Re: evidence against Darwinism-there isn't any!

From: Cliff Hamrick (Cliff_Hamrick@baylor.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 04 2000 - 11:57:02 EDT

  • Next message: Bertvan@aol.com: "Definitions of ID"

             Reply to: Re: evidence against Darwinism-there isn't any!
    Good point. A law can't be circumvented. Let me rephrase my last comment. There are reasons as to why the 2LOT would not be an obstacle to evolution. Another point is that the 2LOT states that the amount of entropy in a system always increases. This implies that the universe will eventually fill up with so much entropy that any form of organization will be impossible. But, the universe is expanding. If the rate of expansion is greater than the rate of entropic increase, then it is possible that the universe will become even more orderly than when it started. In fact, I think this is what is happening and why we see the evolution of larger, more complex organisms.

    I just love shooting down my own ideas.

    Cliff H

    FMAJ1019 wrote:
    >CH: I guess I missed your question earlier, so let me try it now. I would >say that the most telling argument against naturalistic evolution is the >second law of thermodynamics. It is the overall tendency of the universe to >break down into smaller, simpler parts. But, it is the overall tendency of >living organisms to evolve into larger, more complex forms. I have always >considered this another bolster to my faith in a God that allows living >organisms to break the rules. >
    >
    >That would indeed be a great argument were it not for the fact that the 2LOT >does not form any obstacle to evolution or at least that noone has shown this >to be the case. Yes, the 2LOT says that overall the tendency is towards >'chaos' but it also allows local decreases in entropy. Far equilibrium >systems are infamous for this.
    >
    >CH: I am also aware that there are arguments as to why the second law of >thermodynamics can be circumvented by living organisms, but that wasn't the >question.
    > >The law is not circumvented. Are you seriously?
    >
    >RFC822 header
    >-----------------------------------
    >
    >Return-Path: <evolution-owner-Cliff_Hamrick=baylor.edu@udomo3.calvin.edu>
    >Received: from BUVAX2.BAYLOR.EDU (buvax2.baylor.edu [129.62.1.1])
    > by ccis01.baylor.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA15399
    > for <Cliff_Hamrick@STUMAIL.BAYLOR.EDU>; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 15:17:15 -0500 (CDT)
    >Received: from lists.calvin.edu (udomo3.calvin.edu)
    > by baylor.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33495)
    > with SMTP id <01JTS2WITRWGFF0LBP@baylor.edu> for
    > Cliff_Hamrick@STUMAIL.BAYLOR.EDU (ORCPT rfc822;Cliff_Hamrick@baylor.edu); Mon,
    > 4 Sep 2000 15:17:12 CDT
    >Received: (qmail 13807 invoked by uid 27); Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:16:38 +0000
    >Received: (qmail 13801 invoked from network); Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:16:38 +0000
    >Received: from ursa.calvin.edu (153.106.4.1) by udomo3.calvin.edu with SMTP;
    > Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:16:38 +0000
    >Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36])
    > by ursa.calvin.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e84KH8512212 for
    > <evolution@calvin.edu>; Mon, 04 Sep 2000 16:17:08 -0400 (EDT)
    >Received: from FMAJ1019@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.)
    > id g.ad.1e2b24 (4456); Mon, 04 Sep 2000 16:17:00 -0400 (EDT)
    >Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 16:16:59 -0400 (EDT)
    >From: FMAJ1019@aol.com
    >Subject: Re: evidence against Darwinism-there isn't any!
    >Sender: evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
    >To: Cliff_Hamrick@baylor.edu, evolution@calvin.edu
    >Message-id: <ad.1e2b24.26e55d3b@aol.com>
    >MIME-version: 1.0
    >X-Mailer: Unknown sub 10015
    >Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    >Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    >Precedence: bulk
    >Delivered-to: evolution@lists.calvin.edu
    >Status: >

    Common sense isn't.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 16:57:12 EDT