Originally Posted by
Seraphim
Second law of thermodynamics argument is against order being created out of disorder. Entropy.
This only proves that you don't understand entropy in it's entirety. (the third law deals with it also)
True, for any one small piece of matter, physical or chemical changes result in energy loss (to heat etc.) and an increase in entropy. But for a "system" of small pieces of matter, it is only the net sum that has to come out as entropy increased. So, some pieces of matter can be driven into states of lower entropy and still for the entire universe, entropy increases, many respected physicists have shown this to be true.
Has anybody ever been able to take a beaker full of amino acids, protiens, hydrogenated endoplasmic reticulums, or what have you, stir them around and create any sort of a living organism?
This is a pretty blatant oversimplification. When it is said that these things can form on their own, it is with the assumption that they had a few billion years. You can't say "grapes don't become wine because when I smash grapes and add yeast it just tastes like yeasty grape juice", there is another ingredient: time.
Even with all of the supposed scientific knowledge of how this all works? Anybody?
We have yet to be allotted the time required for this experiment to work.
Scientists can take already existing DNA, etc, and muck around with it to see what happens (usually not good). But they are already starting by working with the finished product, so to speak.
And that article tries to explain how does a cell evolve from a single-cell to a multicellular organism. I don't have any issues with that aspect of evolutionary explanation. But, that doesn't help at all to explain how those first so-called simple cells themselves came to be.
Ok, I just said it was on early cell evolution, it was what I was reading at the time and found it interesting. But the idea is that you should look around for yourself rather than always shooting down other's resources because they don't hand you "the theory of everything".
And as another point. I thought this discussion was simply about creationism vs. the theory of evolution. I didn't realize its' premise was about whether or nor I.D. should be taught in school as a science course.
The arguments are the same for any application of the debate.
Should it be taught in science classes?
-No, it is not a science.
Should those that espouse it's principles be funded as scientists?
-No, they are not doing science.
Should those that espouse it's principles be allowed to claim they are being treated unfairly?
-No, they are asking to be accepted by the wrong group, and thus appear to be getting shunned but are, themselves, in the wrong.
I for one, am not in favor as putting forth ID as a science whatsoever (nor do I care for it to be taught in school at all for that matter). I would however, like there to be a disclaimer that goes along with the teaching of the theory of evolution: that it is not a proven fact.
Again, no such thing as "fact" in science. The best that science ever puts forth is theory. And as for all of the so called "laws" (of thermodynamics, of motion etc.) they're only called "laws" because they were developed before the definitions were straightened out.
Is that too much to ask?:shrug:
Perhaps if it were not taught as a "given", some bright young mind may someday actually come up with a better explanation!
There are many bright minds (well not Bright minds, rather, intelligent minds) working to do just that.
But the bottom line is, as has been pointed out before, there is no way to analyze the supernatural. So as soon as you say that some phenomenon is the work of a Designer, than two things can result: 1) you are proven wrong by the onward march of real science at some point down the road or 2) inquiry into how it happened ceases and we never gain another drop of knowledge form it, because you can never, with natural means, analyze the supernatural.
