Science And Creation

In "Science and Creation," Poul Anderson mentions two pieces of evidence that the universe is old:

the laws of radioactive decay;
the cosmic red shift.

I know that there are other pieces of evidence but do not know what they are. More generally, if the scientific creationist claim that Earth is only a few thousand years old were true, then at least five sciences -

astronomy;
physics;
chemistry;
biology;
archaeology -

- would be false.

Do scientists (arrogantly) claim that they can explain every phenomenon? No. They try to explain every phenomenon. Thus, phenomena divide into:

those for which there is a current explanation, possibly to be revised later;
those that have not been explained yet.

Either this must always be the case or a hypothetical Theory of Everything will:

have a mathematical form;
unify the forces of nature;
explain the most basic laws of physics and chemistry;
describe the most basic properties of the most basic entities, whatever those are.

A creationist argues that mutation and natural selection cannot explain a particular adaptation. Scientists either acknowledge that they cannot explain it yet and keep trying or (this has happened) draw attention to text books containing an explanation of which the creationist was unaware. The creationist argument that we should accept that the adaptation was designed and should therefore stop trying to explain it amounts to the suggestion that we should stop doing science - a contradictory suggestion coming from a "scientific creationist."

Accidental Order

My mind is still reeling from the implications of the Poul Anderson article that I summarized here. It did not really contain much that I had not heard before but sometimes the message strikes home with greater force.

Cosmic order is a local, temporary and accidental by-product of the spatial dissipation of originally concentrated energy. The dissipating energy fills space whereas order is concentrated in the galaxies with vast spaces between and inside them. We may add to this that all of consciousness is an accidental by-product of the unconscious process of natural selection.

Thus, we were never meant to be here but have hitched a ride on one part of energy's journey from singularity to heat death, which is the main cosmic process. Anything that we discover or achieve is a bonus because nothing was expected or demanded from us in the first place. There was no one to demand it. Meanwhile, rejoice that we are here and make the most of it.

Discourse And Rhetoric

In "Science and Creation," Poul Anderson complains that rhetoric has replaced discourse. Often:

an opponent is reviled;
there is no attempt to understand his point of view;
opinions or attitudes are falsely attributed to him.

But we have to understand a point of view before we can know whether we agree or disagree with it! I agree that this deplorable situation exists and suggest that it is because real or perceived conflicts of interest are thought to underlie disagreements. In these islands, to support Irish unification was to be suspected of supporting terrorism whereas to support the United Kingdom was to be suspected of supporting continued social discrimination.

I once argued that every state should be secular and should treat everyone within its borders with full equality, therefore that no state should be Jewish or Muslim etc. A supporter of a Jewish state accused me of advocating a Muslim state and also described me as "That -------, Shackley!"

I think that the automatic mental response is: I not only disagree with but also strongly dislike what this person is saying, therefore I should denounce it in the strongest possible terms even at the expense of forgetting what his view in fact is. I suggest as a basic rule of discourse: quote or summarize the other person's view in terms that are acceptable to him, then reply to what he said and only to what he said.

In the same article, Anderson asks:

"Would it really infringe anyone's constitutional rights if children were to learn something about the roots of their civilization?" (NESFA vol 2, p. 246)

I respond: No but does anyone argue that it would?

Matter And Energy

A passage in James Blish's Black Easter and The Day After Judgment (London, 1972), pp. 173-17, is relevant to the discussion in the previous post. To paraphrase -

Baines: The conservation laws apply to matter and energy but demons are neither.

Satvje: They may be unified fields of electro-magnetico-gravitic energy with 100 per cent negative entropy.

Buelg: Completely negative entropy is impossible but stable negative entropy would be H(x)-Hy(x)=C+E.

Satvje: That would be eternal life.

Buelg: Eternal barring accidents. We ought to be able to disrupt the electromagnetic part of the system and thus to kill spirits.

However, I do not understand the equation.