientific theory as its proponents maintain. One sign
that a theory is not a scientific theory is the claim that the idea is absolutely certain and irrefutable. A theory that is absolutely certain
cannot be empirically tested. The theory of Creationism is a non-scientific theory because IT CANNOT BE FALSIFIED. Unbeatable systems are
dogma, not science.

: : And can you prove me wrong?

: : Nope. Can't prove a negative. Nobody can do that.

: However, we can look to see what model of the origin of the species best fits the facts. You don't need to see the actual act of evolving/creating to decide which model is better, you just look at the predicted results of the two models and then compare them to the actual facts that you have.

Clearly, you are NOT looking at all the facts. Or at least you are discarding those that do not fit your religious beliefs. To anyone one of a sound scientific background, the FACT that
evolution occurred is not disputed. The specific mechanisms and fine details of how it occurred are still argued, but we get closer to an accurate picture each day. The model of Creationism is supported
solely by the literal interpretation of the Bible and the gross misunderstanding and misinterpretation of scientific principles and laws.

: : : When you say there is no debate about the fact of evolution, do you mean that it has been scientifically proven that all of creation was formed by mindless physical processes?

: : That's not what science says. The best science can do is say that there is no evidence that there was any intelligent design in the process. Lacking evidence of such just means that science can't say that it exists. Neither can science say that it doesn't exist. It simply isn't within the purview of science to speculate on ultimate causes.

: No evidence of intelligent design in the process? Ha! Have you ever seen a woodpecker? Now tell me honestly, which developed first on it...The hard shock resistant skull needed to get into the bugs holes, the tongue longer than the beak needed to reach the bugs, the sheath like holder for that extra long tongue, or the desire to bang it's head into a wall for long periods of time to get at a bug that without all of these traits AT ONCE it wouldn't be able to get!

Where do you get your ideas? From another supposed "Creation Scientist", no doubt. What research has been accomplished by these folks to point to an intelligent creator? Why do they not publish their data? If your response
is that the scientific community is prejudiced, that won't wash. The Creation Scientists rarely even SUBMIT any research to publish. They mainly appeal to the growing
flock of fundamentalists who have a very elementary understanding of true science. Anything that is to complicated to comprehend they attribute to an intelligent designer. Why did the intelligent designer make the human such
a weak and helpless creature. Many animals can run faster, jump higher, fly, are stronger, have superior senses of smell, touch, hearing, and sight. We have no sharp claws or teeth to protect ourselves. The things we do have are
reasoning brain and a prehensile thumb. With these WE build weapons, WE choose to band together for safety, WE learn to make tools, WE build shelters. In other words, the only physical evidence on earth of an intelligent creator
is man's creations. WE are the intelligence on the earth.

: : : That scientific discoveries have 'proven' that God did not create heaven and earth? If you ask me, that sounds like a philisophical/religious assertion. ( though of an atheistic nature)

: : : Tammy

: : That would be true. But science doesn't make any such claim. Atheism, which is a philosophical/religious system, might say so, but science isn't atheistic. It's agnostic. It doesn't deal with the question of God.

: That would be true. The only way for us to prove for sure that there was a God would be if he came down and said "Hi". Of course, we could never prove that there isn't a creator. Science does not deal with the question of any supreme being. However, it shouldn't discount any valid theory just because either it says we are all accidents of nature, nor if it says that some higher power might have created us. Again, which ever one fits the facts.

The problem with that is that there is NO valid scientific theory as to the existance of God. The existence of all supernatural Gods in all religions are "proved" to the believer through faith ALONE. Science can neither prove or disprove
God.

: BTW...If you have question about what evidence we do have, or about evolution/creation, send me E-mail and I'll try to answer it to the best of my ability.