[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Fwd: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics



In a message dated 97-03-28 10:00:13 EST, ArtSippo@aol.com writes:

<< << > Jeff Poling writes;
  > 
  > >     Is it just me or does the physics community have
  > >more then its fair share of creationsists? >>
 
 It is interesting to note that very few specialists in the biological
 sciences are creationists.  Rather those in the "harder" sciences seem more
 likely to succumb to this.  I think it is due to a combination of several
 factors.  First of all the conclusions in the biological sciences are
 relatively "soft" and conjectural when compared to phyics and chemistry, in
 many cases being derived by deduction, not induction.  
  >>


There may be a few physicists that can be counted as creationists, just as
there are doctors etc. However, I personally know a lot of physicists,
chemists, geologists,  and engineers. None are creationists in the sense that
they believe life itself is not the result of evolution. I know a lot of
non-scientists too. Some are creationists. My conclusion from an admittedly
unscientific  sampling,... those with rigorous scientific training of any
sort are less likely to be creationists.  

---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:   ArtSippo@aol.com
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu
Reply-to:       ArtSippo@aol.com
To:     dinosaur@usc.edu
Date: 97-03-28 10:00:13 EST

In a message dated 97-03-28 07:06:09 EST, you write:

<< > Jeff Poling writes;
 > 
 > >     Is it just me or does the physics community have
 > >more then its fair share of creationsists? >>

It is interesting to note that very few specialists in the biological
sciences are creationists.  Rather those in the "harder" sciences seem more
likely to succumb to this.  I think it is due to a combination of several
factors.  First of all the conclusions in the biological sciences are
relatively "soft" and conjectural when compared to phyics and chemistry, in
many cases being derived by deduction, not induction.  

Very few of the hypotheses regarding evolution are directly testable in the
laboratory and the discovery of one or two new fossils can drastically
challenge current paradigms.  Accepted concepts in physics and chemistry are
rarely as susceptable to drastic alteration by new observations.  

Also, biologists who construct evolutionary schemas tend to treat the genetic
processes by which evolutionary change occurs as a mysterious "deus ex
machina" without specifically showing HOW evolutionary changes occurred at
the molecular/chromosomal level.  They assume slow incremental changes but do
not demonstrate them.  The disparity between taxonomic trees inferred by
anatomic relationships on the one hand and protein & DNA sequence comparisons
on the other are a consequence of this and people like Michael Denton have
exploited this to make "anti-evolutionary" criticisms.

The fact that evolutionary relationships are a unifying principle in the
biologial sciences and that the nature of biological speculation is of a
different kind than that of the hard sciences but none the less rigourous in
its own way is lost on people who are not trained in these areas.  It is
easier for them to criticize biological science AS IF it ought to be like
physics in order to be a "real" science than to understand it within its own
context.  

Art