Science Question


Take a pen and squeeze the ink into a glass of water. The ink will fall and then the water will ripple and the ink will disperse into the water.

It is my understanding that the laws of motion govern this event.

a) is that true?

b) if so, how come the laws of motion — or whatever laws govern this event — prevent this event from occurring backwards? In other words, why can’t the ink come back out of the water and go into the pen?

Update: Omar asks in the comments whether I ask this question due to “creationist idiocy.”

Response: I suspect that I ask this question because of creationist idiocy, but I don’t know enough science to even know if that’s why I ask.

I was at the bookstore and just randomly I saw a book called Something Something Sacred by some guy named Something Kauffman.

It was a book about ‘Complexity Theory.’ I have never heard of this. At first blush it sounded like code for creationism but I actually read a bit of the book — which is where I picked up this example — and the guy said that he didn’t believe in God (at least not in the traditional Abrahamic sense). He went on to say that God was creativity, or something along those lines.

In many ways, it was very similar to the Bergsonian arguments that Iqbal made in his Reconstruction. However, being that it was packaged different — Complexity Theory — and the guy wasn’t a believer, it made me wonder if perhaps there was some area of science that I hadn’t heard of yet that was worth investigating.

Also, one of the other reasons I didn’t just dismiss him as a creationist was because he posited that studies had shown that some molecules were self-generating and self-replicating — which obviously goes against the creationist approach to science.

I never got to figuring out what Complexity Theory meant because I had the better sense of not purchasing the book. From what I gathered in the introduction, their view is that the problem with science is “reductionism” — which is just one approach of doing science. The idea of taking a universal and deriving a particular from it (which is Aristotelian), they argue, is not the only approach to science.