Thread: Expelled!

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

As an aside, this is not a valid argument because chemistry explains exactly how order can be created naturally. Certain types of bonds are more stable than others, because of electrical charges etc. So just because there is order does not mean that design is responsible.

Here's one of many articles on the early stages of evolution: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...4449.Ev.r.html

It is a simplified conversational version, but there are documents with similar info in much more thorough scientific terminology. Not an all encompassing rebuttal but a good example of the kind of legitimate answers given by Evolution.

Second law of thermodynamics argument is against order being created out of disorder. Entropy.

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?

Even with all of the supposed scientific knowledge of how this all works? Anybody?

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.



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.

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.

Is that too much to ask?

Perhaps if it were not taught as a "given", some bright young mind may someday actually come up with a better explanation!

Some people strive to be human beings living a spiritual experience...
Others know that they are spiritual beings living a human experience...

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?

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.

Bruno makes an excellent point and it is a viewpoint that many scientists hold.

Why does God, or a generic Intelligent Designer, have to have His hand directly in the day to day workings of His creations. There is no more evidence to believe that the Designer was directly involved in creating life than there is to believe that we just haven't stumbled across the mechanism (that he may have created) that sets life into motion without the need for direct involvement.

Science is the process of uncovering such mechanisms, I.D. poses a catch-all opinion that does not advance the scientific process and is therefore not a science.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Let me rephrase...

I see no cnflict between ID and evolution. Evolution is a mechanism. We may not understand it completely, but evolution is a mechanism that is proven to exist.

This meachanism is built on the laws of statistics and probability.

ID imo would mean that someone designed these laws by which the universe is governed. And indeed, the laws of our universe are simple. When I was in college, theoretical physics was one of my courses, but also my hobby. And I was awed by the fact that the rules which govern electromagnetism, gravity and quantum physics could be written on a napkin.

This inspired an awe, and a feeling that if there was a God, he surely was the one behind these beautiful equations.

Anyway, this is the way in which I see no conflict between ID and evolution.

This is why I like you Bruno, because even when we disagree on many points we rarely disagree on the basic principles, as demonstrated by your post that I quoted!
your post pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter!

sorry, internet went awry.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Second law of thermodynamics argument is against order being created out of disorder. Entropy.

This is a fallacy. You're using the rules of one discipline to try and describe another. Biology and Physics are separate sciences with different rules governing them.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

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.

Is that too much to ask?

Perhaps if it were not taught as a "given", some bright young mind may someday actually come up with a better explanation!

Well, NOBODY (worth their salt at least) teaches that evolution is proven. They should however teach the truth of the facts which overwhelmingly, and I mean vastly, demonstrate that evolution is how it works. If that's what you mean by using the terms, "a proven fact" and "given", then I'm sorry, but we must do the correct thing in science and teach that it is given that evolution is the very process by which all life developed from the lowest of organisms. The record of discovery continually and uncompromisingly directs us to do so. It doesn't matter whether we want it to be that way or how uncomfortable with those observations we are because they may not mesh very well with what our preacher says, that is the way it is.

Originally Posted by netsurfr

Some people strive to be human beings living a spiritual experience...
Others know that they are spiritual beings living a human experience...

Still others of us are rational about our wonderful human experience.

X

Originally Posted by xman

This is a fallacy. You're using the rules of one discipline to try and describe another. Biology and Physics are separate sciences with different rules governing them.

That's not necessarily true, the various sciences should compliment each other in the explanations of the world. No biological system should break the laws of physics, otherwise what is being observed is incorrect or the law is wrong.

However, biology isn't breaking the 2nd law, because it only applies to a closed system. If you add energy to something you can decrease entropy at the local level. The sun provides plenty of energy to the earth.

Originally Posted by Anthroman

That's not necessarily true, the various sciences should compliment each other in the explanations of the world. No biological system should break the laws of physics, otherwise what is being observed is incorrect or the law is wrong.

However, biology isn't breaking the 2nd law, because it only applies to a closed system. If you add energy to something you can decrease entropy at the local level. The sun provides plenty of energy to the earth.

Thank-you for the clarification.

X

Originally Posted by Anthroman

]
However, biology isn't breaking the 2nd law, because it only applies to a closed system. If you add energy to something you can decrease entropy at the local level. The sun provides plenty of energy to the earth.

Those super long posts just get skipped over, don't they?

Oh well, you clarified that nicely Anthro.

p.s. Xman, that critical thinking link is a good one. I saw Massimo Pigliucci give a speech about logical fallacies, a very knowledgeable and articulate individual.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Second law of thermodynamics argument is against order being created out of disorder. Entropy.

. . .

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.

. . .

I've stayed out of this discussion so far because I know some individuals on this forum find my opinions on religion offensive. But this is I reply to as it is a misunderstanding of science.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy always increases. Entropy can decrease in one location if it increases by a greater amount somewhere else. Creating order out of disorder is no problem at all and does not contradict this law. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to make anything. Apart from anything else there is a huge increase in entropy occuring in the sun all the time - more than enough (by far) to account for any decrease in entropy we might observe on the earth.

And since I'm replying to that I'll take the time to also reply to the second point . . . the theory of evolution only applies to living things, it is not (and never has been) an explanation of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is currently an unanswered question - there are some theories, some better supported than others (and the theory of evolution may give us pointers here) but none of them are backed up by enough evidence to be generally accepted. However, the fact that something is beyond the capability of current scientific understanding to explain does not necessarily mean a magic man in the sky did it.