Nova Blatantly Misrepresents Intelligent Design

Discovery Institute ^ | November 14, 2007 | Casey Luskin

[CottShop]

PBS Airs False Facts in its "Inherit the Wind" Version of the Kitzmiller Trial (Updated)

UPDATE: A tenth PBS blunder is addressed, where PBS makes the false insinuation that intelligent design is no more scientific than astrology. Scroll down to read more.

More than 50 years ago two playwrights penned a fictionalized account of the 1920s Scopes Trial called "Inherit the Wind" that is now universally regarded by historians as inaccurate propaganda. Last night PBS aired its "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design" documentary, which similarly promotes propaganda about the 2005 Kitzmiller trial and intelligent design (ID). Most of the misinformation in "Judgment Day" was corrected by ID proponents long ago. To help readers sift the fact from the fiction, here are links to articles rebutting some of PBS's most blatant misrepresentations:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html

[allmendream]

If a Utah school board decided it was going to teach the Book of Mormon in history class instead of Pre-Columbian history do you think it would be federal ‘over reaching’ and ‘judicial activism’ to get a 1st Amendment ruling on? Or that it would be something that as conservatives we should leave as a state matter?

So yes, both sides asked for a ruling on if I.D. was Science. The basis of the Judges ruling was if the nature of I.D. was in advocating a religious view or if it was part of Biological Science and thus should be taught in Biology class. After the fiasco of ‘cdesign proponentist’ textbooks, and perjury committing school board members, and ‘Astrology is a Science if I.D. is a Science’ testimony, how could any competent person not come to the same conclusion?

[valkyry1]

You may well have done 6 yrs grad work, and obtained a PHD CM. But what you produce with those works on these threads hardly counts or qualifies as ‘science’. The same can be said for the performances to the rest of the evo gang. BTW those flow chart's carry no more scientific weight than a exhibit depicting a supposedly 10 million year old ape-man based on a few shards bone and a jaw fragment.

It looks as to me and I guess to many another person, is that you have become a crusader for Darwinistic/evolutionist beliefs and are doing apologetics for those ideologies.

It all becomes a very sordid ordeal science has been soiled with. Science needs to cleanse itself and start doing science again, rather than being a facade for various socio-political-cultural causes & agendas.

[allmendream]

Science is hardly apologetics. Why would we do apologetics when the data is on our side? It was not a conspiracy of dogma that enabled geologists to arrive at a consensus estimate of the age of the earth; but analysis of the same data.

The molecular and fossil evidence very much indicates common descent. No need to conform square data into a round peg when they all fit into nested hierarchies of interrelatedness.

Compare this to speed of light estimates of “Creation Scientists” who feed the number 6,000 into the equation and they stand back in awe as the speed of light goes to infinity some six thousand years ago. Yeah, that’s REAL Science. What a laugh.

[angryoldfatman]

It's not an inside joke, it's a Freudian typo, a transitional form in the evolution of creationism into (new! improved!) intelligent design.

Full disclosure: I've never read "Of Pandas and People", and I don't know how many of the people arguing for ID here have read it. Needless to say, for several people to keep using the exact same obscure typographical error to mock those with whom they disagree is still Pavlovian behavior.

But I would like to thank you for the link. Here's an excerpt from that blog entry:

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40:
“Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41:
“Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

I went to the original source, the NCSE website, to see what other evidence they had there, and they had good stuff. Daisy-wheel printers were standard for word-processing work at the time, and the pictures they have of the drafts are monospaced impacted text (like a typewriter), so that's a plus for the NCSE's evidence.

The "word" in question, however, was not edited by a find-and-replace function; it was done by hand (as in probably moving the cursor to the "r" in creationists and either typing with typeover enabled or just using the Delete key afterwards, latter being the most probable).

What's even more likely is that the word-processor in question was not a PC (or other contemporary microcomputer - we used DEC Rainbows in my 1986 class) attached to a daisy-wheel printer. If I had to make an educated guess, it was a dedicated word-processor, basically a typewriter with a small LED display and enough memory to hold a decent number of text pages (the same amount of memory as you get in a cereal box toy these days).

All of this really means nothing, though, because it's never been disputed that ID and creationism overlap each other, just like Darwinism and Epicureanism overlap each other.

Therefore, it's not really all that controversial that the author of "Of Pandas and People" would borrow some ideas from a creationist text, just like it's not really all that controversial that cosmologists would borrow the idea that the universe is 16 billion years old from the Torah (once they finally abandoned the erroneous idea of an eternal universe from a much later Greek text).

[CottShop]

it most certainly is apologetics when the data is NOT on your side- The only data you have on your side is verifiable data for MICROEvolution- everythign beyond MICROEvolution is pure apologetics.

ID science makes NO attempt to identify a creator or the intelligence, ID science is pure forensics working with verifiable evidences that suggest a very high probability of an intelligence, just as any forensics science does. When someone comes across something of complexity and design, the ONLY obvious conclusion is that an intelligent causation created the items of complexity. When ID discovers irreducible complexity, it concludes that there is a very high probability that an intelligent agent was the cause of the assembled complexities in living organisms.

Macroevolution on the other hand has nothign but assumptions to offer concerning MACROEvolution. It is pure apologetics which doesn’t deal with any forensic evidences at all because quite simply, the evidences are entirely missing- worse yet, the evidences we do have concerning MICROEvolution and concerning testings andexperiments show that MACROEvolution isn’t possible. To suggest that it is possible despite the overwhelming evidence agsainst it is to suggest MACROEvolution relied on the supernatural- that is that it superceeded the known laws and limitations in a supernatural manner. Even primary scientists in the field recognize that MACROEvolution is nothign but a faith based unproven belief lacking evidence.

L. Harrison Mathews was no Christian, creationist or ID guy. Yet, he was England’s PREMIER evolutionary biologist and he said in the pages of darwin’s infamous book,

“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof. - Matthews, L. Harrison. 1971. Introduction to Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, XI.”

The intelligentDesignNetwork is a group of evolutionists who have come to the obvious conclusion that MACROEvolution is not a valid plausibility, and who are made up of mostly non Christians who have no agenda whatsoever except to bring TRUE OBJECTIVITY back into science.

“Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?

We believe objectivity in the institutions of science, government and the media will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality”

“The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.”

“Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research”

If someone can point out how any of this is UNscientific, then have at it.

Pure intelligent Design science is NOT a religious agenda, infact it is anythign BUT a religious agenda- it is undertaken by EVOLUTIONISTS who came ot hte obvious conclusion that MACROEvolution has serious insurmountable problems, and that ANOTHER avenue for finding the missing link linking species together MUST be found because the old model of descent with modification is a dead end failure. The pure ID science is focused on finding the mechanism by which life came to be, and has absolutely NO religious agenda whatsoever- they STILL beleive in naturalistic Evolution, they just feel that there must have been a different pathway.

There are of course both Christian and Secular scientists within the field, and BOTH are perfectly allowed their own opinions OUTSIDE of the science of ID, but ID is absolutely NOT an agenda to ‘slip religion into our schools” ID focuses entirely on the detection of design and the detection of the cause of the design. Naturalism simply does NOT explain how design and irreducible complexity came to be. Suggesting that small accumulations of biological mistakes could superceed natural laws and create the myriad of diversities and complexities we see today is nothign but pure apologetics concidering htere is absolutely NO proof or evidence to back that beleif up.

This is a VERY important point- so please pay attention- detecting design and concluding that an intelligent agent was the causation of the design is NOT the same hting as trying to identify a designer- Folks like Coyoteman incessantly accuse ID scientists of trying to identify the designer, and he is flat out wrong- He knows he is wrong, yet that apparently doesn’t bother him in his quest to malign something he doesn’t agree with.

It also is NOT outside hte realm of science to beleive or even to sign a statement that says that IF ID is correct, and a designer is the causation, then there is a very high probability that God could be that designer.- these are statements that lie NEXT TO the science of ID and is a SEPERATE ISSUE and has absolutely NO bearing on ID itself, nor does it in ANY way invalidate ID science.

Folks such as Coyoteman (and Ken Miller, and Dawkins and other folks) try to accuse ID scientists of peddling something BEYOND the scope of what they study- this is a FALSE accusation. Instead of focussing on the weight of the evidence of ID itself, they suggest that ID scientists go beyond hte wieght itself and study the IMPLICATIONS of the evidences and htis is NOT true- ID is strictly forensic, and unsaved ahteistic evolutionists who study ID CERTAINLY DO NOT practice a science which promotes implications- they study the wieght oif the factual evidences themselves.

If coyoteman and others would just come to a proper understanding of htis, much confusion could be avoided, and the false accusations would cease- Beleifs OUTSIDE of the science of ID do NOT constitute hte science itself- this is a VERY simple factual reality concerning ID science, yet it is something that simply apparently escapes the attention of htose bringing the false accusations against ID

To suggest thta ID is nothign but a religious agenda to bring creation into our schools is a ludicrous accusation that is ignorant of hte facts. Many people are not even aware that EVOLUTION scientists BOYCOTTED the dover trial and were unavailable for cross examination because they knew that honest evaluation of MACROEvolution would reveaL that it is nothing but apologetics and should not be concidered as science because of the glaring lack of evidence to support it.

The PBS Nova show that this thread is concerned with NEVER mentioned this important point- it was a glaring omission that reveals just how lopsided and agenda driven this whole fiasco of a trial was-

For those claiming that the judge was fair and unbiased- I have provided the link to hte show that Judge Jones appeared on where he COFFESSED to the descision being an agenda. You all have accused me of being unrealistic in my assessment, yet the judge himself even confessed to the fact, and yet that still is not convincing enough? Think what you want- apparently no amount of evidence will ever be enough, just as no amount of lack of evidence or evidence showing the impossibilities of MACROEvolution will ever be enouigh to move folks to hte point where they must ceede the fact that another mechanism MUST be the causation of life as we know it biologically.

Folks like Doc accuse ID of being without merrit because it relies on ‘lack of proof’ for it’s basis, and this is an absolutely false and intentionally m isleading accusation. ID relies on VERY specific evidences- NOT on assumptions and evidence-less hypothesis as does MACROEvolution. ID is a forensic science that investigates and studies FACTUAL PRESENTABLE evidence- evidence that is available for anyone to view and explore- not some drummed up hypothesis about what ‘could have happened- given enough time and random excelloration” of events that superceeded Natural laws!

The claim that life was created by a designer is a purely scientific investigatable idea while the claim that the DESIGNER was God is a religious one that deals with implications of the discovered designs. ID studies design and concludes with a high level of probability that a designer was indeed needed in light of the irreducibly complexity involved- ALL forensic sciences that discover complex designs come to the very same scientificly valid conclusion that the item or system they discover needed a designer. ID science makes NO claim about who or how the designer caused the item or system. Organizations like DI have absolutely EVERY right to go BEYOND the purely evidnetiary nature of the ID science and give their opinion about who or what the designer was, but this has absoltely NO implications on the pure Intelligent Design Science.

I havew many excellent links provided to me by Frank Sherwin of ICR if folks would like more information regarding the TRUE goals of ID science and explaining how the intentionally unfactual accusations levelled against ID are infact without any scientific merrit whatsoever- It is quitre common for laypeople to level all kinds of blatant misrepresentations about ID becuase ID exposes the serious flaws in Macroevolution and is a far better explanation for design complexity than the biologically impossible accumulation of small incremental natural biological mistakes that violate the second law at literally trillions of levels along hte way which Evolutionists insist must have happened despite a complete lack of evidence to support such a hypothesis. I can and probaly will post htem here if anyone is itnerested, or you can pm me for a very good list of links.

[angryoldfatman]

Why would we do apologetics when the data is on our side?








Compare this to speed of light estimates of “Creation Scientists” who feed the number 6,000 into the equation and they stand back in awe as the speed of light goes to infinity some six thousand years ago. Yeah, that’s REAL Science. What a laugh.

If you're going at the speed of light, how much time goes by for you when travel to the nearest star? The nearest nebula? The nearest galaxy? The answer is zero.

Why do you make the silly 19th Century mistake of thinking time is constant? I can tell you why: the other "science" you believe in so fervently is stuck in that era.

[RobbyS]

Creationism is a theological doctrine. Basically that at the beginning of time God created the heavens and the earth and all that exists. Fundamentalism assert that this creation occured in the way described in the Bible, that its events must be taken literally. But taking the Bible—that is to say the Hebrew words— literally we cannot assert a Christian dogma: that God created time and space from nothing. Now the last statement I do not assert in an unqualified way, as I do not read Hebrew. Any comments from those who do?

[ahayes]

The "word" in question, however, was not edited by a find-and-replace function; it was done by hand (as in probably moving the cursor to the "r" in creationists and either typing with typeover enabled or just using the Delete key afterwards, latter being the most probable).

Thanks for the clarification, good point.

Therefore, it's not really all that controversial that the author of "Of Pandas and People" would borrow some ideas from a creationist text, just like it's not really all that controversial that cosmologists would borrow the idea that the universe is 16 billion years old from the Torah (once they finally abandoned the erroneous idea of an eternal universe from a much later Greek text).

The reason it's so funny is that in the Dover trial the defendants were claiming that intelligent design was a nonreligious concept. They had planned on using Of Pandas and People as a textbook for ID. From examining the past editions of Of Pandas and People it's clear that it is a creationist book with the word "creationist" removed (editions prior to the "cdesign proponentsists" edition used the word "creationists"). The judge agreed that taking a creationist text and rephrasing key words did not remove the religious nature of the book.

Of Pandas and People did not borrow from a creationist text, it is a creationist text.

You may not see any problem with acknowledging a relationship between religion and intelligent design, but many IDers do. They object because if this connection is recognized ID cannot be taught in science classes since it is religious. They additionally object because they think that if they keep religion undercover they can grab people and then convert them later (the Wedge document).

People aren't so clear on that here. Some people say that ID is not religious, other people say criticizing it is anti-Christian (how otherwise would the Flying Spaghetti Monster be anti-Christian?) Go figure.

[angryoldfatman]

After all, we need to do something while waiting for the scientific evidence for ID to be published.

"Galileo, let us Aristotleans see your unscientific evidence for heliocentrism!"

"It's scientific, and it's an easier explanation for epicycles than..."

"Silence! The epicycles are evidence for geocentrism! The celestial bodies dance around the Earth, as we can all see with our own eyes! Geocentrism is observable, empirical science and heliocentrism is not! Present your evidence!"

"But the evidence lies in the unlikely fashion of the epicycles, dancing of these bodies..."

"UNLIKELY?! Why, all natural bodies move around in dances and wobbles, this is indisputable! Your 'theory' proposes that the heavenly spheres move in perfect circles, and this has never been observed! Circles are UNLIKELY! Do you have any REAL evidence?"

"Well, they're not actually perfect circles..."

"WHAT? Well then what kind of evidence is that? None at all! HAND HIM OVER TO THE INQUISITOR!"

ROFL!

ID is not science because it's never been researched, and anybody who does research on ID is not doing science because ID is not science because it's never been researched, and anybody who does research on ID is not doing science because ID is not science because it's never been researched, and anybody who does research on ID is not doing science because ID is not science because it's never been researched, and anybody who does research on ID is not doing science because ID is not science because it's never been researched, and anybody who does research on ID is not doing science because ID is not science because it's never been researched, and anybody who does research on ID is not doing science because ID is not science because it's never been researched, and anybody who does research on ID is not doing science because ID is not science because it's never been researched, and anybody who does research on ID is not doing science because ID is not science because it's never been researched, and anybody who does research on ID is not doing science because ID is not science because it's never been researched, and anybody who does research on ID is not doing science because...

[angryoldfatman]

Now the last statement I do not assert in an unqualified way, as I do not read Hebrew. Any comments from those who do?

You could read the link I put in my post... just sayin'...

[RobbyS]

And which post is that?

[RobbyS]

One cannot compartmentalize biology and pretend it exists apart from physics and cosmology. The theory of evolution depends on all of the others. The argument over intelligent design is going on in these fields as well The multi-universes “solution” is a way that some use to escape from the “trap” of that Big Bang and the paradoxes of quantum mechanics.

[Coyoteman]

Folks like Coyoteman incessantly accuse ID scientists of trying to identify the designer, and he is flat out wrong-

Actually you are totally incorrect. I accuse "ID scientists" of hiding who they think the designer is. Because ID is religion dishonestly packaged as science, they have to hide the identity of the designer in order to try to sneak their religious beliefs into the schools.

It is quitre common for laypeople to level all kinds of blatant misrepresentations about ID becuase ID exposes the serious flaws in Macroevolution and is a far better explanation for design complexity than the biologically impossible accumulation of small incremental natural biological mistakes that violate the second law at literally trillions of levels along hte way which Evolutionists insist must have happened despite a complete lack of evidence to support such a hypothesis. I can and probaly will post htem here if anyone is itnerested, or you can pm me for a very good list of links.

The second law of thermodynamics? Is that what you are trying to tell us? That evolution is impossible because it violates the second law? That goes back to Morris and his Scientific Creationism and is completely wrong. Laughably wrong!

Here is a response to Morris' claim (from Index to Creationist Claims):

1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
   
   
   • the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
   • entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
   • even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
   In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
   
   
2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
   
   Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
   
   
3. Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.
   
   
4. Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.

(See the original for the references.)

[angryoldfatman]

The reason it's so funny is that in the Dover trial the defendants were claiming that intelligent design was a nonreligious concept.

It is a religious concept like the idea of a universe not being eternal and having been fine-tuned for life are religious concepts.

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - Robert Jastrow, director of NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1979.

Jastrow was wrong. They've been sitting there at the summit for millenia.

They had planned on using Of Pandas and People as a textbook for ID.

After a little Googling, I saw this book was supposed to be a voluntary supplement to the curriculum, not a required textbook, is that right? If there is any solid testimony to the contrary, I'd be glad to look at it. Otherwise, it's a pretty mysterious why the ACLU would want to block knowledge of a book's existence from students.

Maybe they should have put homosexual pornography in it. That would have guaranteed the ACLU seal of approval. :D

From examining the past editions of Of Pandas and People it's clear that it is a creationist book with the word "creationist" removed (editions prior to the "cdesign proponentsists" edition used the word "creationists"). The judge agreed that taking a creationist text and rephrasing key words did not remove the religious nature of the book.

Of Pandas and People did not borrow from a creationist text, it is a creationist text.

The NCSE site said they were drafts (manuscripts? is that a proper term?), not previously published editions. Other than that, as I wrote previously, I haven't read the book so I'll take your word for the rest of it.

You may not see any problem with acknowledging a relationship between religion and intelligent design, but many IDers do. They object because if this connection is recognized ID cannot be taught in science classes since it is religious. They additionally object because they think that if they keep religion undercover they can grab people and then convert them later (the Wedge document).

I don't have a problem with acknowledging a relationship between traditional religion and science, period. The only people who do have already "wedged" themselves (very tightly I might add) into the public education system, and they belong to another religion, whether they acknowledge it or not.

[allmendream]

Yes, and biology, physics and cosmology are all in agreement about the age of the earth and the age of life on earth. Intelligent Design as a formal hypothesis has, so far, and as far as I know, ONLY posited that the system of mutation and natural selection is insufficient to explain common descent and that the intervention of an ‘incompetent designer’ is needed to correct the shortfall. So if I.D. has on their agenda an attack on cosmology and physics, they have yet to fire the first shot across the bow.

What would be the postulation of I.D. about cosmology? That gravity is insufficient to explain the cohesiveness of the universe (about this they would be essentially correct, unlike their postulation about Biology which is an example of a God in search of a Gap) and that the ‘incompetent designer’ needs to send Angels to hold the planets together? I await the next fascinating ‘Scientific’ pronouncement from this gang of PR flacks and lawyers.

[CottShop]

[[Actually you are totally incorrect. I accuse “ID scientists” of hiding who they think the designer is. Because ID is religion dishonestly packaged as science, they have to hide the identity of the designer in order to try to sneak their religious beliefs into the schools.]]

Again- sigh- ID does NO such thing- ID science is carried out by secular scientists who do NOT ‘hide the designer’- they don’t even beleive in a designer- You are confused- you seem to htink DI IS ID science- it is not- DI has statements OUTSIDE of and irrelevent to ID science- DI is just a minor insitution amoung the SCIENCE of ID-

[[The second law of thermodynamics? Is that what you are trying to tell us? That evolution is impossible because it violates the second law? That goes back to Morris and his Scientific Creationism and is completely wrong. Laughably wrong!]]

What’s laughable is that you think negative entropy in examples of INNATE static patterns and an open system can equate to highly complex systems violating the sec9ond law- Shall I pull up the embarrasing rebuttles to the idea that moot examples of negative entropy? I’ve doen this in the past and will be more than happy to repeat it here if you’re a glutton for punishment- P.S here’s just a little preview of what’s to come- and open system is even WORSE for the idea of Macroevolution. The ‘scientists’ who argue that examples of static law following patterns were soundly and embarrasingly shown to be without a lick of sense on the matter- just give the word, and I’ll be more than happy to soundly refute any such nonsense trhat the few moot examples of negative entropy and hte niggling examples of ‘increasing order’ you folks love to put forth as a defense of a dead hypothesis are a rediculous argument for Macroevolution. I warn you though- The person who put forth the argument- the noted ‘scientist’ was spanked quite hard on the issue

The follwoing examples are assinine in light of life’s immense complexities

[[the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.]]

[[The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution]]

There is one half truth and one outright lie in this statement- MICROEVOLUTION happens all the time- NOT MACRO- noone is arguing physical laws prevent them- Two- Deleterious mutations DO have a deleterious effect on species- it ALWAYS comes at a loss- so the last statement is an outright lie

[[Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy]]

Ah yes- increasing complexities leading to irreducible complexities is always driven by ever increasing loss- lol- sorry but htis is just plain assinine-

By the way- your examples with links to hte lying dishonest site talkorigins have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with ICREASING complexity in BIOLOGY- they are nothign but irrelevent unliving assemblies of simple formations- NOT complex dynamic living systems- there’s a whole world of difference between the two- Again- If you’d liek me to present the information and explain the differences and hsow that these scientists makiong htese rediculous claims have no clue what they are talking about- just say the word- another poster of FR was also a glutton for punishment- I obliged.

[Coyoteman]

Again- If you’d liek me to present the information and explain the differences and hsow that these scientists makiong htese rediculous claims have no clue what they are talking about- just say the word-

You just keep on posting more of the above. But you should be aware that your posts do not help your cause; more likely the opposite.

As for me, I'll let the lurkers decide who is posting the more accurate and reasonable material.

[CottShop]

[[They object because if this connection is recognized ID cannot be taught in science classes since it is religious.]]

No sir- we object because hte fact is ID science wieghs evidence of design- period- institutions like DI go BEYOND ID science- and people like Miller and some of you here try to link the two and it’s a dishonest accusation of ID- MANY ID scientists don’t beleive in a creator BUT have a problem with Macroevolution and who understand that design is present in nature- it is exactly like coming across many obviously man made pots in the ground- the ID scientist argues that the design is intelligently caused, while the naturalist insists that nature ‘could have done it’

The fact is that Evos MUST link pure ID science with religion because if the truth be known, and ID science is allowed in schools- it will seriously challenge the accepted ‘norm’ of Macrevolution and expose the impossbilities, and it will do so entirely scientifically, not religiously. Pure forensic ID science absolutely makes no claim about who or what the designer is- and infact most beleive it is still nature- not an entity- however, the fact is that Macreovolution is on the verge of being exposed for what it really is, and therefore, they who hold the view MUST do everythign in their power to stop the truth from being exposed- ie that Macroevlution is pure apologetics without a shred of evidence to back it up.

[[They additionally object because they think that if they keep religion undercover they can grab people and then convert them later]]

Yes, Muawahahahaha- we have an evil agenda of exposing people to TRUE objectivity- Golly- ya caught us!

[CottShop]

[[You just keep on posting more of the above. But you should be aware that your posts do not help your cause; more likely the opposite]]

Afraid of having the hypothesis that natural moot examples of negative entropy could possibly lead to infinately more complex living systems with trillions of complex differences exposed as a rediculous and ignorant hypothesis eh? That’s ok, I understand- When you’re ready- just give the word. In the meatime- you may wish to hone up on the rebuttles to talk origins rediculous assertions- so at least you know what to expect when the fur starts flying.

[CottShop]

just a prewarning- Tom Schneider, a scientist who insists thermodynamics doesn’t prevent evoltuion because of .... was so badly humiliated that he went away stomping his foot and lashing out at hte person who pummeled him with facts- Timothy Wallace. Tim asked him several critically key points during their exhange, and Tom REFUSED to address them and instead launched into ad hominem attacks- The reason he refused? Because he was FLAT OUT WRONG and he knew it and it was devestating to the rediculous notion that simplistic organizations and simplistci examples of negative entropy had any connection at all wit living dynamic highly complex systems that would have required not a few law violating incidents, but trillions of them. Evos like Tom give only just a few moot examples of simplistic static examples and expect to be taken seriously? Tom found out hte hard way that his hypothesis was rediculous and totally unscientific- He even went so far as to create a website playing the bitter little victim of a ‘bullying Wallace’ lol- The exchange was actually quite funny- but it was also key to exposing hte blatant lies and halftruths put forth by those who hold to a purely apologetic faith based beleif system