On Creationism

The Institute for Creation Research has an article by Duane Gish with some abuse of thermodynamics : http://www.icr.org/article/177/ The article says: The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. No. Overall entropy increases, but in one place it may well decrease. A simple example would be a hot cup of coffee. As it cools its entropy decreases. The second law is not being broken; as the cup cools heat is lost to its surroundings and overall entropy increases. Further, the Second Law has nothing about complexity - it is only about entropy, which is disorder of energy. This is a common addition that creationists like to slip in. They make it clear that this guy has a Ph.D., so he should know what he is talking about. He has a degree in chemistry and a Ph.D. in biochemistry, both from decent universities, so it is seems a good bet he knows and understands thermodynamics. When he is pedd...

A great example of abusing thermodynamics can be seen in the book The Mystery of Life's Origin, by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. Chapter 8 is available on-line here . This chapter was written by Thaxton, who has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, so really should know better. He considers the entropy when polypeptides form. A polypeptide is a sequence of amino acids, and he compares a random sequence with five each of the twenty biologically active amino acids to a specific sequence: For a random polypeptide of 100 amino acids, the configurational entropy, Scr, may be calculated using eq. 8-2c and eq. 8-7 as follows: Scr = k lncr since cr = N! / n1!n2!...n20! = 100! / 5!5!....5! = 100! / (5!)20 = 1.28 x 10 115 (8-8) The calculation of equation 8-8 assumes that an equal number of each type of amino acid, namely 5, are contained in the polypeptide. Since k, or Boltzmann's constant, equals 1.38 x 10 -16 erg/deg, and ln [1.28 x 10 115 ] = 265,...

For some reason the laws of thermodynamics get particularly abused by creationists. Undoubtedly this is because most of them do not understand them, but a few do, and they should know better. For them, it looks like deliberate deceit. This post introduces the laws, and subsequent pages on this topic will look at the claims of creationists (and one IDist) who hold at least a doctorate and should understand the subject. There are four laws and, like a C-style array, they are numbered from zero. The important two are the first and second. The First Law The first law says that energy (of which matter is one form) is conserved. That is, for any change, the energy at the end of the process is equal to the energy at the start. That energy may have moved around or been converted into a different form, but the total overall energy is the same. Mathematically: E(i) = E(f) ... where E(i) is the initial energy, E(f) is the final energy. The Second Law The second law says that entrop...

To be clear, I am considering anyone who denies universal common descent, and believes instead that each "kind" of animal was created separately is a creationist. There are plenty of people who are creationists and proud of it. The people at " Answers in Genesis " and " Institute for Creation Research " are fine examples. What is of more interest to me are the intelligent design advocates who are also creationists. There is nothing inconsistent about being both an IDist and a creationist, however this does give us some insight into why they might want to promote ID, and why they reject modern evolutionary theory. Dembski claims that many intelligent design advocates are ex-Darwinists, rather than fundamentalists wanting to promote creationism. However, I have yet to see anything resembling decent argument against common descent, other than reference to a holy book, so I take his words with a liberal pinch of salt: In my own case, I was raised in a ...

An interesting philosophical discuss revolves around the issue of when a human becomes a real person. You could argue that it is not until 18 in a legal sense, as this is the age you can vote, but I guess most people would say an earlier age. How about 10, when you are judged capable of telling right from wrong? One thing that sets us apart from the beasts is our self-awareness. Perhaps we are only really us once we become self-aware, at 15 to 24 months . Earlier still? Back in the womb, perhaps, when the brain forms: Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. http://www.scientificameri...