Surprising as it may seem creationists are quite correct when they state that the theory of evolution is not science.
.
Essential features of science are that physical changes shall be observed under controlled conditions, that the changes shall be reproducible under the same conditions, and that predictions based on the observations but calling for somewhat different conditions shall be realised. Thus, taking account of the observed relationship between electricity and magnetism Maxwell showed that there should be electromagnetic waves that travelled, allowing for experimental error, with the measured velocity of light. Hertz and Marconi were then able to create and utilise the waves using electromagnetic techniques.
Essential features of science are that physical changes shall be observed under controlled conditions, that the changes shall be reproducible under the same conditions, and that predictions based on the observations but calling for somewhat different conditions shall be realised. Thus, taking account of the observed relationship between electricity and magnetism Maxwell showed that there should be electromagnetic waves that travelled, allowing for experimental error, with the measured velocity of light. Hertz and Marconi were then able to create and utilise the waves using electromagnetic techniques.
.
The changes associated with evolution occur far too slowly for this scientific programme to be followed. However, the creationists are wrong when they infer in consequence that the theory of evolution is invalid.
The changes associated with evolution occur far too slowly for this scientific programme to be followed. However, the creationists are wrong when they infer in consequence that the theory of evolution is invalid.
.
In my blog "The Real Job of the Second Law of Thermodynamics" I show that the past is determined and defined by a principle that I call the Improved Second Law of Thermodynamics, the present state of the universe being the starting point for its application. The principle has two distinct consequences, the conventional Second Law and what I call the Principle of Minimum Coincidence. The theory of evolution can be regarded as following from the application of the latter principle.
In my blog "The Real Job of the Second Law of Thermodynamics" I show that the past is determined and defined by a principle that I call the Improved Second Law of Thermodynamics, the present state of the universe being the starting point for its application. The principle has two distinct consequences, the conventional Second Law and what I call the Principle of Minimum Coincidence. The theory of evolution can be regarded as following from the application of the latter principle.
.
Suppose that you are in a bookshop and see a row of identical books on a shelf. You do not suppose that their several similarities are coincidences, having arisen by chance, for that would be extremely unlikely. Rather, you suppose that the similarities are the result of the books having been printed on the same set of presses, even though you know nothing about the presses or their utilisation. This example illustrates the application of the principle.
Suppose that you are in a bookshop and see a row of identical books on a shelf. You do not suppose that their several similarities are coincidences, having arisen by chance, for that would be extremely unlikely. Rather, you suppose that the similarities are the result of the books having been printed on the same set of presses, even though you know nothing about the presses or their utilisation. This example illustrates the application of the principle.
.
In general therefore, when you are trying to determine the past you select it so that, as far as possible, present similarities are the common effects of single causes. Of course many and even most present similarities cannot be attributed to the same cause. The problem of linking particular effects to their true causes leads to uncertainties. Therefore the situation is not usually as straightforward as the foregoing example might suggest: there can be uncertainties. (In principle, bringing in the Second Law eliminates the uncertainties, but in practice this is not always possible.)
In general therefore, when you are trying to determine the past you select it so that, as far as possible, present similarities are the common effects of single causes. Of course many and even most present similarities cannot be attributed to the same cause. The problem of linking particular effects to their true causes leads to uncertainties. Therefore the situation is not usually as straightforward as the foregoing example might suggest: there can be uncertainties. (In principle, bringing in the Second Law eliminates the uncertainties, but in practice this is not always possible.)
.
Thus, in the case of evolution, similarities between species imply that they share a common ancestry even though this ancestry may be indeterminate. For example, the obvious and particular similarities that cats and dogs share, being carnivores with distinctively similar noses and paws, suggest that they had common ancestors. These ancestors would have been closer to them than the ancestors that they share with the ruminants, which do not have these features but which are nevertheless related as being mammals.
Thus, in the case of evolution, similarities between species imply that they share a common ancestry even though this ancestry may be indeterminate. For example, the obvious and particular similarities that cats and dogs share, being carnivores with distinctively similar noses and paws, suggest that they had common ancestors. These ancestors would have been closer to them than the ancestors that they share with the ruminants, which do not have these features but which are nevertheless related as being mammals.
.
The principle calls for minimum coincidence rather no coincidence. As already indicated there may be similarities that cannot be traced back to a common source and which are therefore purely coincidental. The world of animals demonstrates this. An extinct South-American animal called Pyrotherium was heavily built, it had tusks and, judged from the position of the nasal openings in the skull, it had a trunk. It thus resembled the elephants but the ancestral forms of each type of animal are quite distinct and lived in very different parts of the world.
The principle calls for minimum coincidence rather no coincidence. As already indicated there may be similarities that cannot be traced back to a common source and which are therefore purely coincidental. The world of animals demonstrates this. An extinct South-American animal called Pyrotherium was heavily built, it had tusks and, judged from the position of the nasal openings in the skull, it had a trunk. It thus resembled the elephants but the ancestral forms of each type of animal are quite distinct and lived in very different parts of the world.
.
The Principle of Minimum Coincidence is a principle of history rather than of science. The theory of evolution is thus an historical theory rather than a scientific one. But scientific discoveries help to fill in the gaps, as when DNA is used to estimate the degree of relationship between different species.
The Principle of Minimum Coincidence is a principle of history rather than of science. The theory of evolution is thus an historical theory rather than a scientific one. But scientific discoveries help to fill in the gaps, as when DNA is used to estimate the degree of relationship between different species.
.
It may be noted that creationists claim that the theory of evolution is wrong because it breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The development of several new species from an old one represents a decrease in disorder when the law requires that there should be an increase. They thus display an abysmal ignorance of the law and its consequences. Local decreases in order can occur provided that overall there is an increase.
It may be noted that creationists claim that the theory of evolution is wrong because it breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The development of several new species from an old one represents a decrease in disorder when the law requires that there should be an increase. They thus display an abysmal ignorance of the law and its consequences. Local decreases in order can occur provided that overall there is an increase.
.
Perhaps their refrigerators and freezers, which should provide local decreases in disorder, do not work and perhaps they have never observed the presence on their windows of ice crystals with an exact six-fold symmetry resulting from the cooling of disordered atmospheric water vapour.
Perhaps their refrigerators and freezers, which should provide local decreases in disorder, do not work and perhaps they have never observed the presence on their windows of ice crystals with an exact six-fold symmetry resulting from the cooling of disordered atmospheric water vapour.
.
Before the achievement of a maximum of disorder the development of disorder from order consists of the proliferation of different and new varieties of order. Thus the shattering of an object, which has its own degree of order, gives an increase in disorder due to the formation of a large number of differently sized and shaped fragments each with its own distinctive order.
Before the achievement of a maximum of disorder the development of disorder from order consists of the proliferation of different and new varieties of order. Thus the shattering of an object, which has its own degree of order, gives an increase in disorder due to the formation of a large number of differently sized and shaped fragments each with its own distinctive order.
.
In the same way when a single species gives rise to several species there is an increase in disorder, not a decrease as the creationists suppose. But the increase is minute compared with the increases associated with the development, lives and decay of the very many individual plants or animals that are involved. Also, the creationists fail to note that the development of each individual represents a localised decrease in disorder of the sort of which they disapprove.
In the same way when a single species gives rise to several species there is an increase in disorder, not a decrease as the creationists suppose. But the increase is minute compared with the increases associated with the development, lives and decay of the very many individual plants or animals that are involved. Also, the creationists fail to note that the development of each individual represents a localised decrease in disorder of the sort of which they disapprove.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment