Science Museums Adapt in Struggle against Creationist Revisionism

Scientific American ^ | July 12, 2007 | Elizabeth Landau

[GodGunsGuts]

Madonna and Bon Jovi are no match for Hawaiian flies when it comes to karaoke hits at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln. In a popular exhibit activity, visitors attempt to mimic the unique courtship calls of different species of Hawaiian Drosophila, a group of 800 different flies that may have evolved from a single species.

Fly karaoke is part of "Explore Evolution," a permanent exhibit currently at Nebraska and five other museums in the Midwest and Southwest...that explores evolutionary concepts in new ways. Such an activity is a far cry from the traditional way science museums have presented evolution, which usually included charts called phylogenies depicting ancestral relationships or a static set of fossils arranged chronologically. "Explore Evolution'' has those, too—and then some, because museum curators came to realize that they needed better ways to counter growing attacks on their integrity.

...

Under pressure from these kinds of groups, the Kansas State Board of Education in 2005 approved a curriculum that allowed the public schools to include completely unfounded challenges to the theory of evolution.

In an effort to make their case to the public, creationists raised $26 million in private donations to build the 50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., which opened in late May. The institution presents the biblical history of the universe. Visitors learn that biblically, dinosaurs are best explained as creatures that roamed Earth with humans. In its first month of existence, the museum drew over 49,000 visitors, according to its Web site.

"Explore Evolution," funded by a $2.8 million grant from the National Science Foundation, is one of many recent efforts by science museums to counter such resistance to evolution...

[Coyoteman]

From Index to Creationist Claims

Creationist Claim CF001:

The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.

Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.

Response:

1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
   
   
   • the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
   • entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
   • even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

   In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
   
   

2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
   
   Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
   
   
3. Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.
   
   
4. Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.

Source

[RightWhale]

My background and training is in physics. Physics, and especially mathematical explanations used in physics, are analogies. I would not be quick to adopt diluted definitions as that is pushing an analogy to another level and there is no stopping short of art and aesthetics. It is a slippery slope and we have lost too many over the edge already.

[hosepipe]

[... Even the least sophisticated human beings on this planet have (and for a very, very long time) developed and practiced religious observances. ..]

Thats the/a difference between human and animal.. Animals can't conceive of God.. Humans evolved to believe in God, IF they evolved at all.. They may have been MADE that way.. Which IS MY POINT..

[edsheppa]

The part that insists that specified complexity can derive from random chaos unguided by a priori information.

There is no such claim. For one thing, the world is not chaotic but generally ordered at a macro level. For another, there is plenty of prior information to guide evolution. Natural selection depends on this for example.

BTW, why do you say "random chaos?" Do you know of a chaos that isn't random (in it's only reasonable physical sense of unpredictable)?

And why do you change this later to "random change informed by survivability?" Why do you equate chaos and "change informed by survivability?"

[pacelvi]

“That seems odd; I would have thought that field would generate a BS (accept [sic] perhaps for those studying to enter the television weatherman market).”

LOL

[betty boop]

Humans evolved to believe in God, IF they evolved at all.

Indeed dear 'pipe, I think this observation is true. The ability to conceive of God may signify a kind of intellectual "index" that marks the boundary between animal and human consciousness. It's easy to believe in what can be seen (directly accessed via sense perception). Animals do this all the time. It is perhaps the mark of distinctively human intelligence that we can grasp the "unseen things" that are operative in our world, especially including divine reality. Animals, of course, cannot do this.

In any case, man has understood himself in relation to God from time immemorial -- until it became "fashionable" to try to "pick Him off" in more recent times....

Thank you so much for writing, dear 'pipe!

[stormer]

“Animals can’t conceive of God.”

I don’t know what animals can conceive.

“Humans evolved to believe in God...”

How can you support this statement other than through circular reasoning?

[stormer]

Ouch! Touche. That’s what they call it a “spell checker” and not a “smart checker”.

[ok_now]

The part that insists that specified complexity can derive from random chaos unguided by a priori information.

Where does it state that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics infers that "specified complexity" cannot arise? I am not aware of any physics text or resource that says this is what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states.

If the entropy of a system does not decrease more than the entropy of the system's environment increases, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not violated. Period. If the bricks organized in your diagram are offset by a greater increase in entropy in the environment, the 2nd Law is not violated. Any amount of organization can be achieved in a system, as long as the overall entropy, including the entropy of the evironment, without violating the 2nd Law.

You've demonstrated that life requires organization (i.e. a decrease in 'entropy'). No one disagrees with this. Now, what process (or processes) required by evolution requires a decrease in entropy of a living system (or systems) that cannot be offset by a greater increase in the entropy of the environment? If no such process exists, then the 2nd Law isn't violated.

I haven't seen anyone refer to such a process in specific terms. That's what is necessary to show that the 2nd Law is violated. Where does the 2nd Law cause a violation? Where's the net 'information increase', when the environment of the organism is included as part of the system? This can't be ignored when thermodynamics is considered.

A lot of people make blanket statements about thermodynamics and evolution. I'm waiting for someone to show how biological evolution requires a net decrease of the system of organisms plus the environment?

Are you sure the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can be applied in this manner? Maybe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with this, and you're talking about some other law of science. If so, that's okay, but it's not the 2nd Law, and maybe you should refer to a different limiting law instead.

[betty boop]

You’re welcome, YHAOS! Good to see you hereabouts!

[CottShop]

You throw too many points at me at once- but here goes

[[Evolution is not a random process natural selection is anything but random.]]

Natural selection is indeed not random- you are correct here- however, macroevolution relies on the random nature of mutations, and mathematically, the timeline is not sufficient to allow for this randomness of the mutations to work even if it could pruduce new organs and complex systems- which we know it can’t

[[What is it exactly that an intelligent designer would do? It would shape an organism to the needs of it’s environment.

That is exactly what natural selection does, it shapes populations of organisms in ways so as to cause them to be better adapted to their environment.]]

And it works marvelously (in hte long run) where microevolution is concerned- however, we’re discussing macro here- different animal altogether.

[[All the benefit of an intelligent designer and none of the jealousy or wrath.]]

Yet none of the advantages of forgiveness and escape from eternal damnation brought about by our own free will. Don’t shift hte blame to the God who isn’t to blame. We all get exactly what we want and desire.

[[No one says that genetic drift results in complex organ systems. Mutation and natural selection however do exactly that.]]

And the demonstratable evidnece is where now?

[[No, mathematics, logic and alcohol manufacturers deal in proofs. Science deals in evidence, experimentation, hypothesis, theory and law.]]

Again you’re talking about hypothesis which is not the essence of science- it’s a branch of science- science does indeed deal in proofs- evolution isn’t the only application of science.

[[Do you realize that you quoted and responded to yourself thinking it was me? You are now literally arguing with yourself.]]

I am not...am too...nuh uh... yes I are. Roses are red, I don’t know why, I’m skitzophrenic, and so am I. It was late- hot and you were throwing too many points out at once

[[Your babbling again. Science doesn’t deal in gibberish. Define your words.]]

Don’t want ot tackle the problem of the lack of evidence showing species becoming other KINDS eh? Don’t want to show the evidence of a sparrow becomming a physicist (or anyhting else for that matter) eh?

You know exactly what I’m talking about ndt- You also know the problems with macroevolution and the lack of evidence and even demonstratable evidence which should be possible if we were able to move a species beyond it’s own KIND. you know that all experiments have caused many fanciful abominations, but that all these abominations have remained in their own KIND. you know as well, that in hte face of the lack of scientific evidence, that macroevolution proper is still just an unsubstantiated hypothesis- feigning dumb and demanding a precise definition without any obscure problems associated with it somewhere deep in the system of classification which has absolutely NO bearing on the fact that KINDS can’t evovle past their own KINDS, won’t win this argument

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html

[stormer]

“...distinctively human intelligence..”

It is difficult to argue that any creature’s intellectual capacity remotely approaches that of human beings. However, many animals engage in activities that indicate a level of intelligence far beyond what is normally accepted.

For example, pigeons were taught to stand on a box and peck at a suspended banana. These pigeons were also taught to push boxes. When the pigeons were faced with a situation where the box wasn’t situated below the suspended banana, the pigeons pushed the boxes so that they were below the bananas and were then able to peck them.

In another study, crows were given wire hooks which they used to pull food from narrow-necked containers (they reasoned this use on their own). When given a straight piece of wire, the crows bent them into hooks and then pulled the food from the containers.

Octopi have been known to unscrew jar lids in order to retrieve food and to move between aquaria (crawl out, walk across floor, crawl in, eat available fish, and return “home”).

These examples illustrate a profound level of thought and reasoning that humans have long believed impossible.

[betty boop]

I usually stay up on the porch to keep the condescension poo off of my boots.

LOL MHGinTN! I strongly recommend the wearing of hip boots for that very reason.... That way you can get off the porch from time to time and still have clean feet. :^)

[Dmitry Vukicevich]

http://www.creationists.org/switch.html

But I know it won’t matter much as you have already decided that you are correct and that anyone that disagrees with you must be stupid.

I ask what is more probable that a planet, by chance, was just the right distance from the sun and contained just the right amount of elements to sustain life or that the origins of the Universe where directed by an Intelligent Being that knew what he was doing?

I would say that the first option has about as much chance of being correct as throwing a deck of cards, one by one, off the Empire State Building and having them land in a perfect stack A,K,Q,J,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2 in proper suit. Clubs, Spades, Hearts, Diamonds.

[CottShop]

[[So you really are lumping all bacteria together as a single kind.]]

If you will look at hte examples of lateral gene transference in the bacterial realm, you will indeed see that they are in the same KIND

[[Do you realize that bacteria are more diverse then all the animals of the world combined and include thousands of species, genera, families, orders, classes and phylums?]]

Can I feign ignorance here and argue round and round too? it looks like fun. Since the Phylogenic classification system has problems classifying the many thousands of species of bacteria, shall I tell you that you are talking babble and put hte demand to you to precisely define which bacteria belong to which groups, genera, families, orders, classes and phylums if you’re going to make your argument as you’ve done to me when I know full well the intent of your arguments? Act dumb, and pretend that particular problems aren’t problems because science is having trouble precisely classifying all the bacteria?

[[It’s a little like saying a humans and a jellyfish are the same KIND.

If that is what you mean by KIND, then ALL animals are one KIND and ALL plants are one KIND because you are defining KIND as what science would a Kingdom]]

Nice attempt at prolonging a symantics argument to avoid obvious problems- read that link I posted and you will see the folly of your statem,ent

[betty boop]

These examples illustrate a profound level of thought and reasoning that humans have long believed impossible.

I'm delighted to accept your evidence here, Stormer. But the fact remains there is no animal of which we are aware that engages in abstract reasoning about nonphenomenal aspects of reality. That seems to be a distinctively human characteristic.

[Dmitry Vukicevich]

Universe where= Universe were

[jim35]

So, it becomes natural for simple elements to blindly become the VASTLY more complex, living things (in fact it seems to be the most common result, given our diversity of life), as long as we have sunshine?

Exactly how does that work?

Can science reproduce it on any level?

I’d love to see life created under any scientific conditions, using only lifeless elements.

[ndt]

"Why should we care if there is a "meaning of life"? I'm not being rhetorical, I'm really asking."

The question was in response to a specific poster who has a specific view of the nature of life's purpose.

If I were to post the question more generally it would have been. If there is no God (or whatever your religion may be) would you rather know or continue to believe falsely.

Point being, that many are so attached to their belief system as to openly, and I can only assume knowingly, blind themselves to evidence that contradicts it. Someone who is willfully ignorant is more or less a lost cause in terms of having a discussion.