The War
In
my spare time, I like to cruise the internet and hang out in chat-rooms.
In this never ending quest for knowledge, I made a disturbing discovery.
It seems that Christians from around the world have started a war against
science. It seems as if some scientific discoveries and theories/laws go
against some of the things in the Holy Bible. Instead of taking a look at
the possibility of error in the Bible, they instead are attacking science.
Unfortunately in their war, they are using either misrepresentation,
misunderstanding, or just flat out lies to degrade science. The worst part
is that a lot of this information goes out to people who know little about
science and the Bible, and naturally they tend to believe the first thing
they hear. The purpose of this page is to clear up some of the things that
people may hear. Just as a note, I am all for religious freedom. Although
I am atheist, I have no problem with some people's need for the divine, or
supernatural guidance. This is not an attack on Christianity, just an
attempt to spread truth and clear up misunderstandings.
Clearing Up The
Theory
One
of the biggest things I see in error with nearly every anti-science web
site is the theory. Many of these Christian websites make it sound like
scientists think that theories are 100% true. This is false, in fact it's
the complete opposite of the truth. This next statement is very
important... No scientist thinks that a theory is 100% true.
Not a one. A theory is not a law, but it cannot be easily discarded
because there is some evidence. But to say that any scientist thinks or
teaches a theory is fact is nothing more than a lie.
The Multiple Choice
There is one thing that creationists do that is really irritating to me,
yet many people never really notice the problem with it. How many times
have you heard a creationist say "either lifeless matter created the earth
or God did, and since lifeless matter cannot create, that means that God
did". Do you see the problem?
Okay, for those who didn't see the problem, here it is. There is no reason
that there are only those two possibilities. With something as broad as
the creation of the universe, I really doubt we can limit the possibilites
to being two, for the most part, impossible choices. I wonder what these
creationists would put in the following questions on a test
1. 2+5=
a. 34
b. 2,983,203,992,823,881,873,988,388,293,884,377,328,289
2. Ice is ________
a. a blend of fingernail clippings and toothpaste
b. a synthetic material used to line microwave ovens
3. George Washington was ________
a. the first man in space
b. the goalie for the Calgary Flames in 1995
Now do you see the problem? This is a pretty clever way of deception. Not
too many people think right away that when given a multiple choice problem
that the correct answer is not one of the choices. If you had seen the
questions above on an important exam, would you have questioned the
examiner? Or thought "well, I'm no hockey expert, maybe the Flames goalie
was named George Washington" or "Who knows what the lingo at microwave
assembly lines is, maybe there is ice in the oven." I hope, for the world
and the future of humanity's sake that you would question the exam. So why
not a creationist?
Evolutionism, Darwinism, and Creation Science.
These words are all very funny to me. Mainly because I never see them
anywhere except on Christian based anti-science web sites and
publications. But lets take a good look at these.
Evolutionism- This term has an interesting origin. After a
Christian group's attempt to get Biblical creation taught in public
school's science classes failed, they took a new angle. They changed their
tactic from adding the Bible to taking out science. They said that since
the theory of evolution cannot be proven, it's a faith. Therefore it's a
religion, and should not be taught in public schools. They called it
evolutionism to give it a religious sound. The problem here is that
evolution is not a religion, it's a scientific theory. To say a scientific
theory is a religion is wrong, a theory is an educated guess, put through
experiments and for the most part have inconclusive evidence. Religion on
the other hand is faith, there is no scientific testing. It's just
believed.
Darwinism- Another attempt to make science look like a religion.
This term is used to label those who believe in Charles Darwin's Theory of
Evolution. Due to the fact that DNA testing has proven Darwin's theory
wrong (Homo Sapiens are not related to Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, etc.)
there are no true Darwinist Scientists. Darwinism has absolutely nothing
to do with modern science.
Creation Science- The exact opposite of Darwinism and Evolutionism.
This is from a Christian attempt to having the Bible taught in science
classes. They simply took the biblical story of creation and put the word
science after it. Their argument was "creation science is a science, thus
it should be taught in science class." The flaw is that there is nothing
scientific about the Bible's story of creation. It's all just pulled from
one source which cannot be verified for accuracy.
Charles Darwin
As
most people know, Charles Darwin wrote the book "Origin of Species". This
is the book that brought forth his theory of evolution. As a great deal of
Christian based anti-science sites like to point out, Charles Darwin is
treated as close to a God that a scientific community could treat a man.
This is wrong.
The truth is that scientists have already proven his theory as being
wrong. They did this by giving each "step" of man a DNA test. Does this
mean that Charles Darwin is now a laughing stock? By all means no. If it
wasn't for Charles Darwin bringing up this theory, we may never have
thought about this option. Charles Darwin came up with a good foundation
on which to build a new branch of science.
One thing that makes me think that these "creation scientists" have never
even studied Darwin's theories is the fact that on the very first couple
of pages, in the introduction, of Origin of Species Charles Darwin says
the following quotes.
"My work now (1859) is nearly finished, but it will take me many years to
complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to
publish this Abstract."
As we know an Abstract is not much more than an outline, or introduction.
To take this book as fact is in great error, for it's not completed work.
"This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I
cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and
I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No
doubt some errors have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious
in trusting good authorities alone."
In other words, this book isn't complete, the theory hasn't been fully
researched, and there is a great deal more work left. Not to mention there
may be false leads that have yet to be weeded out. In other words... not
even Darwin himself was confident of his works on evolution.
Not only did Darwin think he was right, but neither did scientists, they
furthered his studies and continued to do so with the help of technology,
until they disproved it. So never was there a time that a true scientist
said "Darwin's theory of evolution is right, without a doubt." So if a
creation scientist tells you this, you know that they are lying to you.
The Truth About the Laws of Thermodynamics.
The laws of thermodynamics are probably the
most common, and most distorted part of science that these web sites and
publications use. I am guessing that this is so because thermodynamics is
not commonly discussed nor is it easy to understand. Those are the two
things that make it easy to misrepresent. Unfortunately I have heard and
seen creation scientists and their writings distort and misrepresent the
laws to extremes, then they end it by saying that they have degrees in a
scientific field. I personally had a gentleman talk to me and say that the
law of thermodynamics makes it impossible for evolution to happen. Then he
said "and I have my masters in biology, so I know this is how it really
works." Naturally when I asked him which law of thermo dynamics, and why
he'd be such an expert in physics if he's a biology major, and so on. He
turned red faced and referred to me as a devil's worker. So here it all
come in layman's terms.
The Zero Law of
Thermodynamics
This law is simple, it
states that there is no energy exchange between two objects that are the
same temperature. So if you have a pot of water that is 80 degrees, and
drop an 80 degree rock into the water, there will be no energy exchange.
The reason it is called the zero law is because it was formulated after
the first law but is needed for the first law as well.
The First Law of
Thermodynamics
The first law of
thermodynamics states that energy is conserved. It has nothing to do with
the possibility of evolution. The first law of thermodynamics is actually
about energy may be made and used but there is no change in the amount of
energy in the system. Okay, so what does this mean to you? It means that
if you heat up a pot of water, drop a cold rock into it, the water will
cool and the rock will heat up. No energy is lost nor gained by the rock.
The water and rock will eventually be the same temperature, but it will be
the midway point between the two temperatures. So energy is conserved.
The Second Law of
Thermodynamics
The second law of
thermodynamics still has nothing to do with evolution, instead it deals
with entropy. Entropy is disorder, and the second law states that in order
for a reaction to occur entropy must increase. This is saying that if
water is heated, the molecular structure becomes more disorderly. When we
take ice in it's most orderly form, ice, and heat it up, it becomes less
orderly (water). When we heat water up even more, it turns to a greater
state of disorder (steam). Now when we refreeze the water the energy is
conserved but the disorder is not. And that is the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.
The Third Law of
Thermodynamics
The third law of
thermodynamics, states that the entropy of a perfect crystal and absolute
zero is zero. How can this be applied to evolution? It can't. But what
does it mean? It means when you take a temperature of something down to
absolute zero (-459F/-273C), since there is no thermal heat, there is no
disorder.
So there you have it, now when you hear somebody equate thermodynamics
with the impossibility of evolution you know that they are either in error
or flat out lying. And in the words of the old GI Joe cartoon... "Now you
know, and knowing is half the battle".
To go back to the Essay page
click here
To go back to BibleBabble.com,
click here
To click on something that isn't
really a link, click here
