The Smithsonian withdraws sponsorship of intelligent design film

NY Times ^ | 6/3/05

[Dimensio]

The film purports to view the theory of evolution with skepticism. Given that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with a "non-living thing" becoming "alive", I fail to see your point.

[curiosity]

Yeah, it is a bit wierd. Essentially their position is, we don't like this film, so we're going to let the use our facilities for free to screen it. Makes no sense.

[donh]

Galileo was stifled by those in power, who felt his ideas were threatening. At that time it was the church. Today it is the scientific community. Only evolutionary thought is accepted. Revolutionary thought, counter to accepted theories (treated as fact) are attacked without mercy.

Well, there are a few differences. The NSF doesn't have a track record of burning people it has disagreements with at the stake.

[Vaquero]

Intelligence was not in the design plans of the Smithsonian when they first donated the money for this fiction.

[American Vet Repairman]

Here is the point in a broader perspective. Evolution believes that there is a building block process in the development in biological systems. In other words-a single cell organism (a starting point) evolved into a higher organism. This process of development continues until now and evolution believes that we are a product of randomn developments which knew how to overcome all the laws of physics.

Now instead of looking at living biosystems and saying, "This evovled!!!!" I want the alleged scientific experts who are practicing a great deal of religous type of faith, to go backwards from the single cell and explain using the laws of bio chemistry, how the single cell got here. Because the theory of evolution also stipulates that the planet was to violent in temperature to support a standard living cell millions of years ago. So, where is the formula that shows that a living thing can come from a non-living material?

[DoctorMichael]

"It takes a philosophical bent rather than a clear statement of the science, and that's where we part ways with them."

Sounds reasonable to me since there is nothing scientific whatsoever about Intelligent Design.

[Blzbba]

"someone will comment that the Smithsonian is run by godless heathens."


Actually, wasn't Smithson (The founder) atheist?

I, for one, support the Institution in this instance.

[Dimensio]

Now instead of looking at living biosystems and saying, "This evovled!!!!" I want the alleged scientific experts who are practicing a great deal of religous type of faith, to go backwards from the single cell and explain using the laws of bio chemistry, how the single cell got here.

Scientists are studying this. That doesn't make it part of the theory of evolution. How the first cell got there is irrelevant to evolution.

[jennyp]

This process of development continues until now and evolution believes that we are a product of randomn developments which knew how to overcome all the laws of physics.

What laws of physics are you claiming that evolution violates?

Because the theory of evolution also stipulates that the planet was to violent in temperature to support a standard living cell millions of years ago. So, where is the formula that shows that a living thing can come from a non-living material?

he Earth formed 4.55 billion years ago (bya), and the earliest evidence of possible biological activity is from 3.8 bya. Though IIRC that evidence is <ahem> hotly contested. (Vade knows more about that controversy.)

Point is, the "mainstream" argument against abiogenesis revolves around whether there was enough time for life to form between the time the Earth cooled sufficiently for liquid water to appear, until the earliest known life forms appeared. I don't remember what the consensus view is on when that happened, but I remember reading some creationist tract saying the window of opportunity was only 100 million years. So the real evidence probably shows a much longer period.

[American Vet Repairman]

"What laws of physics are you claiming that evolution violates? "

Evolution violates the second law of therodynamics.

[PatrickHenry]

[jennyp]

Evolution violates the second law of therodynamics.

Ah. So how, specifically? What exactly does the 2LoT say, and what specific biological process violates it?

[VadeRetro]

What exactly does the 2LoT say, and what specific biological process violates it?

I think it's where someone grows from a single-celled zygote to a 250-lb NFL linebacker in 22 years or so.

[VadeRetro]

The controversy about the oldest fossils, if that's what they are, seems to still be smoldering. Two web pages on Schopf, his critics, and chert dikes.

http://www.geotimes.org/july03/high_geomicro.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astrobio_paleontology_030407.html

[American Vet Repairman]

"What exactly does the 2LoT say, and what specific biological process violates it?"

"2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.3"

Chemistry and thermodynamics are the rules in which all biologic theories must reside. For a biosystem to start, an initial form of chemical energy must be accurately and in perfect timing be applied. Then the same same biosystem must be constantly maintained in order to be a living being. Things just can not choose to be alive. Now in regards to organic molecules there is deterioration in a bio system. Metals oxidize, proteins/amino acids decay and carbohydrates/sugars break down. Bio systems do not become more ordered over time and actually dissipate in order and there is a decline in both potential and kinetic energies.

For any biosystem to exist there must be already established environs which must be in harmony. Or the organism dies. These are needed for a living organism, food, a form of metabolism and waste excretion. Given that when the biocomponents exist by themselves there is the rule of entropy in constant play. The materials by themselves even when placed together do not become a living thing. The breaking down of a system overides a randomn ability to build up a system. In other words chemicals do not become more organized. They become more disorganized. Evolution in order to be a fact must prove that chemicals on their own become complex and organized on a randomn pattern without external input. This is not the case in spite of over 50 years of experiments to prove so.

[b_sharp]

"Not enough information to form an opinion."

LOL

[b_sharp]

"Not much has changed since Galileo. Science, and scientists stifle dissent."

Science? Or the Church?

[b_sharp]

You are repeating yourself.

You are repeating yourself.

[b_sharp]

"Oh wait....there is no reaction on record."

So, hasn't happened equals can't happen?

[jennyp]

Where did you copy that from? The standard 'round these parts is to cite your sources when you quote.

Anyway, that was a typical creationist explanation of the "problem". First off, the passage you quoted seems to be arguing against abiogenesis - the chemicals coming together in the first place - but then it tries to say it's an argument against evolution - the appearance of new species from old. There's no way you can say that evolution violates the 2LoT. Evolution is simply biology, acting over long periods of time across many generations.

As for abiogenesis violating the 2LoT, there are plenty of microenvironments where the energy & matter flows are far from equilibrium. All the 2LoT implies about abiogenesis is: Whatever the processes were that got the first replicating, living entity started in the first place had to be in non-equilibrium thermodynamically.

It's true that energy flows must occur in all living things to keep total chaos at bay. But all this means is: All living things gotta eat. That's really all the 2LoT has to say about evolution or biology. All the creationist handwaving about evolution disobeying the law is just that - handwaving.