I'm not going to get involved in another silly argument about the Second
Law. But I'd like to correct something that DNAUnion wrote, as it
misrepresents what I said.
(BTW I'd filtered out DNAUnion, but I got this via Nelson's post. I have now
filtered out Nelson, Stephen Jones and Silk too, which should considerably
reduce the amount of nonsense coming into my mail box.)
>>>Richard Wein: Stephen's basic error is to confuse the Second Law of
>Thermodynamics with the Creationist Law of Thermodynamics.
>
>>>>DNAunion; No, Richard's basic error is to confuse the Second Law of
> Thermodynamics with his prejudiced, preconceived notions of a Creationist
>Law
> of Thermodynamics.
>
>>>>Nelson:What is the creationist law of thermodynamics?
>
>DNAunion: There is none. Richard was being "humorous". The implication is
>that "our" version of thermodynamics is that "order never comes from
>disorder" (as Paul posted), or that "evolution violates thermodynamics".
>However, anyone who has followed the discussions here will see that NEITHER
>SEJones nor I propose either of these.
If you'd read my post more carefully, you'd have seen that the
creationist versions of the Second Law to which I referred were the ones
referring to stuff like "code-driven energy-conversion systems". Stephen
wrote:
"Yes. See the above quotes. The problem with the SLoT is that
evolutionists generally: 1) do not bother to listen to what creationists are
*really* saying; 2) do not address the *real* issue which is the *origin* of
the code-driven energy-conversion systems; 3) respond with irrelevant red-
herrings about open and closed systems, etc; and 4) cloak their answers in
a lot of technical jargon which further obscures the matter rather than
clarifying it."
So, according to Stephen, "the *real* issue" with the SLoT "is the *origin*
of the code-driven energy-conversion systems".
But the *real* SLoT says nothing about such systems.
For a very clear example of a major creationist making up his own law of
thermodynamics, read this...
<begin quote from ChristianAnswers.net
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html>
Dr. Henry Morris has proposed A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF THE 2ND LAW OF
THERMODYNAMICS in accordance with this concept:
"In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that
system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended
or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an
informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter
mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure
of that system.
If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not
available to that 'open' system, it will not increase in order, no matter
how much external energy surrounds it. The system will decay in accordance
with the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
[Henry M. Morris, "Entropy and Open Systems," Acts and Facts, Vol. 5 (P.O.
Box 2667, El Cajon, California 92021: Institute for Creation Research,
October 1976).]
<end quote>
I don't know whether *you* (DNAUnion) are making the same error as
creationists, but, as I referred only to creationists, I wasn't including
you, was I? ;-)
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 04:34:32 EST