> “Examples of the latter [are] a river flowing down a slope...
Curiously enough, rivers are *forever* flowing down slopes. And they can keep that up because there are numerous other mechanisms at work... such as evaporation and rain, a cycle driven by an external energy source (the sun).
With such a basic blunder (vast oversimplification), seems a waste to spend a whole lot of time worrying about his concerns regarding the improbability of evolution. Anyone who can't even see the sun in the sky overhead is not someone who is likely to have much useful to say about whether or not evolution is "directed."
These people simply seem to misunderstand the Second Law. Willingly, I believe.
You got it! The whole article can be summed up as an anti-evolution screed. What a waste of words.
Hey orionblamblam! Of course they are. What Swenson is doing in this article, however, is contrast the "thermodynamically down-hill processes" -- such as rivers flowing downhill -- and "thermodynamically uphill processes" -- which are exemplfied by living things. He calls this latter the "river that flows uphill. "
Have little time to write now, so must rush away. But stay tuned for details. I'll be speaking with you later on, perhaps.