DNAunion: As stated in my last post, this is in reply to Paul's two public
challenges to me to respond to his private e-mail. But actually, this is
part 1 of 2.
>>>Paul Robson: You have to have pretty low levels of literacy to think I
"rely solely on OST to organise functioning cells" from this statement. I
don't even mention cells at all.
>>>DNAunion: So where did I say that you had to mention cells?
>>>Paul Robson: [when you said] "those who rely SOLELY on vague appeals to
open-system thermodynamics to explain the ordering and organizing of simple
organics into a functioning cell" (my emphasis) "
You said this argument occurred FREQUENTLY.
*******************************
*******************************
DNAunion: Yes (on the internet, not here), but I did *NOT* say that you made
that exact argument. So I didn't say YOU had to mention cells. You didn't
mention them, yet you were still putting forth the same BASIC form of logical
argument.
*******************************
*******************************
>>>DNAUnion: I did NOT say you yourself put forth EXACTLY this argument;
you yourself put forth *A FORM OF* this argument The basic nature and
structure of the argument is the same in my original and in your form of it:
>>>Paul Robson: [claim that I am copping out]
>>>DNAunion: "Creationists/IDists argue that [a biological process that
involves large increases in order] cannot occur by purely-natural processes
because that would require the violation of the 2nd law, but open-system
thermodynamics alone shows them to be wrong". This is the basic pattern, or
template, of the argument: one just needs to fill in the single variable: and
regular; biological evolution and the evolution of the first biological cells
are closely related (we aint talkin' bout no cars hear [as you were]). Both
my original, and yours that I mentioned was similar, are arguments of the
same logical *FORM*. They are not identical, and I made it clear (to someone
who can read!) that I was not stating they were.
>>>Paul Robson: What a load of old codswallop.
*******************************
*******************************
DNAunion: Nope. Just the facts. Sorry if you don't like them.
*******************************
*******************************
>>>Paul Robson: You claim
"those who rely SOLELY on vague appeals to open-system thermodynamics to
explain the ordering and organizing of simple organics into a functioning
cell" (my emphasis) "
and you really think this is a FORM of the argument ? Why, because it
mentions OST a bit ? What happened to "solely" ? or "cells" ?
*******************************
*******************************
>>>DNAunion: No, the similarities go deeper. (1) It mentions OST. (2) It
mentions only OST as an explanatory mechanism. (3) It claims to show that
the 2nd law is not an obstacle. (4) It is an argument against a Creationist
position (according to many anti-IDists, IDists are creationists too). (5)
Both deal with large increases in order. (5) Both deal with large increase
in organization. (6) Both deal with biological entities. (7) Both deal with
controversial changes to biological entities.
Okay, perhaps the problem is that you are not looking at these in argument
form. Let's phrase them as actual arguments (using loose terms).
Creationist/ID argument 1
Premise 1: The 2nd law states that disorder tends to increase, not decrease
Premise 2: Evolution requires a large increase in order
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution "violates" the 2nd law
Evolutionist counter argument 1
Premise 1: Local decreases in disorder can occur in open systems
Premise 2: The Earth and entities - cells - that evolve are open systems,
receiving energy from the Sun
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Therefore, Creationists/IDists are wrong - evolution does not
violate the 2nd law
Creationist/ID argument 2
Premise 1: The 2nd law states that disorder tends to increase, not decrease
Premise 2: The evolution of the first cell required a large increase in order
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Therefore, the evolution of the first cell "violated" the 2nd law
Evolutionist counter argument 2
Premise 1: Local decreases in disorder can occur in open systems
Premise 2: Earth and entities that evolved into cells are open systems,
receiving energy from the Sun
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Therefore, Creationists/IDists are wrong - the evolution of the
first cell does not violate the 2nd law
These are basically logical arguments of the same form. The similarities are
numerous, and the single basic difference (evolution in general vs evolution
of the first cell) is slight.
*******************************
*******************************
>>>Paul Robson: Listen DNAUnion, here it is again.
*******************************
*******************************
DNAunion: I listened, but my phone didn't ring. Could you have meant "Look,
DNAunion, read again what I have written"? But we all already know that,
according to you, I can't read. So what exactly do you mean here?
*******************************
*******************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 02:02:43 EST