These people simply seem to misunderstand the Second Law. Willingly, I believe.
It raised a point I hadn't ever considered - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts: How does the instinct for self-preservation comport with the Second Law?
"Willingly" is almost certainly correct. When the same blatantly wrong arguements ("thermodynamics" and "Evolution of the human genome is statistiaclly impossible" and "there are no transitional fossil species;" blah, blah, blah) are repeated used, and repeatedly pointed out how they are wrong, and re-used anyway... it's clear that honesty isn't the goal.
Come on, Paradox, we want more than your vote. Tell us what you know.
Perhaps it's because the guy is publishing in a social science rather than a biological science journal. Among the other articles in this issue:
LEGAL REFORM AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL MOBILIZATION
ACCUMULATION, DEFORESTATION, AND WORLD ECOLOGICAL DEGRADATION, 2500 BC TO AD
It's not clear that sociology has the same standards as biology (not worse, just different.)