"The scientifically-proven, recorded and testable Second Law of Thermodynamics stands in direct opposition to the theory of evolution. It states all things change/move from a state of higher organization to disorder … which is the opposite of evolution proposes.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Second Law of Thermodynamics apply in a closed system? If so, it doesn't apply to evolution because the Earth is an open system, getting energy from the sun and expelling energy into the universe.
This article is an interesting one upon which the Sensuous Curmudgeon commented. The writer, Wayne, "claims he has “a bachelors degree in science, a masters and [is] working on a doctorate”. He doesn't say what his doctorate is in or where he is studying, however, from his comments Curmudgeon does not buy into his being a biology, physics, or a math major.
So, I am needing some education here. I keep hearing this claim about the 2nd law and need to be able to respond to it.
Thanks for posting this. It's a great article. Creationists just recycle the same old arguments. I've seen stuff taken verbatim out of the Book of Job. Talk about your old chestnuts.
I knew they were recycled old arguments but from 1981?!?! That was a shocker to me. I noticed those people also do the same when it comes to Climate Change. No wonder the NCSE focuses on those two subjects.
This is a terrific case in point on the mendacity of evangelical Christians on science. They know that younger people from Christian homes are faith-indoctrinated before they are introduced to the essential conclusions of scientific method.
Evangelists will bandy about the nomenclature and narrative of science, twisting it to suit their own claims as a way of cementing confirmation bias among the faithful. Old arguments from this quarter are debunked time and again, but used again by the mis-informers on new generations of a captive audience who will never encounter the correction.
Excellent article on creationist misunderstanding Laws of Thermodynamics. Lots of other good information as well. I have it bookmarked.
Well, if nothing else, we have to discuss those points drawn from science that religious use incorrectly. If we can't articulate the errors, how can we expect the general public to make distinctions. Oh boy! I love it when I am learning something new. Away we go!
There is a young whippersnapper who thinks he knows it all and pontificates as though he has all the answers. He debated at least twice with Hitchens and Hitch swatted at him like a pesky mosquito on a warm summer's night. I wonder if we can use his sophomoric attitude as a learning piece to answer questions. The first one that hopped out to me was the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Others he cited were:
Does God Exist, VCU, Virginia Commonwealth University, Sept 8, 2008.
How universe arose from nothing?
Extreme fine tuning arose from chaos?
How life arose from non-life?
How morality arose from materials?
How reason and logic arose from mater?
How mind arose from mud?
How mathematics arose from molecules?
How human freedom arose from blind repetitive forces?
How consciousness arose from chemicals?