Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
... the idea that the four fundamental forces of physics alone could rearrange the fundamental particles of nature into spaceships, nuclear power plants, and computers, connected to laser printers, CRTs, keyboards and the Internet, appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way.
Anyone who has made such an argument is familiar with the standard reply: the Earth is an open system, it receives energy from the sun, and order can increase in an open system, as long as it is "compensated" somehow by a comparable or greater decrease outside the system. S. Angrist and L. Hepler, for example, in "Order and Chaos", write, "In a certain sense the development of civilization may appear contradictory to the second law.... Even though society can effect local reductions in entropy, the general and universal trend of entropy increase easily swamps the anomalous but important efforts of civilized man. Each localized, man-made or machine-made entropy decrease is accompanied by a greater increase in entropy of the surroundings, thereby maintaining the required increase in total entropy."
According to this reasoning, then, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal -- and the door is open. In Appendix D of my new book, The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, second edition, I take a closer look at the equation for entropy change, which applies not only to thermal entropy but also to the entropy associated with anything else that diffuses, and show that it does not simply say that order cannot increase in a closed system. It also says that in an open system, order cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I also run into the forest/tree thing a lot.
This experiment provides the first evidence in higher organisms that environmental conditions, applied at a specific stage of development cause a heritable change in a specific allele expression. (emphasis mine)
Forgive me, but I don't understand your point. Are you saying that folks who accept the theory of evolution as the best current, scientific explanation for biological development and diversification (multiple choice):
-- lack some mandatory level of scientific illiteracy to properly understand and appreciate "spiritual things";
-- are somehow otherwise inherently incapable of understanding or appreciating "spiritual things";
-- somehow lost any and all preexisting knowledge and appreciation of "spiritual things" once they accepted the validity of the theory; or
-- are required by some unwritten rule to feign ignorance of "spiritual things" once they accept the validity of the theory?
In religeon, it is called conversion when the individual is willing to accept teachings which cannot be proven, on faith.
It is one thing to accept that there have been advances in scientific understanding, it is another to accept the predictions on faith when there are serious blanks in the understanding.
theory of evolution as the best current, scientific explanation for biological development and diversification
I would have no objection if it were taught as the "best, current explanation". It is when it is enforeced as dogma as the only explanation.
If you will state it as your beliefs, and not insist the whole theory has been proven to a scientific certainty, you would draw fewer objections.
Most people who have beliefs state them as the "best" explanation, but most don't go to court and excercise political muscle to throw the others out and insist that everyone accept their faith.
This is an interesting thread.
Now I have to go out of town for a few days to visit my Grandkids.
I will check on this discussion when I return.
In the meantime, one wonders why he would include extraneous blather about thermodynamics in a textbook on numerical methods.
Or to use political muscle to force biology teachers to teach non-science.
Your observation is well-founded.
On the other hand, some of the scientists here (not you, BTW -- my observation is that you treat people with respect) call people "liars" when someone has a disagreement with their opinion. They seem to think that whenever they offer an explanation to refute an argument then that is the end of discussion on that point, and anything further is just someone spouting lies. That is fine for when they are lecturing freshmen students but does not belong on this forum.
I've experienced the arrogance of the college professor who refuses to allow his opinion to be challenged. And at the end of the day, for most students it's all about getting a good grade, not really about learning. After all, that's what it takes to get a good job, right?
It's amazing to me how many extremely learned people from so many diverse backgrounds are on this forum, but some of the professors need to understand that they are out of their element -- i.e., they are not walking into a classroom full of freshmen when they post on this forum. The people here aren't vying for a good grade and won't respond that way.
"I'm in the middle here"
There is no middle ground here. It's like the Borg -- resistance is futile; you will be assimilated. :-)
I have the benefit of not needing to understand right this second (g). Gods ways are above me.
Really? I had no idea. You see, I was raised by wolves in Siberia, so I have never been exposed to religion. : )
"It is one thing to accept that there have been advances in scientific understanding, it is another to accept the predictions on faith when there are serious blanks in the understanding."
Fairly obvious point. And since scientists who work with and advance the field of evolutionary biology don't accept anything about the theory of evolution "on faith", also an irrelevant point.
"I would have no objection if it were taught as the "best, current explanation"."
It is. So you have no objection. And we have no argument.
"It is when it is enforeced as dogma as the only explanation."
It's not. Take the time to actually read a modicum of current scientific literature concerning evolutionary biology, and you will see that it is a very dynamic field of study. And any competing scientific theory supplanting the general principals of evolution would undoubtedly earn its author a Nobel prize. Hence, this "objection" is groundless.
"If you will state it as your beliefs, and not insist the whole theory has been proven to a scientific certainty, you would draw fewer objections."
If you would take the time to learn what a scientific theory actually is, and that scientific theories are never "proven", you would draw fewer looks of incredulity.
Your apparent need to define all knowledge as "mere belief", and to fit all fields of inquiry into the four corners of religion, does not make such categorization accurate.
Religious beliefs require "faith" because of a lack of evidence to support them. Lack of evidence is, indeed, the sine qua non of "faith". And religious beliefs remain unchanged irrespective of evidentiary contradiction (for example, the belief that God is merciful even after a child is taken by a horrific disease). I hold these religious belief just as you do, but I don't confuse them with scientific theories, any more than I confuse a philosophy book and a phone book.
Scientific theories are founded on evidence, and where the evidence leads, theory follows. Simple as that.
"Most people who have beliefs state them as the "best" explanation, but most don't go to court and excercise political muscle to throw the others out and insist that everyone accept their faith."
Since you are apparently referring to the Dover lawsuit, I strongly suggest that read the opinion in that case. It is very enlightening, and neither the case nor the opinion bear any resemblence to your statement here.
Or teach the truth, and that is the theory of evolution is a theory that does not answer all the questions.
Or that there are other theories, but not go into any explanation as was tried by the stickers.
Yes, (I think)
The shoe that is on the wrong foot tends to pinch.
Have you noticed any mutant traits in them? They WILL be in some, I've been old by others on this thread.
After all, the folks doing the hiring have BEEN college trained!
So I must purge my mind of evil "science" and pursue ignorance in order to understand "spiritual things"? This is what God wants? Surely you jest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.