Why creation science is an oxymoron
- Thread starter kut2k2
- Start date
Hi, guys. The reason I wrote this is because I've never seen the argument against "creationist thermodynamics" made this simply in print before.
"Creation scientists" like to use statistical or informational thermodynamics because it's much easier to obfuscate their arguments with complicated details that few laymen can follow. The beauty of classical thermodynamics is that the details are largely irrelevant; either there is a net increase in entropy or there isn't. I think most lay people can follow the original post, be they creationists or evolutionists. There's no need for detailed minutia if the creationist argument can't even pass the classical test, and the fact is that it can't.
So the next time somebody tries to introduce thermodynamics in an origins-of-life argument, just point them to this thread. Then they'll have to come up with some new pseudoscience (not as easy as it sounds) or drop the scientific pose altogether.
Why wouldn't a person of faith utilize these things?
In my opinion, the error you Darwin Dudes make is assuming that Bible Boyz divorce "science" from the Creator. Far from it, most Bible Boyz understand "science" as the visible footprint of the Creator and as a blessing for mankind when applied properly.
The problem, from a faith perspective, is when you make "science" the new golden calf.
The scientific method is merely a formal methodology concerning how to apply reason.
I agree .
This thread shows that proper application of science discredits your creationist claim that evolution violates thermodynamics. Your hero Boylan is a fraud masquerading as a scientist and he would fail an undergraduate course in thermodynamics if he tried to argue his anti-evolutionism there.
Science is not a golden calf; science is a proven means to understanding the world around us. And science tells us that evolution is real and factual. Darwinism is but one of several competing theories of evolution. Attacking Darwinism will not discredit evolution any more than attacking Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation will discredit the fact of gravity.
Actually this is not entirely true.
Reason alone has nothing to do with it actually, for if reason was truly the guide, then scientific beliefs would not have been shown over time to be wrong in so many cases.
Science is essentially about having some idea, then having a way to test to see if that idea is true or false.
Problem is, that the truth of falsity of these ideas are generally a relative proposition in science, as it was scientific to hold that the sun revolved around the earth, based on observation and reason.
This is why some new idea can completely change what is scientific truth...
Not until instrumentation allowed for a better point of view, was it really known that the sun does not revolved around the earth.
It was actually scientific to observe the sun moving in the sky around the earth, and since everyone saw the same thing, and since it happened all the time...that was a scientific conclusion.
Observation+what was considered by the masses to be reasonable.
Science is not always the best thing going, and science is limited to the 5 physical senses and completely ignores much of that which is not known via the physical senses.
Science as it appears today is so far removed from the purity of science in the past, that it has become a religion for many.
Much of the foundation of science is a speculation, or a foundation of ignorance.
For instance, if a scientist can't see a pattern, does that logically mean that there is no pattern?
If a scientist doesn't see a cause, does that mean things are causeless?
It is silly actually...but there is little doubt among the reasonable that even atheists need something to believe in, even if there is no real proof of what they believe.
People who actually believe, as if it were a fact, that man came from apes, or that there was some big bang...
Well, science has grown into a mythology satisfying even Joseph Campbell's ideas that every society needs some mythology...even if that mythology is the dreams of a big bang, or human's from monkeys, or water droplets being designers, etc.
Reason alone has nothing to do with it actually, for if reason was truly the guide, then scientific beliefs would not have been shown over time to be wrong in so many cases.
Science is essentially about having some idea, then having a way to test to see if that idea is true or false.
Problem is, that the truth of falsity of these ideas are generally a relative proposition in science, as it was scientific to hold that the sun revolved around the earth, based on observation and reason.
This is why some new idea can completely change what is scientific truth...
Not until instrumentation allowed for a better point of view, was it really known that the sun does not revolved around the earth.
It was actually scientific to observe the sun moving in the sky around the earth, and since everyone saw the same thing, and since it happened all the time...that was a scientific conclusion.
Observation+what was considered by the masses to be reasonable.
Science is not always the best thing going, and science is limited to the 5 physical senses and completely ignores much of that which is not known via the physical senses.
Science as it appears today is so far removed from the purity of science in the past, that it has become a religion for many.
Much of the foundation of science is a speculation, or a foundation of ignorance.
For instance, if a scientist can't see a pattern, does that logically mean that there is no pattern?
If a scientist doesn't see a cause, does that mean things are causeless?
It is silly actually...but there is little doubt among the reasonable that even atheists need something to believe in, even if there is no real proof of what they believe.
People who actually believe, as if it were a fact, that man came from apes, or that there was some big bang...
Well, science has grown into a mythology satisfying even Joseph Campbell's ideas that every society needs some mythology...even if that mythology is the dreams of a big bang, or human's from monkeys, or water droplets being designers, etc.
First, I hold no man as a hero, save Christ.
What you are overlooking in your presentation, in my opinion, is as follows:
1) The four laws of thermodynamics are empirical laws (with a minor caveat regarding the third law and fluids), which obviously means that they are directly observable in nature and experimentation.
2) The theory of evolution must endeavor to fit itself within these empirical and simple laws of heat and energy. This is where the dispute arises, as the evolutionary process cannot be observed under classical experimentation.
3) Although I will concede your argument that earth is, or can logically be called an open system (although arguments can be made to the contrary as I am sure you are aware), the quality of the energy required for the massive ordering from disorder which the evolutionary thesis requires strains credulity and the simple use of our sun. Go throw your computer in the front yard and see if solar radience alone will start it up.