https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3713
“Couldn’t There Have Been Exceptions to the Laws of Science?”
| by | Jeff Miller, Ph.D. |
The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a scientific law as, “a regularity which applies to all
members of a broad class of phenomena” (2003, p. 1182, emp. added). In
other words, as long as the scientist takes care to make sure that the
law applies to the scenario in question, the law will always hold true.
According to its definition, a scientific law has no known exceptions,
or else it would not be a law in the first place. A “theory,” on the
other hand, is merely an “attempt to explain” phenomena by deduction
from other known principles (McGraw-Hill..., p. 2129). A theory may not be true, but a law, by definition, is always
true. Since there are no known exceptions to scientific laws, would it
not be unscientific for evolutionists to assert, without any scientific
evidence, that there have been exceptions to the laws of science in the
past?
Consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. A perpetual-motion machine is a
device which attempts to violate either the First or Second Law of
Thermodynamics (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 263). Numerous attempts have
been made over the years to design such a machine—all to no avail. Such a
machine would certainly be worth a large sum of money. However, a
prominent Thermodynamics textbook used in mechanical engineering schools
says concerning such attempts, “The proposers of perpetual-motion
machines generally have innovative minds, but they usually lack formal
engineering training” (Cengel and Boles, p. 265). Why would the writers
make such a statement? The answer is that the Laws of Thermodynamics,
which are taught in-depth in mechanical engineering curriculums,
prohibit the design of such a machine. According to the textbook
writers, to spend time and energy on such a pursuit categorizes the
pursuer as unknowledgeable about such scientific truths. The Laws of
Thermodynamics have been substantiated to the point that in 1918 the U.S.
Patent Office declared that they would no longer accept patent
applications for alleged perpetual-motion machines (Cengel and Boles, p.
265). Concerning patent application rejections, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office website says, “a rejection on the ground of
lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness,
involving perpetual motion” (2008, emp. added).
As far as science can tell, its laws have never been
violated. They are without exception. From a scientific perspective, the
evolutionary model falls short of being able to account for the origin
of the Universe. Indeed, it contradicts the known laws of science that
govern the Universe. The creation model, on the other hand, is in
perfect harmony with the laws of science.
REFERENCES
“706.03(a) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101[R-5]-700 Examination of Applications” (2008), Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, United States Patent and Trademark Office, [On-line], URL: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_706_03_a.htm.
Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
Thompson, Bert (2002), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
No comments:
Post a Comment