[MD] Intellectual and Social

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Pirsig responds to Krimel's "Sunlight Creation" thesis:"

"If we leave a chemistry professor out on a rock in the sun long enough 
the forces of nature will convert him into simple compounds of carbon, 
oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, and small 
amounts of other minerals. It's a one-way reaction. No matter what kind 
of chemistry professor we use and no matter what process we use we 
can't turn these compounds back into a chemistry professor. Chemistry 
professors are unstable mixtures of predominantly unstable compounds 
which, in the exclusive presence of the sun's heat, decay irreversibly 
into simpler organic and inorganic compounds. That's a scientific fact.
The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on 
earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't the 
sun's energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be 
something else. What is it?" (Lila, 11)

Science's best answer: "It's emergence." In other words, "Oops." 

Hardly an answer that inspires credibility.

Platt


On 11 Jan 2010 at 8:36, Krimel wrote:

> [Ham]
> Since you raise the credibility issue, I did a Google search on Duane Gish. 
> Turns out he held key positions at Berkeley, Cornell University Medical 
> College, and The Upjohn Company before joining the Institute for Creation 
> Research in 1971 where he currently serves as Associate Director and Vice 
> President.  Your personal bias against "Creationism" in no way impugns the 
> scientific credibility of a Ph.D. biochemist with a distinguished working 
> career.  Moreover, inasmuch as genetic mutation is mostly spontaneous, no 
> scientifically informed person would call the propensity for creating an 
> ordered. intelligently designed universe a "stupid" or "ridiculous idea."
> 
> [Krimel]
> I can read wiki too and only wishful thinking produces a distinguished
> scientific career for this guy. He has distinguished himself chiefly by
> making a fool of himself in creationism debates. 
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers.html
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html 
> 
> [Ham]
> Bill patiently explained to this lowly biology undergraduate that, left to 
> themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials
> 
> rather than becoming more complex.  Apparently "work" (a function of energy)
> 
> is required to move a random or chaotic system toward an ordered design. 
> While this can increase order for a time, such reversal cannot last forever.
> 
> Processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder, their energy
> 
> transformed into lower levels of availability for further work.  Thus, the 
> natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become 
> simpler and more disorderly.
> 
> [Krimel]
> If only you could understand what is actually being said to you. Bill told
> you, "Apparently "work" (a function of energy) is required to move a random
> or chaotic system toward an ordered design." 
> 
> Ham, what the fuck do you think sunlight is? 
> 
> Then he told you, "While this can increase order for a time, such reversal
> cannot last forever." "For a time" in this instance has been about 4 billion
> years. It is expected to stay this way for about another 4 billion years. A
> lot happened in the first 4 billion years. It was enough time for chemicals
> to become chemistry professors. I suppose it is possible for a lot to happen
> in the next 4 billion years, for example you might have time to get a clue.
> 
> [Ham]
> Yet billions of things are assumed to have developed "upward", becoming more
> 
> orderly and complex over eons of time.  Until scientists discover the source
> 
> of this "working force" underlying natural evolution, it remains 
> inexplicable by this basic law of science. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> News flash, Ham, scientists had discovered sunlight by the late Pleistocene
> era. As I said previously this "working force" only remains inexplicable to
> the ignorant and the stupid.
>