Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure

The American Spectator ^ | December 28, 2005 | Granville Sewell

[TheIndependentMinded]

I am glad I took ME200 (Thermodynamics) at Purdue University back in 1981. It allows me to stare in shock and horror at such a horrible article. You are quite correct, the professor's misunderstanding is atrocious.

For example, two atoms might not form a molecule unless a packet of energy from the sun provides some activation energy. Since the sun is rapidly going downhill a small local area going the opposite way on earth isn't a violation of the second law.

[Baraonda]

Articles are not your forte.

[thomaswest]

You wrote:
That is so stupid...

Reply:
Clear, but NOT. Just what was stupid? Stupid is generally when you see the evidence and still say, "I believe..."

[GregoryFul]

Take for example, a computer program...
How long do you suppose it would be before I could randomly generate even a simple useful program?

I understand that genetic algorithms have generated useful programs, and even invented novel electronic circuit designs.

[PatrickHenry]

I donno ... I try so hard to get the creationists to love me ...

[editor-surveyor]

" how about an earth-sized box of billions of different sized Legos covered with photovoltaic cells..."

How did the legos acquire the PV cells? This is the same fallacy as the 'primordial soup' full of enzymes. Enzymes require the pre-existance of life. Logical mythology of the church of evolution.

[Cicero]

My difficulties with the General Theory of Evolution are not primarily religious, although the knee-jerk scorn of religion on the part of many Darwinists is disturbing.

It's a scientific problem. It just doesn't make sense. It's bad science, dogmatic in the worst way.

I thought so when I studied Darwin in school and college, and I think so even more after considering the matter and reading further discussions of the difficulties. DNA was unknown when I first studied biology. The macro difficulties were already a deal breaker, but the difficulties on a micro level are even worse.

And there is a fundamental problem underlying all the rest: Take away the Logos, the principle of rationality built into the universe, and take away the philosophical concept of realism, and you take away rationality itself. I have argued this point with a philosopher friend of mine who works in the field of artificial intelligence. In a purely materialistic and accidental universe, rationality has no real meaning.

[Baraonda]

And right you are.

If you "see the evidence" that is stupid.

[Dan(9698)]

Dan, there's no faith involved at all. Evolution is clear-cut if you just follow the chain.

I believe that scientific studies of all these things should proceed. There has been much learned and much more will be learned.

My problem is when professors become dogmatic and refuse to give proper grades to students who don't "believe" that Darwin's theory explains the Origin of the Species as his book is titled.

If you read his book, it has some interesting observations, but in the book he does not even pretend to explain the origin of the species, so it cannot be taught as dogma the way it is treated by many professors.

It should be taught as a work in progress and to question some of the dogma is in the best scientific tradition.

Even a student who is seriously studying biology should not be penalized for "un-orthidoxy".

I am a Mormon and these studies are persued at Brigham Young University. They should be. Just don't get hung up on the dogmatic approach.

[phantomworker]

What is your definition of tautology?

[phantomworker]

I believe that scientific studies of all these things should proceed. There has been much learned and much more will be learned.

That is well said.

[ICE-FLYER]

Could you fly if you didn't understand how aerodynamics work? You of all people should know how important the underlying foundations are. Even a pilot of a small craft needs to understand physics.
Creationism in biology is the same as telling pilots that a plane flies because God holds it up.

To you it is. There are others in science who see the handiwork of a designer because evolutionists have failed to conclude many issues. They can neither prove how the single cell came about even though it is highly developed and complex nor can ansewer how or why the eye formed, according to them life started without eyes, why did it have to develope if there was not the need? Maybe by design things could see? Nahh, thats mythology.

Sure we understand vast amounts but if your going to speak to foundations then start by having one to stand on. And I do not mean that to say that all of science supporting Evolution is junk, thats not it at all. But the chance that it relies on in all honesty is as good as what you claim of Creationists. Were not just saying "believe just because."

[Coyoteman]

If you read his [Darwin's] book, it has some interesting observations, but in the book he does not even pretend to explain the origin of the species, so it cannot be taught as dogma the way it is treated by many professors.

How about being taught as a theory? Maybe combine Darwin's original work with, say, 150 years of addition research and testing?

Would that be OK with you?

My definitions follow:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

[editor-surveyor]

"What is your definition of tautology?"

The same as everyone else's. You're in over your head if you have to ask what the meanings of basic terms are. If you read my post, you will find an identity that will lead you to a definition.

[Drammach]

I try so hard to get the creationists to love me ...

The Wolf in Sheep's clothing..

You obviously have a "non de plume" ( or whatever )
You pose as a creationist in another guise, and encourage their misdirected psuedo-scientific pursuit at discrediting evolution, all the while laughing, silently at their hystrionics.

Indeed, thou art Machiavellian.. ;o)

[Timmy]

The fact that American Spectator could be so pig ignorantly wrong on a noncontroversial scientific topic does not speak well of their overall reliability.

JS1138. I will throw out the same challenge to you that I have to other arrogant evos. Please provide your educational background and current employment so we can judge whether you have any credibility on the subject or are just blowing smoke. Thanks ahead of time.

[GregoryFul]

we wouldn't have the complex computer models that we have now that do a generally good and ever-improving job of forecasting them.

Thanks to the intelligent design of computers and software.

[freedumb2003]

You clearly haven't been following my threads.

That ALL of the natural world is God's handiwork should be clear to all but the most jaded atheist. But He exists well outside of what we call science and scientific examination.

My point is that ID and, perhaps, creationism should be argued in philosophy and similar arenas. NOT science. Certainly not biology and the other similar studies.

All science has "holes." Gravity has holes. Physics has massive holes (look at String Theory). Evolution no more needs to apologize for the holes than traditional physicists had to apologize for the standard theory of gravity getting a black eye by Einstein.

Eyes didn't just come into existence in one day. The process was very, very slow as the prerequisites for vision and the external stimulus needed for it slowly came about. That is why there is no vision in the deep, deep ocean. There was no evolutionary need for it.

The exceptions which we can see prove the rule.

[Timmy]

Agreed, applying thermodynamics to agrue the case for or against evolution is the biggest straw man a person can make. Mr. Sewell needs to take a break from the algebra and visit a book on logic.

So are there LAWs of Thermodynamics, or not? If there are such LAWs (and all of science recognizes there are), shouldn't we be able to harmonize them with evolution, expecially since we know evolution is as much a fact as gravity, eh?

[babygene]

"Creationism in biology is the same as telling pilots that a plane flies because God holds it up."

Perhaps you could tell us what DOES hold a plane up... There seems to be some controversy over this.