Feedback for November 1997

From the introduction on the Talk.Origins Archive Homepage:

The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins.

The Archive does provide, however, a large number of links to other sites, including many creationist sites. It is the philosophy of the Talk.Origins Archive that creationists are best suited to provide the creationist point of view.

Despite the claims of some prominent creationists, there is virtually no controversy in the scientific community that the Theory of Evolution (theories, actually) is the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of life on Earth. The "data at hand" clearly support the mainstream scientific position.

If you disagree with the information contained in certain of the FAQs on this archive, please contact the FAQ authors or bring up specific points for discussion on the talk.origins newsgroup.

1. In science, a theory is not simply a guess or hypothesis, but a predictive model based on observations. Scientific theories undergo testing through experimentation and the peer-review process. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, just like any other scientific theory, with over a century of observations and evidence to confirm it. Descriptions of that evidence are located in the thousands of journal articles that can be found in any good university library.

   So-called "scientific creationism" is a combination of religious belief with a denial or distortion of observed evidence to support a particular viewpoint.

2. We did not evolve from apes; rather, we and apes evolved from a common apelike ancestor. That said, the human race is still evolving even today. You must understand that evolution takes place over very long amounts of time. In the case of long-lived organisms like humans, thousands of years can pass without there being substantial changes in the human gene pool.

Your point is quite well taken, and is indeed often made by certain posters to the talk.origins newsgroup. More accurate is to say that the net entropy of a closed system cannot decrease, but the best way to express the laws of thermodynamics is, of course, through their equations.

Creationists catch a great deal of flack for making pronouncements on topics they do not fully understand; those who support the views of mainstream science must be careful not to do the same.

It is true that proper names are not prefaced by the definite article. One wouldn't say "the Mars" or "the Jupiter." However, we do say "the Moon" and "the Sun" as well as "the Earth." This raises an interesting quirk of the English language: one could say "people walking on Earth," but one would not say "people walking on Moon." Similarly, one might say "fusion reactions on Earth" but not "fusion reactions on Sun." I like your suggestion with regards to "the Earth," but Luna and Sol must remain "the Moon" and "the Sun."

In any case, I'm not certain that a doctor is the best expert to consult with regards to paleontogical research. I do know, however, that DNA has nothing to do with fossilization. While it may be correct that DNA cannot be preserved for long periods of time, most fossils do not contain DNA. DNA is simply irrelevant to the information that the fossil provides.

Unfortunately, many published "probability" results are completely meaningless, being based on false assumptions. We do not as yet have a good idea of the probability that life will form in any given situation; whether it is exceedingly low or not is as yet not known.

You are quite correct that physical processes follow the second law of thermodynamics. Do note, however, that scientists do not propose or require any violation of this law in the formation of life.

At this point I need to correct a common technical error in your feedback. Entropy is a measure of disorder. Hence by the second law, entropy will always increase in an isolated system. You are actually absolute correct to say that the creation of life forms will cause an increase in the entropy of the whole universe -- but this is not what you intended to say. The creation of life forms involves a small decrease in entropy locally (which means roughly an increase in order), but this is more than offset by a large increase in entropy (increase in disorder) elsewhere, for a net increase in entropy (disorder) in the whole universe.

You can see this quite clearly in your own creation and growth. You yourself developed from a tiny fertilized egg, over a relatively short period time into a very complex and sophisticated living organism. This amazing growth, however, requires no violation of the second law, because any order involved in your growth is offset by the disorder brought about by the use of usable energy as you were growing.

There is much that we do not know about your own personal creation and growth. But we do know a fair bit, from studies of embryology and other sciences, and there is no indication that there was any violation of the second law required for your creation. Most Christians recognize that what science has discovered about your personal creation is not a denial of God's involvement.

In the same way, there is much we do not know about the origins of life on Earth. But we do know a fair bit, from studies of evolution and other sciences, and there is no indication that there was any violation of the second law required for the creation (the origins, or the subsequent evolutionary development) of life. Most Christians recognize that what science has discovered about the evolution of life is not a denial of God's involvement.

You are right to avoid the "evolution ladder". The idea of a ladder is quite misleading. Evolution is better compared to a bush. As far as evolution is concerned, all currently living creatures are just as evolved as each other. This says nothing about their relative worth, or their respective roles in any divine plan, a subject on which evolution has no comment.

If you are interested in this subject, I encourage you to read further, and to keep asking lots of questions.

BTW, don't bother trotting the old chestnut that observation does not include studying fossils and correlating the information: it most certainly does!

It is far from being an established view in modern philosophy that causation rules out moral freedom. Quite apart from anything else, both quantum physics and complexity theory show that a vast range of outcomes are compatible with causal determination.

As to faith - science makes use of reason and experience as positive methods to discover the physical world. But this is not, in itself, an argument against faith without some further (nonscientific) premises; for instance, that only knowledge gained from experience and reason is proper knowledge. Now, if that were true, you would need to demonstrate that it was using only experience and reason, which you cannot, for it requires an evaluation. The view that only knowledge based on science is true knowledge is called "positivism" and is a broadly abandoned view in modern philosophy.

In the Evolution and Philosophy FAQ I make the point that science and religion can only conflict when they leave their proper domain, and religion makes factual claims (which can be shown to be false) or science makes metaphysical claims (which cannot be justified using just scientific canons). Creationism makes false, and as you say, fabulous, claims about the world, and so it can be disposed of using scientific method. This is not, in my agnostic opinion, true of more mature and elaborate religious views, and so faith does not negate reason, but, in Aquinas' words, is thought by believers to complete it.

As for the source of our patience, well. . . . (he says, glancing towards the sky.) Seriously, some of us feel that it is the duty of people with knowledge and interest in science to try to convey that knowledge and interest to others.

That said, we do provide a large number of links to other sites that support creationism generally or that critique this site in particular, as we feel that the mainstream scientific position can withstand such criticism. It is telling, I think, that few if any of those sites provide a link to the Talk.Origins Archive in return.

Also, how do you explain the fact that the fossils that ARE found are very different from the skeletons of most organisms now living? The evidence is clear: fossilization is an extremely rare event.

Furthermore, most fossils are not found scattered on the ground. They are buried in geological formations. It is reasonable to conclude that only a few of the fossils now existing will ever be found; the rest are forever embedded in rock layers that will never be opened up.

In summary: fossilization is an extremely rare event. Most fossils are embedded in rock formations and will never be found.

I have not been able to find Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs on any web site dating back this far (1986). LEXIS-NEXIS does have it available, however, as they have Supreme Court briefs dating back to 1978. I have obtained a copy, which I will email to you. I am also going to send a copy to be added to the archive. When I get around to it, in fact, I'll obtain all of the briefs for the creationism court cases, HTMLize them, and make them available for the archive.

Here are some other legal resources on the Web:

• The text of the opinions.
• A summary of the Edwards decision.
• A RealAudio recording of the oral arguments (RealAudio player needed).
• Information on available Supreme Court materials from the University of Chicago.
• FindLaw, a good resource for legal searching on the World Wide Web.

Neo-Darwinism is the view that the main, but not the sole, cause of adaptive change is natural selection, and was named in the 1880s. In the period from 1930 to 1950, a theoretical marriage formed the "Modern Synthesis" which is now the general consensus, but it contains a very wide spectrum of opinion on many matters. You might find Niles Eldredge's recent book Reinventing Darwin an entertaining way into the debates, both substantial and personal, that evolutionary science, like any healthy science, contains.