Replies

Of course, if I've misinterpreted the intent of crail's response, I apologize.

However, when the original poster asks "For anyone out there that believes in evolution as a fact, could you please explain to me how evolution can get around the second law of thermodynamics?", he/she gets, in reply,

"By teaching people what the second law of thermodynamics is."

This implies that there is a deficiency in the questioners education, hence, my remark that "he/she just isn't educated enough to understand." These types of implications are utilized by the elitist scientific community too many times to mention.

Also, the middle of crail's response; "The second law does not rule out disorder to order transitions, even in closed systems."

True, and the lack of ability to falsify that which is extant is not proof that it doesn't exist.

And finally, when crail says, "People who espouse that evolution is outlawed by the 2nd law are a shining example of the results of a deficit of scientific knowledge of the general population."

To whom do you think that denigrating remark was intended? Bill Clinton? No. The poster to whom crail was responding.

I don't have a problem with people presenting information in support of their particular pet hobby topic, but a little humility would go a long way.

If that's ad hominem, ...peccavi.

This implies that there is a deficiency in the questioners education
Sure, but there is. That line of argument is a line from a fundamental misunderstanding of entropy. The fact is, as much as I have an unnatural love of the 2nd law and entropy, someone who doesn't understand it can still be very successful. There is an enormous deficiency in my education of Greek literature. I don't mind people telling me that, it's not mean, it's factually correct. I'll say it myself, ask me any question about Greek literature... the answer is "I don't know, I'm kind of an idiot when it comes to Greek literature. I never even learned Greek." I would never try to tell a scholar of Greek literature that is enterprise is moot because Greece never existed.

To whom do you think that denigrating remark was intended?
Maybe a little humility on my part would be in order, but everyone here who argues ID should have heard that entropy does not rule out evolution, we talk about it all the time. This argument is wrong on so many levels, and trivially so. I therefore, question the intent of someone who brings up this line of argumentation. What is the motive behind bringing up an argument designed to mislead and confuse people who do not understand the 2nd law. I happen to understand the 2nd because I spent several years studying it instead of Greek literature. I take it as my job to educate people about the 2nd. Other people take it as their job to confuse people about the 2nd. Reinforcing misunderstandings about entropy helps no one.

However, when the original poster asks "For anyone out there that believes in evolution as a fact, could you please explain to me how evolution can get around the second law of thermodynamics?", he/she gets, in reply,

"By teaching people what the second law of thermodynamics is."

This implies that there is a deficiency in the questioners education, hence, my remark that "he/she just isn't educated enough to understand." These types of implications are utilized by the elitist scientific community too many times to mention.

Asking how evolution "gets around" the second law of thermodynamics implies a deficiency in their understanding of the either the second law of thermodynamics, evolution or both. It's a logical inferrence based upon the question and the fact that it's been asked so many times by people who have shown ignorance regarding the second law.

True, and the lack of ability to falsify that which is extant is not proof that it doesn't exist.

And I can't even understand how this relates to the discussion.

To whom do you think that denigrating remark was intended? Bill Clinton? No. The poster to whom crail was responding.

And it's true. Anyone who thinks that the second law of thermodynamics poses a problem for evolution is deficient in their scientific knowledge. That doesn't mean that they're necessarily stupid -- they could have a genius-level grasp on mathematics, a gift for musical composition and they could speak seven languages -- but they're still ignorant of basic scientific principles. That doesn't mean that they couldn't understand them if taught, but it's clear from the question that they don't understand them currently.