Thread: Science 101

Originally Posted by Isaiah Lake

SeaBee, you nailed it on the head. What I've written here isn't a research paper including everything you need to know about the creationist vs. evolutionist argument. If it were, I wouldn't have posted under the "fiction" forum. This is not a poke at science either. I have simply offered a thought on the fact that much of modern science has been observed under presumptions that creation science is completely ludicrous. If anything, I am upholding a true scientific mindset by ruling in all variables and possibilities; maybe it's not quite so astronomically impossible to believe that the intricate world around us was created. Raptor's comment fits perfectly with my story; try comparing a watch to our infinitely dynamic universe and all of the little things that just so happened to fall perfectly into place for life on Earth.

As with any piece of art though, there can be many interpretations. I enjoy the fact that there are many different views here about communication between teacher and student. Thank you everyone, for the input.

Thanks for the reply, Isaiah. I did hope I wasn't putting words in your mouth, so to speak. I too, am a creationist, but maybe not in the classic sense. I do think there is room for a modified theory of evolution (actually adaptation, in my opinion) within the creationist viewpoint, but most people of creationist belief are just as loathe to accept any idea of evolution as the evolutionists are to accept the idea of a God. There really is no middle ground.

Well, it keeps things entertaining, anyway.

Best regards

CB

Originally Posted by Isaiah Lake

This is not a poke at science either.

It kind of is. From a purely writing craft point of view this is quite well written, the problem comes when you actually look at what it states. You've quite badly misrepresented a lot of what physicists say, as well as what biologists say for the sake of the "satire", the result is well, strawman argument, you've created a fictional argument and then set it up as "science". And saying that with art there are many interpretations is basically a way to shield what you've written from criticism on the basis of fact, which is, quite frankly, intellectually dishonest.

If this wasn't satire, if this was say, sff, I'd hold it to different standards. The only rule in SFF is that the world you create be internally consistent, however satire works by pointing out the logical fallacies in real world arguments, which you haven't done. Again, mechanically this story is pretty much fine, the details however are almost completely wrong.

According to the big bang theory, in the beginning there wasn't 'nothing'. The universe was squashed down into a high-energy, super-small (possibly point singularity) 'ball'. It's erranous to think of the big bang as an explosion; think of it more as a sudden, rapid expansion. And of course the soup of gases came after the big bang when it had expanded and cooled. Two main pieces of evidence for the big bang: we know that the universe is expanding (from the Doppler effect), and so logically we can assume that the further we go back in time the smaller the universe was. Also, the background radiation is constant, which supports the theory that the universe was originally very small, dense, and high energy.

(I'd also like to point out that the cleverest people in the world have come to accept this theory as the most probable explanation for the beginning of our universe.)

You're right that the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed - it just changes from one form to another (and so is in effect eternal). Over the years many people have put forward that energy must therefore be 'God'. So, yes, of course energy is eternal. But in no way does this prove the existence of a supernatural being who answers prayers, heals the sick, and demands ancient Arabs sacrifice their infant sons.

We know Earth was 'created' about 4.5 billion years ago, when molten rock came together under gravity and then cooled. It was captured by the sun's gravity and began orbiting, just like billions of other planets around billions of other stars in the universe. And yes, it just happened to be in the right place to sustain life - but that isn't so hard to believe now, is it? We know that there are billions and billions of planets orbiting stars out there - is it really so hard to believe that one of those planets (ours) happened to be in the right position to sustain life? No, of course not.

And then the good old watch analogy. I'm surprised you didn't opt for the whirwind in the junkyard making a jumbo jet - I think that's a little more famous. Completely wrong, though. Evolution is an extremely gradual process of some mutations being beneficial, and therefore likely to pass on to future generations through genes. It is not a massive leap to 'voila, we have a new animal!' I recommend you actually read some books on evolution.

I decided to make my own imaginary conversation. This time Jimmy is a creationist, and the teacher actually understands what he's talking about.

"But, sir, it's not very believable is it? This big bang thing."
"I understand where you're coming from, Jimmy, but as I said before there's a lot of evidence for the big bang."
"I think it's more believable that God created the universe."
"Mmmm... not actually sure it is. You see, what does God create on day 1?"
"He said 'Let there be light' and created day and night."
"Ok, Jimmy, and how exactly do we get day and night? What happens at sunrise for the day to start?"
"The sun comes out."
"Yes - so most people would accept that day and night comes about from the Earth spinning as it orbits the sun. However, God didn't create the sun and the stars until day 4. So how could he create day and night before the sun?"
"Hmmm..."
"Jimmy?"
"You said the Earth goes round the sun, but that's not true. The sun goes round the Earth. In the bible Joshua commanded the sun to stop in the sky. He didn't command the Earth to stop moving."
"Jimmy, I honestly don't think that happened."
"It's in the bible."
"But what about the sky being a second sea? Or the land rising up out of the sea? I mean, we went through the water cycle last week..."
"All true. And we're not descended from the monkey men, either. God created man in his image."
"I figure it's the other way round."
"And God created Eve out of Adam's rib."
"Men and women have the same number of ribs, Jimmy. And anyway, the theory of evolution is substantiated as much as the theory of gravity. Genetic mutations occur, and usually they're detrimental. However sometimes they're beneficial to the organism, who is more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on their mutated genes. This organism can still reproduce with others in its species - evolution is so gradual that you couldn't tell the difference between a parent and its mutant offspring..."
"It's not true. God created all the animals at the same time."
"So there were dogs and cats running around with the dinosaurs?"
"Yes. And hamsters. And He made humans last of all."
"But what about all the fossils of our early-human ancestors? The fossil record is probably the greatest evidence of evolution - because not one fossil has ever been found that is older than it should be. We've never found the fossil of a wolf in amongst the trilobites, for instance."
"Fossils are put in the ground by the devil. Everyone knows that."