Through recent conversations that I have had and some reading that I have done a startling attribute about our culture has come to my attention, now this might be old news for some of you, our society has successfully deconstructed objectivity and I think that anything that is called a fact is on its last legs.
There is really nothing in today's day and age that we can cling to as an absolute or as concrete. Science is always changing and so-called scientific laws are only laws if they aren't being used to dispel the myth of evolution. Even in our own religion there is no fact or constant. When you use the term Christian it can mean a vast array of things; in debate there is no common denominator because there is no absolute that can defined and accepted by both sides. This breeds a hunger a desire for truth and sadly there seems to nothing that can satisfy because there is no truth, and if you happen to find one it will be gone as quickly as it came.
For God's people though, He has not let them starve, He has not with held a diet of truth from His children. He has given them the word. The object of objectivity, it doesn't change and it is always true. When the sand of science sinks and a definition can only be defines as "we are not sure", we stand on the word the fact of God. Thank God that he has blessed with a constant an unchangeable and eternal truth. All Christian thought and life is in submission to it, and all who eat of it are satisfied. The word of God is the true object of objectivity, the true absolute and the true source of truth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
"so-called scientific laws are only laws if they aren't being used to dispel the myth of evolution."
There are no "scientific laws" that can be used to "dispel the myth of evolution." It's not that the "laws" stop being "laws," it's that creationists misrepresent (thermodynamics is a favorite one) them.
Finaly, the only "myth of evolution" I can think of, is the myth that evolution didn't happen.
"Science is always changing"
I might add that that is a good thing. It means that we are constantly learning more, and that we are willing to drop old ideas when they are contradicted by the evidence.
Crowley, truth does not change, only our understanding of it does. For example, the Earth has always revolved around the Sun, whether we knew it or not, that truth has not changed.
Nearly every time a Creationist mentions thermodynamics he misrepresents it. The claim that thermodynamics somehow does not allow evolution is plainly absurd in many ways.
Regarding the second law of thermodynamics, I am guessing that you would say that earth is not a closed system since it gets energy from sun so the therefore that law does not apply.
Earth getting energy from the sun dose not exclude evolution from being bound by that law. If anything energy speeds up decay if there is nothing to harness and organize that energy into something. A bull adding its energy in a china shop is a good example. The raw energy of the bull does nothing but casue brake down, however if you would channel that energy somehow it could become useful, so the suns energy sans some conduit to channel it just further strengthens the case for creation. I will leave with this quote from John Ross of a Harvard scientist.
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
P.S. Could you please explain how creationist misrepresent the second law of thermodynamics?
"Regarding the second law of thermodynamics, I am guessing that you would say that earth is not a closed system since it gets energy from sun so the therefore that law does not apply."
Right. Not only that, entropy can also decrease locally in closed systems while increasing overall.
"Earth getting energy from the sun dose not exclude evolution from being bound by that law. If anything energy speeds up decay if there is nothing to harness and organize that energy into something. A bull adding its energy in a china shop is a good example. The raw energy of the bull does nothing but casue brake down, however if you would channel that energy somehow it could become useful, so the suns energy sans some conduit to channel it just further strengthens the case for creation."
Analogies are no good when they do not acuratly discribe the situation. A bull in a china shop is nothing like the Earth receiving from the sun. On Earth the energy is harnessed by plants and some bacteria.
At what point do you imagine thermodynamics prevents evolution? Evolution proceeds according to processes we know happen and can observe happening all the time. Organisms develop, live, reproduce (their offspring being slightly different), die. Nowhere is there a violation of the second law.
"I will leave with this quote from John Ross of a Harvard scientist."
Go to the Harvard site and look for John
Ross.
"P.S. Could you please explain how creationist misrepresent the second law of thermodynamics?"
You have just done so.
That is anothere Bob Ross, a leftist writer, not a scientist:
">John Ross
>American Book Award winner for his 1995 book Rebellion From the Roots, the
>first look at the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas, and author of seven
>other works of fiction and non-fiction, will present his latest work,
>Murdered by Capitalism: A Memoir of 150 years of Life and Death on the
>U.S. Left."
I never trust creationist "quotes," I know all about the practice of "quoting" the words of scientist out of context and then parroting these "quotes" uncritically.
No one has ever explained at what stage of evolution the second law of thermodynamics is supposed to act, as all the mechanisms that cause evolution are observed to happen all the time. If thermodynamics doesn't prevent an embryo from developing or a plant from growing, it can't prevent life from evolving either. In fact, the tendency of the genome to mutate introduces new variations on which natural selection can act, so we could say that a certain tendency towards disorder is a good thing for evolution.
"Sorry I have taken so long to respond, I really just don't have the patience."
Same here, but somehow I feel a duty to correct this kind of missinformation when I see it. It would be easier not to care.
"First of all there is no reason to believe that this man is not the same person."
There is no reason to believe it's him either.
"Second of all even if it is, how was he mis-quoted?"
Well, the person who quoted Dr. Ross claims he is an "evolutionist," so clearly he doesn't think his argument applies to evolution. If we could see what context that quote was originaly in, we could see what he was really talking about. This way it's worthless.
It's not unusual for creationists to take make a quote so out of context that it says the exact opposite of what the writer meant.
This practice is quite well documented, I've seen it done first hand quite a few times.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
It is their responsability to not take quote out of context. What the quote miners do amounts to deliberate deception and the people who use those quotes uncriticaly in debates show themselves to be lazy and unconcerned for the truth. Do you have any arguments that don't rely on out of context quotes and appeals to authority.
Again I have to question when, during the process of evolution, does the second law of thermodynamics act to prevent it?
"During the process of evolution, when does the second law of thermodynamics act to prevent it?"
Well first I would say that that question is impossible to answer since no one has ever observed the evolutionary process. But for the sake of this conversation I would say from the beginning.
The earth might be an open system getting energy from the sun and allowing cells to organize into order. But let us look at the cosmos as a whole, the entire universe. This is, according to the evolutionist, a closed system. There is nothing outside the universe such as a creator or any other being inputting energy and allowing order to come to the universe. So how did the primordial soup form? How did the first cells organize? There is no energy coming into the cosmos. The universe as whole, our solar system included is moving toward disorder. So how could the evolutionary process even think about beginning with nothing coming from outside the cosmos to start it? The universe is closed; therefore useful energy is decreasing rather than increasing and life was is and will always be moving from order to disorder.
"I believe the law simply stated suggests that organization cannot come from disorganization. In other words a substance or thing can deteriorate and enter into a state of disorganization, however it cannot move from disorganization to a state of organization because information cannot be moved."
It has nothing to do with "information" being moved, and as I said before, things do go from disorganization to organization.
You can find lots of articles on the topic here if you are interested:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
"Evolution is considered a disorganized system moving to organization therefore by definition acting against the 2n law. I hope that helped."
No, evolution is no such thing. Evolution is "a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Can one say that a lamprey is more "organized" than a zebra? Or a dinosaur more "organized" than a bird? Unless we are talking about the very beginning of life I can't see your point. That is, however, a topic that's mostly outside the scope of evolution.
"Well first I would say that that question is impossible to answer since no one has ever observed the evolutionary process."
Natural selection has been observed, speciation has been observed, radical changes in behaviour and shape of organisms due to selection have been observed.
"But for the sake of this conversation I would say from the beginning.
The earth might be an open system getting energy from the sun and allowing cells to organize into order. But let us look at the cosmos as a whole, the entire universe."
The we are outside the realm of evolution and in that of cosmology and physics.
"This is, according to the evolutionist, a closed system."
Define "evolutionist." I can't imagine what you mean by that word in this context.
"There is nothing outside the universe such as a creator or any other being inputting energy and allowing order to come to the universe."
That might well be, but, as I said before, entropy can decrease locally in closed systems while increasing overall.
"So how did the primordial soup form? How did the first cells organize? There is no energy coming into the cosmos.
The universe as whole, our solar system included is moving toward disorder. So how could the evolutionary process even think about beginning with nothing coming from outside the cosmos to start it?"
There is energy reaching Earth, what happens in the rest of the cosmos is not important.
"The universe is closed; therefore useful energy is decreasing rather than increasing"
Luckily it will be a few billion years before we have to worry about that :)
"and life was is and will always be moving from order to disorder."
That is a non sequitur and simply not true. Where is life moving towards disorder?
"Natural selection has been observed, speciation has been observed, radical changes in behaviour and shape of organisms due to selection have been observed."
How dose this constitue evolution. Last I check when an organism changes behavior or shape it is still the same organism. And where is an organism that is trans-specices. We have seen noumerous variations within say dogs for exaple but we have never seen a dog cat.
How can the amount of energy coming into the cosmos not matter. If the earth and the sun are contained in the cosmos then there energy is as well decreasing.
Show me where entropy has decreased locally.
"That is a non sequitur and simply not true. Where is life moving towards disorder?"
um...death.
"How dose this constitue evolution."
This is exactly what evolution is. I should hve added that we have observed everything we could reasonably expect to observe based on evolutionary theory.
"Last I check when an organism changes behavior or shape it is still the same organism."
Note that evolution is not individual organisms changin shape, it is populations changing over many generations. We don't expect one species to change into another in one generation, either (though it can happen, with plants for example).
Also, if an organism changes, it is by definition no longer the same.
"And where is an organism that is trans-specices."
Do you mean current organisms? How could you know? That is something that can only be judged with hindsight.
The fossil record does show many transitional forms, however.
"We have seen noumerous variations within say dogs for exaple but we have never seen a dog cat."
Nor would we expect to see one one based on evolutionary theory.
"How can the amount of energy coming into the cosmos not matter. If the earth and the sun are contained in the cosmos then there energy is as well decreasing."
We have energy now. One day our sun will die and we wont have any more. Life will perish, evolution will stop. This will take billions of years, so for now it doesn't matter.
"Show me where entropy has decreased locally."
Anywhere there are planets, stars, living things, right here on Earth.
"um...death."
Life itself continues while organisms die.
Also, remember that without death there would be no evolution.
First, before this debate goes on any further I would like to say that I appricaiate the talk about the issues and not pointless ad homin attack. I respect your respect, and will look forward to your input on other articles posted on this site. I do not have adequate time to respond to your latest comment but will do so toning or tommorow. But again thank you for the debate of the issues and not resorting to character assination.
Thank you, I to appreciate a debate on this topic that doesnt devolve into name-calling.
It does strike me as odd that people who speak out against evolution seem to have so little understanding of what the theory of evolution actually says, what the evidence for evolution is, and even of the very definition of evolution.
Before we argue further, I'd recommend you check out http://www.talkorigins.org/ at the very least you'll have a better understanding of what you are arguing against.
if you think evolutionism nescesarily means atheism, you should go to http://www.theistic-evolution.com/
I do recognize and accept and affirm the fact that microevolution, variation within a species, occurs. However I do not believe, nor do I think that there is any sufficient evidence for macroevolution, life moving from lower forms to higher form through gradual changes over long periods of time. There also is no evidence for common ancestry in the fossil record. Add to that, a transitional form has never been found (a cross between two species) there are many cases of adaptation and changes within species. The finch for example, this is what inspired Darwin to organize his theory. Their beaks grow longer when there it is dry for a couple generations so they can dig deeper in the sand. When it is not dry there beaks grow shorter. This is an adaptation and a testimony to the careful craftsmanship of God in creation. When you get down to it though the finch is still a finch, long beak or short.
As far as theistic evolution goes I do not think that the two can co-exists, theism and evolution. The theory undermines the creation narrative and leads to a bunch of other worldview problems. Theistic evolution is a movement that sprung up because Christians chose to surrender to the humanist instead of doing scholarship of their own. This is a fatal mistake that modern theist have made and this misnomer needs to be addressed.
"I do recognize and accept and affirm the fact that microevolution, variation within a species, occurs. However I do not believe, nor do I think that there is any sufficient evidence for macroevolution, life moving from lower forms to higher form through gradual changes over long periods of time."
Well, if microevolution is possible, there is nothing that would make macroevolution impossible as macroevolution is nothing more than a lot of microevolution over long periods of time. Of course, just because it's possible doesn't mean it happened, but I intend to show that it did. Note that as I've pointed out before, macroevolution in the sense of speciation has been observed.
"There also is no evidence for common ancestry in the fossil record. Add to that, a transitional form has never been found (a cross between two species) there are many cases of adaptation and changes within species."
That's not true, there are many transitional forms in the fossil record.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
"The finch for example, this is what inspired Darwin to organize his theory. Their beaks grow longer when there it is dry for a couple generations so they can dig deeper in the sand. When it is not dry there beaks grow shorter."
There are actually many species of Darwin finches (I think around 14) adapted to many different diets.
"This is an adaptation and a testimony to the careful craftsmanship of God in creation."
I agree that any sensible god would make his creations capable of evolving unless it wanted to keep fidgeting with them any time there was any environmental change.
"When you get down to it though the finch is still a finch, long beak or short."
And if any "finch" was different enough from the rest as to deserve a new name, creationists would claim it was just a different species and not related, that's a catch 22. Of course, all species begin as just slightly different "variations," the Darwin finches are the perfect example.
"As far as theistic evolution goes I do not think that the two can co-exists, theism and evolution. The theory undermines the creation narrative and leads to a bunch of other worldview problems."
Only if you consider "theism" synonymous with fundamentalist Christianity. Most Christian churches have no problem reconciling the two. How they do it is to me not very interesting as I'm not religious.
"Theistic evolution is a movement that sprung up because Christians chose to surrender to the humanist instead of doing scholarship of their own."
People like Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Christian and one of the most important figures of the Modern Synthesis, belie this point. He certainly did incredibly important research of his own. Christians who accept evolution do so because the evidence is undeniable, not because they are surrendering "to the humanist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky#Final_illness_and_the_Light_of_Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html
"This is a fatal mistake that modern theist have made and this misnomer needs to be addressed."
I would think that failing to accept the most basic principles of modern science would be a fatal mistake on Christianity's part, but that's a discussion that can only be had amongst Christians.
I'm just very interested in it.
Post a Comment