Yes, the ignorance of in some cases even willful misrepresentation of the 2nd law of thermodynamcis is not only sad but troublesome since the same people claim to be applying the 'scientific method'.
> A living cell is more complex than any arch or any suspension bridge or
> anything else ever built. No one uses or has ever used Dawkins'
> fantasies, like "building down." If anyone did, I would speculate that
> starting from the beginning of time to the end of time they would still
> be sitting by their pile of randomly placed rocks with no sign of any
> design of any kind. More disorder, yes. An arch or a bridge will
> crumble. More order, never. The trend of the entire universe is in the
> opposite direction.
Rylander: <<I absolutely agree about the greater complexity of a cell v. an arch. My
point is simply a logical one: irreducibly complexity does not IN PRINCIPLE
entail a lack of evolutionary development. It makes it more circuitous,
less direct, but does not in itself block all evolutionary pathways, just
the seemingly simplest ones.>>
Hear hear. A voice of reason in this age of darkness.