Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Join ASA or sign up
Sign In


Forgot your password?

Haven't registered yet?

Calendar

7/6/2014 » 7/11/2014
Wonders of Science, Voorheesville, NY

7/12/2014 » 7/18/2014
Wonders of Science, East Stroudsburg, PA

7/21/2014 » 7/31/2014
C.S. Lewis Summer Institute, Oxford & Cambridge, England

7/25/2014 » 7/28/2014
“From Cosmos to Psyche: All Things Hold Together in Christ,” Hamilton, ON

7/25/2014 » 7/28/2014
2014 ASA CSCA CiS Annual Meeting

Featured Members

OPEN FORUM
Moderator(s):
1
| 2
>
>|
Forum Actions

Topics   Replies Score Author Latest Post
Jonah and the Whale 8 R. Boyd S Sutherland writes - " It also warns us that God will go to great measures to encourage us to align our views with his views".I must say that I struggle to know just what those views are - the Bible often seems contradictory. Input/advice/directives?
by J. Robbins
Friday, June 13, 2014
Entropy and Evolution 1 D. Roemer I've made good use of audio files, because they allow me to gather information while I'm doing brainless tasks around the house, or listen to prior to going to sleep or upon waking to get ready for the day.My wife and I have done many crafts while listening to audio resources of our own choosing. It is a nice reprieve from the drivel most often found on radio. Prayers are with you as you remain firm in pressing forward in your efforts.
by G. Anderson
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Review of End of Darwinism by Eugene Windchy 3 D. Roemer I'm new to the forum, having just found ASA and the site here. I'm greatly encouraged by your review of Windchy's work as well as the attachment you gave with the Critical Focus by Granville Sewell. I read both before responding here.It continues to amaze me that folks who consider themselves rock-solid in the canons of the various Sciences continue to object that they do not believe in abiogenesis, yet at the same time do in fact utilize it in their hypotheses and truth-claims. I'm glad to have read your argument regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and its abuse. Too often, Christians in apologetic or polemic situations go beyond the pale in assuming factors for common ground with unbelievers when often they take as fact those things which are actually not so. Again, thank you. I will keep looking into these things to see if they are so.
by G. Anderson
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Bible and Science Class Educational Resources 7 R. Duke It is probably too late for you to consider but I'd like to suggest Christopher Kaiser's Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science: The Creationist Tradition from Basis to Bohr Brill, 1997.Note that the term "Creational" and "Creationist" do not refer to the young or old earth creationists in the contemporary USA. Rather, it indicates how the doctrine of creation impacted science's development.   A potential limitation is that it only deals with the physical sciences so you may need to supplement it with additional readings. If you are envisioning more of a Science and Religion course you might consider Alister McGrath's excellent Science and Religion: A New Introduction Wiley, 2010.  The book is well organized and very clear but it can sometimes be difficult to tell exactly how McGrath's ideas fit together.  However, if you read his A Fine-Tuned Universe before teaching the class the connections will be very clear and you can point them out to your students.  A potential weakness is that the book is an introduction so he doesn't go into too much depth on any one topic.  You might also want to consider Southgate's God, Humanity, and the Cosmos, 3rd ed.   While this book is excellent it can be a bit challenging for introductory students.  It also might not be suitable for use at your university since it is rather theology-heavy and written almost exclusively from a Christian viewpoint. Anyway, I hope these suggestions help. Steve
by S. Contakes
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
BGV theorem 1 D. Jensen I am not at all an expert in cosmology, even though I have a couple papers in the field as an undergraduate. And I have not watched the Krauss/Craig debates. But I do have a few thoughts about the BGV theorem and its applicability in apologetics. It is indeed important for those who debate it to know what the theorem says, and Craig has sure done his homework; it appears to me from a cursory reading of the fallout from the debate that he has done a better job than Krauss. But I note that it is a "theorem" - that is, a particular result within a particular framework of mathematical cosmology. True, it does not depend on Einstein's theory of general relativity specifically, but it is in my view essentially a statement in mathematics. Like any physical theory, or mathematical theorem, it is limited in its domain of applicability. The BGV theorem makes it more difficult for someone to hang on to a universe which has always existed, and in this way perhaps strengthens the case for a finite time history of the universe (and, so the story goes, hence the case for a creator). Carroll has often reminded us, though, that Aquinas showed that even an eternal universe still "needs" a creator. (See for example "Aquinas and Contemporary Cosmology: Creation and Beginnings" in Astrophysics and Space Science Library Volume 395, 2012, pp 75-88; online here .)
by A. Sikkema
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Cosmos 3 B. Gambone This is the Quranic account of the destiny of the universe. It began as a singularity and violently hot. The universe suddenly expanded creating space and time. The Qur'an then describes the early universe at a later stage as hot, hazy and gaseous. In the distant future overwhelming gravitational forces will halt the expansion. Space-time will be curved upon itself and the universe will start to contract. It will become gaseous once more and towards the end, matter will be crushed into its constituent atoms and subatomic particles and finally the universe will collapse into a singularity. From this second singularity a new inconceivable cosmos will emerge. This is not an oscillating universe. It is simply mind-bobbling that a 7th century document could give such a precise scientific account of the origin and fate of the universe. H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6
by J. Noor
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Origin of the term "evolutionary creation" 3 T. Gray Its listed here http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/articles_jtvi-03.php with no link to it yet.  Thanks for promoting the phrase.  I like it over theistic evolution to convey what is most important, "creation", but without the "ist" or "ism".  But, it isn't searched as much on the Internet yet (per Google Trends).  So, when setting up social media, you need to have "theistic evolution" in keywords for people to find you.  Btw, my Twitter handle is @EvoCreatn if anyone wants to join me there.  
by K. Furman
Sunday, April 07, 2013
CreationWiki on Evolution and Entropy 2 D. Roemer Dr. William Bradley of Baylor University and an ASA member responded to an email I sent about "Entropy and evolution" with the suggestion I read his chapter about thermodynamics and evolution in Debating Design. I could not find in the chapter anything that refuted my arguments in the Creationwiki.org article or my review on Amazon.com of End of Darwin: How A Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold. 1) In the introduction Bradley says, "The laws of thermodynamics have a unifying effect in the physical sciences". Do the laws of thermodynamics apply to the evolution of stars? 2) In the introduction, "What is intriguing is that the predictions of one [thermodynamics] seem to contradict the predictions of the other [evolution]." A living organism is a more complex piece of machinery than a Boeing 747 in flight. I don't see how it makes any sense to speak of the temperature or entropy of an airplane. For the same reason an airplane doesn't have a temperature, a living organism does not have a temperature. I refer you also to the quote from Biology's First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase at http://newevangelist.me/evolution-quotes/ under the Second Law of Thermodynamics.3) In the introduction, "The Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests a progression from order to disorder… in the physical universe." The second law applies only to systems of non-interacting entities and systems with chemical reactions as a source or sink of energy.  4) In the introduction, "Unlike biological evolution, where it is fashionable to believe that there is sufficient creative power in mutation combined with natural selection to account for the diversity of life in the biosphere, it is generally recognized the origin of life is one of the great mysteries in science." Natural selection acting upon innovations explains only the adaptation of species to the environment, not common descent. There are no mysteries in science, there are only unanswered questions. (There are only mysteries in the method of inquiry called metaphysics.) There are seven quotes in "revolution-quotes" under Natural Selection Explains Adaptation Not Common Descent. Laymen think that natural selection explains how bacteria evolved into mammals in only 3.5 billion years because of misinformation disseminated by advocates of intelligent design and their opponents. The misinformation that evolution does not violate the second law is perpetrated because saying the second law does not apply to evolution sounds like saying evolution violates the second law. Saying this sounds like creationism and intelligent design.  5) In part 3 under Thermodynamics and Configurational Energy, "Imagine a chemical system that is comprised of fifty amino acids of type A and fifty amino acids of type B. What happens to the configurational entropy if two of these molecules chemically react? The total number of molecules in the systems drops from 100 to 99 with 49 A molecules, 49 B molecules, and a single A-B bipeptide. The change in configurational entropy is given by ...[Entropy = k ln 25]" This equation is dangerously close to eq. 4b in the AJP article, which I am saying is absurd because the Boltzmann equation is used to calculate the change in entropy of an organism as it evolves. Your equation is okay, I suppose, because you create a hypothetical situation where 100 molecules go to 99 molecules. The AJP article simply plugs a probability into the Boltzmann equation and says it is a change in the entropy of an organism. 6) In part 3 under Thermodynamics of Open Systems, "The total entropy change that takes place in an open system such as a living cell must be consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and can be described as follows:∆S(cell) + ∆S(surrounding) > 0." This is like saying ∆S(airplane in flight) + ∆S(surrounding) > 0. An airplane can be broken up into a number of thermodynamic systems, e.g., the engine, pilot’s cabin, metal wing, etc. Each thermodynamic system will have its surroundings and this law will apply. But to suggest that there is such a thing as the entropy of an airplane in flight is nonsense. A living cell has much more machinery in it than an airplane.What follows is four more references about this matter. 1)   McIntosh, A.C., "Information and entropy – top -down or bottom-up development in living systems?", Int. J. of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol. 4, No. 4 (2009), pp. 351 to 385.2)   Fourth paragraph of Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis, and Agnes Babloyantz, "Thermodynamics of evolution”, Physics Today 25(11) (1972), pp. 23 to 28. View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3071090.3)   My article in http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf4)   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/more_philosophical_than_scient052441.html
by D. Roemer
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
keith davis article in the previous PERSPECTIVES issue 0 J. Burgeson I am much impressed with this article, which combines a  discussion on the scientific philosophy/methodology and the climate change "debate."What do others think of it? Are there any problems? I found none myself.  John Burgeson, ASA member
by J. Burgeson
Friday, March 01, 2013
Visit to VA 0 C. Crocker I will be visiting the DC area from March 12-25 and would love to meet up with any ASA members in the area. Not sure if this is how to contact folks--if not, please let me know.  Caroline Crocker (drcrocker@me.com)
by C. Crocker
Friday, February 15, 2013
Ten Things a Christian Should Know 2 D. Fischer Nice 10, Dick,I have no criticism suggesting anything is wrong, but would like to suggest a tiny tweak or two for clarity in the likelihood that you will be using this again. In 1, Big Bang is often described as an explosion, yet explosions involve things moving through space.  Big Bang was an explosion of space, or spacetime if you like.  It was, to say the least, a great expansion that is still taking place.In 2, some may think you mean that the solar system came directly from an exploding star, but the preliminary supernova (from 60Fe evidence and more) was probably the trigger that began the collapse of, likely, a giant molecular cloud (GMC), whereby a stellar nursery of many thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of star systems, began forming, including the solar system. 
by G. Cooper
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Evolution and Imago Dei by Sy Garte in God and Nature 2 D. Roemer Animals do not change. Only, humans change. I exist now and I existed 10 years ago. I am the same being. But I am a different being now than I was 10 years ago. No animal has ever said such a thing. The author did not express it this way. The author simply noted the sense observation that, for example, humans used to live in caves and now they live in skyscrapers. Saying humans are embodied spirits is just another way of saying humans are indefinabilities that become conscious of their own existence. We can comprehend what a human is because we know everything that we do and everything that happens to us. But we can’t define or explicate what a human being is. The word "level” implies a hierarchy or cardinal system: level 1, level 2, level 3. The human mind has four such levels: observation, inquiry, reflective judgment, deciding what to do with our bodies. The human mind either observes things or asks questions. The human mind does not have a function that lies between observing and asking questions. The metaphysical definition of self-awareness is that it is the ability to turn in on yourself and catch yourself in the act of your own existence. Defining self-awareness as being able to recognize your self in the mirror is the scientific definition of self-awareness. 
by D. Roemer
Thursday, November 01, 2012
If Truth Be Known by Clarence Menninga 0 D. Roemer Human beings observe the remains of animals that can’t be observed, and ask: Where did the remains come from? Scientists invented the theory of evolution: Life evolved from bacteria to mammals over a period of 3.5 billion years.The author, a member of ASA and a teacher at Calvin College, marshals the evidence for the theory of evolution (carbon dating, fossils, geological observations), and discusses the evidence put forth by creationists to show the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Menninga respects creationism because it is based on an interpretation of the Bible, however, he feels knowledge of our salvation history is compromised by the rejection of the scientific history of our planet.Menninga rejects the idea that evolution is a fact. He is quite right because there is another theory, related to the Bible and religious faith, that many scientists believe is true. It is the theory that free will is an illusion. There is very little evidence for this theory, which arises from the question: What is the relationship between myself and my body? The answer to this question supported by evidence is that free will is a mystery and humans are embodied spirits. This is why it is important to distinguish between observations and theories. One of the arguments advanced by creationists is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, and Menninga addresses this question. Unfortunately, he shows a lack of understanding of thermodynamics and of evolutionary biology. Fact or theory, evolution gives rise to the question of what caused it. The only theories that even attempt to explain evolution are creationism and the theory of intelligent design (ID). Forgetting about orthogenesis, the other theory is natural selection, but natural selection only explains the adaptation of species to the environment. It does not explain the increase in the complexity of living organisms as the evolved from bacteria to mammals.Evolutionary biologists always speak of "adaptive evolution.” The old model for evolution is a tornado hitting a junkyard and producing a Boeing 747 in flight. The new model is a computer generating an English sonnet by the random selection of letters. This model is an attempt to understand the evolution of the primary structure of a protein, which is a chain of hundreds of amino acids. The benefit of the new model is that you can calculate how long it would take a computer to do this. No one has done this calculation because nobody cares. No evolutionary biologist thinks natural selection explains the complexity of life. I refer skeptical readers to an award-winning book by professors of biology at Harvard and Berkeley (The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma). Another reference from mainstream biologists is Biology’s First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems.Note: This is the first half of the review I posted on Amazon.com where I downloaded If Truth Be Known for free. I came across the book because Dr. Menninga sent me an email saying that I was wrong about an American Journal of Physics article ("Entropy and evolution") being absurd. The rest of my review explains the second law of thermodynamics and evolution. Most of what I say I already said on my Open Forum topic about the American Journal of Physics. I'v attached the article that should be retracted and says the same thing Dr. Menninga says in his otherwise informative book. 
by D. Roemer
Saturday, October 06, 2012
original human population size 22 D. Jensen Sorry for the delay in this posting.  I have just come upon this forum topic. I hold that the biological species concept is most pertinent in this context in that it is functional in the dynamics of nature.  I also hold that the Genesis accounts (chapters one vs two) refer to separate events.  If one accepts the ekpyrotic universe model of Steirnhardt and Turok, (Google the topic if unfamiliar) then, I suggest, the Garden of Eden was and still exists in what I call the "heaven brane".  Note that in Genesis one, humans are "created" (I hold by God's natural process involving survival of the favored--see Psalm 104), but there is here no restriction to an original pair.  It is in the Genesis 2 account that Adam is designated and named.  God places him in the Garden of Eden.  I hold that this involves the transferal of "one" (Eve?) into the heaven brane.  Here the fall occurs.  Eve and Adam eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Did this result in genetic mutations?  In any event, they have now achieved sufficient sentience to willfully dishonor God by disobedience so that God now must banish them back into the "earth brane" where their offspring interbreed with the earthly population of H. spapiens which subsequent population becomes fully human in sentience.  So we see that biologically our species always had a sizable population, but Adam and Eve were, as a single pair the original sentient (with understanding sufficient to allow willful obedience/disobedience to God's will) beings. Perhaps this is not the context to further expand on this perspective.  My book "Why the Universe Bothers to Exist, Theistic Determinism, Evidences and Implications" should be at press before the year is out.  Here this issue and several others such as "why is a new heaven (as well as earth") needed?  What is wrong with heaven as it now exists? are dealt with.David V. McCorkle   
by D. McCorkle
Monday, September 24, 2012
Percent of extant species which have fossilized 3 B. Wolf I am responding to this post rather late, but here are some general comments for those interested.  More on this can be found in my essay on the Cambrian "explosion" on the BioLogos Forum website.There is an entire field of scientific research referred to as "taphonomy" -- literally, "the study of death."   Taphonomic research includes investigating those processes active from the time of death of an organism until its final burial by sediment.  These processes include decomposition, scavenging, mechanical destruction, transportation, and chemical dissolution and alteration.  The ways in which the remains of organisms are subsequently mechanically and chemically altered after burial are also examined -- including the various processes of fossilization.  Burial and "fossilization" of an organism's remains in no way guarantees its ultimate preservation as a fossil.  Processes such as dissolution and recrystallization can remove all record of fossils from the rock.  What we collect as fossils are thus the "lucky" organisms that have avoided the wide spectrum of destructive pre- and post-depositional processes arrayed against them.Soft-bodied organisms, and organisms with non-mineralized skeletons have very little chance of preservation under most environmental conditions.  The discovery of new soft-bodied fossil localities is always met with great enthusiasm.  Such localities are erratically and widely spaced geographically and in geologic time. Even those organisms with preservable hard parts are unlikely to be preserved under "normal" conditions.  Studies of the fate of clam shells in shallow coastal waters reveal that shells are rapidly destroyed by scavenging, boring, chemical dissolution and breakage.  Occasional burial during major storm events is one process that favors the incorporation of shells into the sedimentary record, and their ultimate preservation as fossils.  Getting terrestrial vertebrate material into the fossil record is even more difficult.  The terrestrial environment is a very destructive one: with decomposition and scavenging together with physical and chemical destruction by weathering.The potential for fossil preservation varies dramatically from environment to environment.  Preservation is enhanced under conditions that limit destructive physical and biological processes.  Thus marine and fresh water environments with low oxygen levels, high salinities, or relatively high rates of sediment deposition favor preservation.  Similarly, in some environments biochemical conditions can favor the early mineralization of skeletons and even soft tissues by a variety of compounds (eg. carbonate, silica, pyrite, and phosphate).  The likelihood of preservation is thus highly variable.  As a result, the fossil record is biased toward sampling the biota of certain types of environments, and against sampling the biota of others.  In addition to these preservational biases, the erosion, deformation and metamorphism of originally fossiliferous sedimentary rock have eliminated significant portions of the fossil record over geologic time.  Furthermore, much of the fossil-bearing sedimentary record is hidden in the subsurface, or located in poorly accessible or little studied geographic areas.  For these reasons, of those once living species actually preserved in the fossil record, only a small portion have been discovered and described by science.  However, there is also the promise of continued new and important discovery.  Keith Miller
by K. Miller
Thursday, August 23, 2012
The Fallen World of Cyberspace 0 P. Arveson Now that Information Technology (IT) has grown into the status of an Age, the Digital Age, I look back and see not only its benefits, but also the vast array of spam, frauds, hackers, malware, trojans, viruses, worms, social engineering, and cyber warfare that has emerged, following every new technology advance right on its heels. This is a new reflection of the fallen world. All emerging within my adult lifetime. I remember when I got my first IBM PC computer, back in about 1987, the "dark ages". I joined a large local PC users group (remember them?) One of the meetings discussed computer viruses, and many of us doubted whether such a thing could even exist. Today, 25 years later, I heard General Keith Alexander of NSA proposing a full military command in charge of "cybersecurity". He is earnestly seeking the services of "black hat" hackers in developing these skills -- and their defenses -- for training across the workforce. I have personally never been interested in hacking, but apparently some people are. Networked computer systems, because of their ability to copy and share code, are inherently vulnerable to self-corruption and self-destruction. It only takes one evil person to create a virus that will then spread exponentially through the network. Hence it takes constant, vigilant human intervention by "white hats" to maintain stable operation on a network. But of course sometimes a "white hat" has a "black hat" underneath. So evil comes back to its origin -- the human level. We are back into the fallen world of ordinary human life. We cannot easily distinguish good from evil. If we could unambiguously, consistently, distinguish friend from foe then evil would soon be banished from the planet. But in all of human history, in all kinds of the strictest, most well-intentioned organizations, it never has been eliminated. Hence we are obliged to spend billions on security, surveillance, intelligence, defense, vigilance, patches, updates, upgrades, etc. A network is like a living organism; it needs an immune system. Such a system is necessarily dynamic, basing its defenses on the nature of the attack. As any living system, which must devote a certain amount of metabolic overhead to self-defense, or else it would die in short order. One wonders, with all the viruses about, why life -- or the network -- lives at all. The answer goes back to a definition of evil attributed to St. Augustine: evil is not an entity in itself; it is the absence of the good, the absence of normal. It cannot exist by itself; it only exists as a parasite on the good. Viruses derive their energy and reproductive power only from the good engine of normal cell replication. So the good must have existed before evil. This too is true of cyberspace. The Internet standards, like TCP/IP, HTTP etc. were carefully designed protocols created specifically to carry out communication functions. That was their purpose. They have mechanisms to tolerate faults, dropouts, congestion, noise, etc. but not deliberate, malicious abuse of the protocols themselves. That abuse starts from the top layer of the system, from evil humans. There is nothing evil or wrong in the protocols themselves (other than design flaws which are continually being repaired), but the evil comes from outside. It is parasitic on the system and exploits it. Malware actions are often called "exploits". Sometimes systems can be brought to a standstill by denial-of-service attacks, or other systemic failures. The ultimate remedy for malware: wipe the disk, do a clean install and start over. In the organism, in some cases viral infections can overcome the healthy organism and destroy it. But in the long term, for over a billion years, we are comforted by the fact that life has gone on; good ultimately triumphs over evil. It has done so, partly, because of apoptosis -- individuals sacrificing their lives for the survival of the whole. Survival emerges from death and failure. Evolution destroys evil by dying to contain it. Atonement leads to salvation. Wipe the disk, do a clean install and start over. Be born again.  
by P. Arveson
Friday, August 17, 2012
A Petition for your consideration 1 C. Pinkham Thanks for this post.  I heartily support anything that helps preserve fisheries.
by D. Boorse
Monday, July 16, 2012
Colorado/western US fires 5 R. Isaac One of the positives of the fire has been how it has brought the community together. Here is what my church is doing. This is just a small part of what others are doing. http://www.faithefc.org/High_Park_Fire.htm Here the largest church in Fort Collins expresses our corporate gratitude for the fire fighters and first responders. http://vimeo.com/44469222
by R. Blinne
Friday, June 29, 2012
Artifical Intelligents and Reductionism 2 B. Gambone Dear Billy:Check out the following article, which was published in our latest issue of God and Nature magazine. It's all about transhumanism and Christianity. http://godandnature.asa3.org/column-modern-frontiers-ancient-faith.htmlYou may want to read God and Nature in your spare time if you have questions like these; some of them may already be answered by our writers! Best,Emily
by E. Ruppel
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
American Journal of Physics 82 D. Roemer I just posted my review of  Biology’s First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems on Amazon.com by Daniel W. McShae and Robert N. Brandon. This is a link to ithttp://newevangelist.me/2012/06/25/1800/I’v already quoted from this book to support my campaign to get the AJP to retract its absurd article about entropy and evolution. This is another quote: Based on what we have said so far, some will be poised and ready to make a leap, from the notion of accumulation of accidents to the second law of thermodynamics…. We advise readers against this, for their own safety. We are concerned that on the other side of that leap there may be no firm footing. Indeed, there may be an abyss. First, we think the foundation of the ZFEL [zero-force evolutionary law] lies in probability theory, not in the second law or any other law of physics. And second, our notions of diversity and complexity differ fundamentally from entropy, in that entropy, unlike diversity and complexity is not a level-related concept.  (location 220 on Kindle) 
by D. Roemer
Tuesday, June 26, 2012