Dastardly Dishonest Defenders of Darwin
A man signing himself as Lev Landau wrote a letter to the American Spectator regarding the article Evolution`s Thermodynamic Failure by Granville Sewell in which he argues that Relativity disproves Dr. Sewell`s argument. I remember I thought this letter odd. Read it below:
Mr. Sewell is applying an elementary thermodynamic argument the full content of which he apparently does not understand with regard to the entropy of the universe. The expanded argument on a more sophisticated level is referred to as the "Fluctuation Hypothesis" and concerns the question of whether the universe is in a closed system.
The answer to the problem is in general relativity. The point at which we consider large regions of the system, the gravitational fields which they contain are important. In accord with general relativity these represent simply changes in the space time metric which is described by the metric tensor g (sub)ik.
The assumption that after a long enough interval of time a closed system must eventually reach a state of equilibrium depends obviously on the external conditions remaining constant. But the metric tensor g (sub)ik is, in general, a function of not only co-ordinates but time as well, so that the "external conditions" are by no means constant. The gravitational field cannot be counted as part of the closed system as in that case the conservation laws, which are the foundation of statistics, would become identities. As a result, in the general theory of relativity the universe as a whole must not be regarded as a closed system, but as one which is in a variable gravitational field. In this case the application of the law of increase of entropy does not imply the necessity of statistical equilibrium.
As the universe cannot be considered as a closed system, elementary thermodynamics does not apply in Mr. Sewell's arguments.
-- Lev Landau
There are several odd things about this. First, this man has absolutely loaded his letter with mathematical jargon which is unintelligible to the reader of TAS (and is probably unintelligible to Mr. Landau himself.) This is an old canard; Mr. Landau is putting on a show, a magic trick, in order to confuse what is being discussed. He throws in relativity, which has dubious relavency here, because he knows most people don`t understand it, and he may be able to impeach Dr. Sewell`s argument with some people because it sounds scientific. Why else continue to beat on that metric tensor g(sub)ik business?
I would like to point out that gravity generally robs the Universe of energy via black holes, which suck in matter and energy but fail to release them (except in the instances where black holes decay, in which case they simply return what they have taken). What does that mean? It means that gravitational point sources i.e. black holes increase entropic decay. (It has been speculated that there are ``white holes`` which connect via wormholes to black holes, and that these return what black holes have taken. This is conjecture, and STILL maintains equilibrium.) The point is, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed in the Universe-merely moved about. Entropy states that, barring a Big Crunch (the opposite of the Big Bang, in which the Universe contracts back into a primordial egg), the Universe will reach a point of stasis which scientists refer to as heat death.
Of course, General Relativity has only the most indirect application to the developement of life. I found Landau`s arguments rather peculiar.
I was also bothered by the name-it struck me as familiar, but I couldn`t place it. Fortunately, an alert reader caught it:
JUDGE A THEORY BY ITS DEFENDERS
Re: Lev Landau's letter (under "Macrocreation Science Lesson") in Reader Mail's Treaty or Trick:
It should come as no surprise to your readers that your excellent publication draws big names and heavy hitters. Nevertheless, I was taken aback when I saw a letter to the editor by none other than Lev Landau, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics.
With his explanation of how the "metric tensor g (sub)ik" proves that the Universe is not constrained by the second law of thermodynamics, Prof. Landau demonstrated very clearly the state of discussion regarding evolution. It was truly fascinating stuff, since Lev Landau died on April 1, 1968.
Let's consider what we have here: a fraudulent letter written by someone obviously dishonest, disingenuous, and immature. In other words, an ideal representation of the theory of evolution rendered down to its barest essence.
If evolutionists are not fabricating transition-state fossils, they're inventing new idiotic gobblygook-filled sub-theories, such as the "theory of punctuated equilibrium" as noted by George Neumayr earlier this year. (You know the old saying, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with the "metric tensor g (sub)ik." Or try to, at least.)
Another tactic they employ is to engage in kangaroo-court, straw-men-laden, pseudo debates amongst themselves, as with, for example, National Geographic's periodic treatment of the topic. But evolutionists' favorite scientific method is to simply resort to bullying, usually by portraying their detractors as snaggle-toothed, illiterate, intemperate hillbillies. Such bullying is easily accomplished, since evolutionists constitute the overwhelming majority of those in the academia-Hollywood-MSM trifecta.
Yet in the process they do an even better job of revealing themselves to be morons. Exhibit A is the jackass who wrote that letter who, albeit unwittingly so, is evolution's ideal ambassador. Be on the look-out for other similarly cogent defenses of evolution from the noted scholars, I. P. Freely and Seymour Butts. The theory deserves no less.
--R. Trotter, PE
Arlington, Virginia
If Darwinism is on such firm ground, why must its defenders stoop to such low tactics?
Mr. Sewell is applying an elementary thermodynamic argument the full content of which he apparently does not understand with regard to the entropy of the universe. The expanded argument on a more sophisticated level is referred to as the "Fluctuation Hypothesis" and concerns the question of whether the universe is in a closed system.
The answer to the problem is in general relativity. The point at which we consider large regions of the system, the gravitational fields which they contain are important. In accord with general relativity these represent simply changes in the space time metric which is described by the metric tensor g (sub)ik.
The assumption that after a long enough interval of time a closed system must eventually reach a state of equilibrium depends obviously on the external conditions remaining constant. But the metric tensor g (sub)ik is, in general, a function of not only co-ordinates but time as well, so that the "external conditions" are by no means constant. The gravitational field cannot be counted as part of the closed system as in that case the conservation laws, which are the foundation of statistics, would become identities. As a result, in the general theory of relativity the universe as a whole must not be regarded as a closed system, but as one which is in a variable gravitational field. In this case the application of the law of increase of entropy does not imply the necessity of statistical equilibrium.
As the universe cannot be considered as a closed system, elementary thermodynamics does not apply in Mr. Sewell's arguments.
-- Lev Landau
There are several odd things about this. First, this man has absolutely loaded his letter with mathematical jargon which is unintelligible to the reader of TAS (and is probably unintelligible to Mr. Landau himself.) This is an old canard; Mr. Landau is putting on a show, a magic trick, in order to confuse what is being discussed. He throws in relativity, which has dubious relavency here, because he knows most people don`t understand it, and he may be able to impeach Dr. Sewell`s argument with some people because it sounds scientific. Why else continue to beat on that metric tensor g(sub)ik business?
I would like to point out that gravity generally robs the Universe of energy via black holes, which suck in matter and energy but fail to release them (except in the instances where black holes decay, in which case they simply return what they have taken). What does that mean? It means that gravitational point sources i.e. black holes increase entropic decay. (It has been speculated that there are ``white holes`` which connect via wormholes to black holes, and that these return what black holes have taken. This is conjecture, and STILL maintains equilibrium.) The point is, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed in the Universe-merely moved about. Entropy states that, barring a Big Crunch (the opposite of the Big Bang, in which the Universe contracts back into a primordial egg), the Universe will reach a point of stasis which scientists refer to as heat death.
Of course, General Relativity has only the most indirect application to the developement of life. I found Landau`s arguments rather peculiar.
I was also bothered by the name-it struck me as familiar, but I couldn`t place it. Fortunately, an alert reader caught it:
JUDGE A THEORY BY ITS DEFENDERS
Re: Lev Landau's letter (under "Macrocreation Science Lesson") in Reader Mail's Treaty or Trick:
It should come as no surprise to your readers that your excellent publication draws big names and heavy hitters. Nevertheless, I was taken aback when I saw a letter to the editor by none other than Lev Landau, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics.
With his explanation of how the "metric tensor g (sub)ik" proves that the Universe is not constrained by the second law of thermodynamics, Prof. Landau demonstrated very clearly the state of discussion regarding evolution. It was truly fascinating stuff, since Lev Landau died on April 1, 1968.
Let's consider what we have here: a fraudulent letter written by someone obviously dishonest, disingenuous, and immature. In other words, an ideal representation of the theory of evolution rendered down to its barest essence.
If evolutionists are not fabricating transition-state fossils, they're inventing new idiotic gobblygook-filled sub-theories, such as the "theory of punctuated equilibrium" as noted by George Neumayr earlier this year. (You know the old saying, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with the "metric tensor g (sub)ik." Or try to, at least.)
Another tactic they employ is to engage in kangaroo-court, straw-men-laden, pseudo debates amongst themselves, as with, for example, National Geographic's periodic treatment of the topic. But evolutionists' favorite scientific method is to simply resort to bullying, usually by portraying their detractors as snaggle-toothed, illiterate, intemperate hillbillies. Such bullying is easily accomplished, since evolutionists constitute the overwhelming majority of those in the academia-Hollywood-MSM trifecta.
Yet in the process they do an even better job of revealing themselves to be morons. Exhibit A is the jackass who wrote that letter who, albeit unwittingly so, is evolution's ideal ambassador. Be on the look-out for other similarly cogent defenses of evolution from the noted scholars, I. P. Freely and Seymour Butts. The theory deserves no less.
--R. Trotter, PE
Arlington, Virginia
If Darwinism is on such firm ground, why must its defenders stoop to such low tactics?
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 8:20 AM
14 Comments:
Tim, I don't think that I should have to remind you that Darwin is also dead. :)
Happy new year!!
Sewell's Thermodynamic Failure
Point taken, Jeff!
Happy New Year to you!
To anonymous:
Thanks for writing, and thanks for pointing to that piece in the Panda`s Middle Finger. (Ah, my old friends, how I have missed you!)
Dr. Perakh states;
In this formulation, the universe is considered a closed system (as there is nothing beyond the universe, no egress from or ingress to the universe of energy or matter can take place, which is what the concept of a closed system is all about).
Uh, this isn`t quite correct; as I pointed out, black holes suck matter and energy out of the general universe into their own peculiar environments. As nothing can move out of the event horizon of a black hole (unless the hole decays) it has, essentially, been removed from the Universe. A professor of physics should know this.
Dr. Perakh uses the usual slight-of-hand tricks and agressive tactics which are the hallmark of Liberalism, and Darwinists.
He has this to say;
It may be pointed out that Clausius’s formula for entropy is just a particular case since there are an infinite number of functions all suitable to serve as “entropy.” The sole requirement for a function to serve as “entropy” is its being an invariant of a reversible adiabatic process. Adiabatic process is such where there is no energy flow through the system’s boundaries. This is a limiting case wherein, unlike in any other processes, entropy remains constant. A reversible process is just an idealization as all real processes are irreversible, so the entropy of the universe necessarily increases in all natural processes, while the entropy of a part of the universe that is an “open” system may decrease as well, depending on the local conditions and the energy flow.
A substantial impetus for a deeper interpretation of entropy was provided by the realization (by L. Boltzmann) that entropy is a monotonic function of the number of microscopic states accessible for the system. Boltzmann suggested a convenient logarithmic transformation from the “thermodynamic probability” W, which equals the number of accessible states, into Clausius’s entropy:
S= k × loge W ,
where k is the Boltzmann coefficient whose value was chosen to make Boltzmann’s statistically defined S coincide quantitatively with Clausius’s S.
This is the old ``I`m so much smarter than you`` dodge. He relies on arcane mathematical jargon to obfuscate what is being discussed. We see this all of the time. Notice his chest-thumping about his expertise in physics throughout the piece.
He continues with a breathtaking model of circular logic:
If Sewell’s conclusion about the 2nd law prohibiting evolution were true, life would be impossible. A living organism constantly (and successfully) fights against entropy increase. Were the organism a closed system, it would not be able to survive as all processes within the body would, as the 2nd law postulates, lead to the increase of entropy, and thus to the body’s rapid disintegration. Luckily, organisms are open systems and the 2nd law does not prohibit entropy decrease in such systems, hence not prohibiting increase of complexity or of informational contents of the system.
Uh, I think that was the point.
Although the problems of abiogenesis (the origin of life) are beyond evolutionary biology, Sewell seems to conflate in his arguments two different problems – that of the evolution of the living organisms and that of the origin of life. In this vein, he repeatedly refers to laws of probability. Since Sewell is a mathematician, he is supposed to be versed in probabilities on a professional level. Unfortunately, his arguments based on probabilities are no better than similar arguments offered many times before by “creation scientists” of various kinds and shown many times over to be irrelevant to the question of origin of life.
This is a classic trick, claiming that the matter has been settled, and that his view is unchallengable. Further, he insinuates that professor Sewell is a fool.
The recent evisceration of Behe’s views by the plaintiff’s attorneys at Kitzmiller vs DASD trial (see here ) and in the Judge Jones’s decision (see here ) have vividly shown Behe’s inability to say anything of substance in defense of his IC concept.
So, now the legal system can be relied upon to discuss the matter, but people like myself should shut our mouths. Apparently, it matters who has the gory ox. I was under the impression that only the intellectual elite were smart enough to discuss this.
Likewise, claiming the absence of “proofs” for ET, Sewell just reveals his lack of familiarity with the pertinent literature. The fact of speciation (often referred to by creationists as “macroevolution”) has been firmly established by observation and experimentation (see, for example Jerry Coyne and Alan Orr’s book Speciation or online for example, here or here .
This was good; I went to the first site he linked to, and here is what the author had to say;
from Talk Origins by Joseph Boxhorn:
The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?
The ``experimental proof`` our good professor offers involves principly hybridization. Isn`t that a form of intelligent design?
Of course, we couldn`t have such an essay without a nasty crack;
I believe the above quotations are sufficient to see Sewell’s essay for what it is – a groundless diatribe which could be expected from a semi-literate emotional anti– evolutionist, but sounds preposterous coming from a professor of mathematics.
(A general remark: evolution theory cannot be proven or rejected by applying any mathematical equations or laws of physics. ET is an empirical science based on immense experimental and observational material. The fact of evolution has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, although mechanisms of evolution continue to be discussed by evolutionary biologists. If certain mathematical equations or laws of physics seem to contradict ET, the reasonable explanation is that the equations or laws in question have been misapplied or misinterpreted.)
The whole point of the argument is that these are not settled matters-except to those with a vested interest in maintaining this theory. His classification ``evolutionary biologists`` hits the nail on the head; they are starting with a conclusion they want to justify.
Professor Sewell said:
``The development of life may have only violated one law of science, but that was the one Sir Arthur Eddington called the “supreme” law of Nature, and it has violated that in a most spectacular way. At least that is my opinion, but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it only seems extremely improbable, but really isn’t, that, under the right conditions, the influx of stellar energy into a planet could cause atoms to rearrange themselves into nuclear power plants and spaceships and computers. But one would think that at least this would be considered an open question, and those who argue that it really is extremely improbable, and thus contrary to the basic principle underlying the second law, would be given a measure of respect, and taken seriously by their colleagues, but we aren’t.``
and the response:
In fact, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not really “the supreme law of Nature,” although it is one of the widely applicable and highly plausible postulates of science. However, anti-evolutionists often exaggerate its significance and applicability.
Our learned man was obviously not paying attention; Sir Arthur Eddington made the remark, not professor Sewell. If you want to call someone disingenuous, reserve that for Eddington.
The fact is, crystal formation (which appears to be a property of many substances when they solidify) is about the only ``evidence`` the good doctor can provide for the formation of order out of disorder. This is very weak, indeed. I would like to gamble with you Darwinists; I`d walk away with all of your money. Can you really believe that the largest molecule in nature, one which encodes enormous amounts of information, which directs the building of all life, can form spontaneously? If it formed in smaller parts it is even harder to swallow, because of that pesky irreducible complexity business. So, Life just pops up out of nothing! Riiiight...
I can tell Darwinists how they can resolve this-either create life from scratch in a lab (something new-not recombinant DNA) or find extraterrestrial life. Either of these should answer the question.
My problem is the rigidity of the established thinking; it reminds me of mideval dogmatism. Let`s look at this critically. I am not an advocate for Intelligent Design, because I think it would be difficult to prove experimentally and I believe it would come to close to scientifically proving the existence of God, which would hamper free will. I think there are natural processes at work, but I think we are stumbling around in the dark because we have embraced a broken theory.
Anyway, this piece was a nice try. Didn`t quite make it, but nice try.
The fact is, crystal formation (which appears to be a property of many substances when they solidify) is about the only ``evidence`` the good doctor can provide for the formation of order out of disorder.
Guess you didn't read Perakh's article, you missed his example of the fetus forming in a mother's womb.
Timothy, in your effort to find errors in Perakh's argument, you made many errors yourself.
Error 1: Black holes. You claim that they are "holes" in our universe, making it an open system. This is wrong; black holes are in our universe, any matter they suck into them is still part of our universe. Just as a man who has fallen into a big hole in the ground is still located on planet Earth, so is matter that has fallen into a black hole still located inside our universe. Fortunately, our professor of physics appears to be aware of this.
Error 2: "Uh, I think that was the point."
No, that wasn't the point at all. Sewell is arguing that the origin of life is a thermodynamic miracle, impossible without supernatural intervention. Perakh contends that by the same argument, the continued existence of life is a thermodynamic miracle. I tend to agree - Sewell's logic can be used to say that the fact that you aren't dropping dead right now is a violation of the laws of physics. Is it? Of course not.
Error 3: "Intelligent design". No, forced speciation is not an example of ID. If it is, the designer is not supernatural. The point of the 2nd-law argument is that there has to be a supernatural designer to create life. Human intelligence is not supernatural, so a human experiment cannot be an example of intelligent design. It is an example of evolution; it just happens that the environmental pressures were "intelligently designed", har har.
Error 4: the Eddington quote. Yes, of course Eddington said it first, but Professor Sewell went right along with it, and Perakh took exception with him for using that argument. It doesn't matter that Eddington said it first, since Perakh is not claiming otherwise.
Error 5: your disingenuous quoting of the talk.origins page. Look at the reference list. The literature may not be organized, but it is ample.
Error 6: "they are starting with a conclusion they want to justify."
They are starting with the conclusion that the system will behave according to established laws. They are not trying to prove the laws. Physicists start with the assumption that a system obeys natural laws all the time, and model the system according to those laws, and if things don't work out, they don't first assume that the laws are incorrect. You are taking issue with the way all of science works here. Tread carefully.
Error 7: "Can you really believe that the largest molecule in nature, one which encodes enormous amounts of information, which directs the building of all life, can form spontaneously? If it formed in smaller parts it is even harder to swallow, because of that pesky irreducible complexity business. So, Life just pops up out of nothing! Riiiight..."
You cite irreducible complexity as if it were a well-established fact. It is not, and you should know better. The search for the origins of life, which you dared the 'Darwinists' to do, and the creation of DNA are still topics of much research, and there is reason to hope that a complete naturalistic explanation will be found.
You misunderstood one of Perakh's arguments, you misunderstood both the basic theory of Intelligent Design and its scientific status (with your remark about irreducible complexity), you chided Perakh for something he didn't do, and you misunderstood thermodynamics, black hole physics, and part of the scientific method. You can do better than this, and you'll have to if you with to effectively refute Mark Perakh.
"I would like to gamble with you Darwinists; I`d walk away with all of your money."
If the things you've said in the post and comment are any indication, I suspect you'd lose, and accuse the Darwinists of cheating.
By the way, on behalf of all physicists, I apologize if Perakh's style was too convoluted for you to easily grasp. It's the sort of thing we're used to.
Blah blah blah. Darwin's still dead. :)
Einstein is also dead. Do you intend to throw relativity out?
Schrodinger is dead, although we're not sure about his cat ^-^. Do you intend to throw quantum mechanics out too?
Darwin is dead, but life goes on evolving.
No, really, nobody cares about Einstein's relatives, Schroeder's cat couldn't catch mice, and I wouldn't let a quantum mechanic fix my car. Dead is dead. :)
Keep in mind, the state bird of Minnesota is a loon.
But, really, Tice w/J, nice post. I pretty much thought the same on all your points above and agree completely. I just like to interject a little humor now and again.
x@$#%&*! I just wrote a lengthy response to Tice, which this accursed machine ate (funny how my computer never seems to suffer from a reversal of entropy.)
To anonymous:
Thanks for a courteous reply.
I did read the entire piece by Perakh; I just didn`t see any point in accepting his circular logic. The point on pregnancy is starting with an existing system, one which is designed to replicate. That life replicates is part of the original mystery of how life formed. This point greatly strengthens the original point by Sewell, that the formation of life in the beginning is a reversal of entropy-OF COURSE any continuation of life is part of that. Perakh is going round in circles in his argument.
To Trice with a J:
Thanks for writing. I respectfully disagree with your points.
Error 1: Black holes. You claim that they are "holes" in our universe, making it an open system. This is wrong; black holes are in our universe, any matter they suck into them is still part of our universe. Just as a man who has fallen into a big hole in the ground is still located on planet Earth, so is matter that has fallen into a black hole still located inside our universe. Fortunately, our professor of physics appears to be aware of this.
Sorry, but you are wrong on this. A black hole exists in our Universe only as a point of gravitation. Everything below the event horizon is completely (or nearly so) sealed off from any events in the rest of our Universe, and the physical laws we know break down in mathematical singularities. A black hole sucks matter and energy in, and none comes out (except under extraordinary circumstances.) They can be characterized as an entropic sink.
Imagine a sewer line. If you drop a diamond ring down the sewer, and water washes it into your yard, it can be characterized as still in your house if you wish-but most people would say it was lost in your sewer.
Of course, if we have a big crunch, we will get all of that back-but that won`t be for a long time.
Error 2: "Uh, I think that was the point."
No, that wasn't the point at all. Sewell is arguing that the origin of life is a thermodynamic miracle, impossible without supernatural intervention. Perakh contends that by the same argument, the continued existence of life is a thermodynamic miracle. I tend to agree - Sewell's logic can be used to say that the fact that you aren't dropping dead right now is a violation of the laws of physics. Is it? Of course not.
First, you are putting words in Sewell`s mouth.
Second, there is a huge difference between the formation by random act of something as complex as life with the maintenance of that lifeform. I find it fairly easy to keep my car running, but could hardly expect my car to spontaneously come into existence.
Third, that was, indeed, the point. I`m sorry you don`t understand that.
Error 3: "Intelligent design". No, forced speciation is not an example of ID. If it is, the designer is not supernatural. The point of the 2nd-law argument is that there has to be a supernatural designer to create life. Human intelligence is not supernatural, so a human experiment cannot be an example of intelligent design. It is an example of evolution; it just happens that the environmental pressures were "intelligently designed", har har.
I really am sorry, Tice, that you don`t understand the point. I did not use the capitals I.D.; I used the lower case. I was not speaking about Intelligent Design Theory, I was saying that this was a case of an intelligence steering of developement. This obviously went over your head (the fault may be mine, for not being clear enough.)
By the by, I.D. is modeled on i.d. in that people noticed how the Universe seemed to follow engineering principles.
Error 4: the Eddington quote. Yes, of course Eddington said it first, but Professor Sewell went right along with it, and Perakh took exception with him for using that argument. It doesn't matter that Eddington said it first, since Perakh is not claiming otherwise.
Then Perakh should have said that Eddington was wrong. Why did he put the onus on Sewell? How, pray tell, am I in error on this?
Could it be that Dr. Perakh finds it easier to fault Sewell than Eddington?
Who is being disingenous?
Error 6: "they are starting with a conclusion they want to justify."
They are starting with the conclusion that the system will behave according to established laws. They are not trying to prove the laws. Physicists start with the assumption that a system obeys natural laws all the time, and model the system according to those laws, and if things don't work out, they don't first assume that the laws are incorrect. You are taking issue with the way all of science works here. Tread carefully.
That, I suppose, is why Lev Landau rose from his grave to write an letter to the American Spectator to protest Dr. Sewell`s article. That is why Piltdown Man magically appeared to save the day for Darwin (despite being a fraud.)
Trice, you must understand that Science is composed of people, and people are all privy to the same faults. Since Darwinism became acendent in the Universities (largely as a result of the media spin given to the Scopes trial) no one interested in a career in biology or a related science dares to challenge it. (Imagine the grade they would receive from a guy like P.Z. Myers!) Atheists like Dr. Myers fight mightily for the survival of their pet theory, because they can use it to justify many of their own personal beliefs. The system is self-perpetuating, and, in the matter of Darwinism, has become terribly ossified.
Do you think that any young scientist would have gone against Isaac Newton? Imagine what would have been done to Einstein had been come along in 1820.
Darwinists continue to plug their ears when anyone challenges them. Why do they become so angry when challenged? THAT is taking issue with the way science works.
Error 7: "Can you really believe that the largest molecule in nature, one which encodes enormous amounts of information, which directs the building of all life, can form spontaneously? If it formed in smaller parts it is even harder to swallow, because of that pesky irreducible complexity business. So, Life just pops up out of nothing! Riiiight..."
You cite irreducible complexity as if it were a well-established fact. It is not, and you should know better. The search for the origins of life, which you dared the 'Darwinists' to do, and the creation of DNA are still topics of much research, and there is reason to hope that a complete naturalistic explanation will be found.
Irreducible complexity should be self-evident in any number of instances. With Darwinists controlling the Research and Academic communities, it never will be recognized-principally because it undercuts their belief system.
I sincerely hope that research continues-this issue will probably be settled in a way no one expects. I tend to think that this whole argument will be looked on as quaint in the future. I further think that Darwinism will be seen as mere superstition with a scientific cover (note my choice of word-DARWINISM, not evolution. There is a difference, you know.)
You misunderstood one of Perakh's arguments, you misunderstood both the basic theory of Intelligent Design and its scientific status (with your remark about irreducible complexity), you chided Perakh for something he didn't do, and you misunderstood thermodynamics, black hole physics, and part of the scientific method. You can do better than this, and you'll have to if you with to effectively refute Mark Perakh.
I was wondering how long it could go before the condescension began. Well Tice, you, sir, have misunderstood my arguments, you misunderstood my use of the lower case in i.d., misunderstood the standing of ``scientific status`` in those who have learned to think for themselves, you chided me for something I didn`t do, and you misunderstood thermodynamics, black hole physics, and anything outside of your little realm. You can do better than this, and I HAVE effectively refuted Mark Perakh.
"I would like to gamble with you Darwinists; I`d walk away with all of your money."
If the things you've said in the post and comment are any indication, I suspect you'd lose, and accuse the Darwinists of cheating.
Considering Lev Landau`s rise from the grave (an intersting entropic reversal, that), the Peppered Moth, and Piltdown Man, I have every reason to fear Darwinists would cheat. If you ever make it to Missouri, I`ve got a game of Texas Hold `Em going! (By the way, you never stick on a pair of twos when playing blackjack; thought you might need the advice.)
By the way, on behalf of all physicists, I apologize if Perakh's style was too convoluted for you to easily grasp. It's the sort of thing we're used to.
In the interest of comity, I`m going to ignore what I see here and take this remark in the best possible way. Ignorance is bliss. Now, when writing a scientific treatise this is acceptable, but this was a response to something printed in the American Spectator. There is absolutely no reason to write that way, unless one is trying to obfuscate and chest thump. This is the old three card monte, the peanut under the shell trick. It`s one of the oldest cons there is. We benighted buffoons call it ``blinding `em with science``. I understood what he was saying; the point he was relying on was that someone like me would not be able to argue against such esoteric jargon. This is just one more example of the disingenuousness of the defenders of Darwin. Thanks! You keep building my case for me!
By the way, Jeffox is more on your side than mine. He is just a nice guy who is trying to make peace. Cut him some slack.
In that vein, I relinquish the floor to you. You may have the last word (I just don`t have time to keep arguing.)
I did read the entire piece by Perakh; I just didn`t see any point in accepting his circular logic. The point on pregnancy is starting with an existing system, one which is designed to replicate. That life replicates is part of the original mystery of how life formed. This point greatly strengthens the original point by Sewell, that the formation of life in the beginning is a reversal of entropy-OF COURSE any continuation of life is part of that. Perakh is going round in circles in his argument.
I'm not sure how Perakh's argument was circular. The point is that as a fetus develops, entropy decreases locally while the universe's net entropy increases. Since the womb is an open system you can have local decreases in entropy at the expense of an increase in the universe's net entropy. There is nothing unusual about that, happens all the time and without violating the 2nd LoT.
Oh my darwin
Oh my darwin
Oh my darwin cwementine
You are dead and gone forever
Dreadfew sorrow cwementine
:) :) :)
And, for balance:
You say you don't want evolution
Well, you know
We all wanna change the world
But if you go quoting Dembski now
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow
Cuz you know it's gonna be
All right
:) :) :)
Thank you Tim, I got to sing two songs in one post. :) Enjoy!!
...Getting to hear two songs from JeffOx-priceless! :):):)
Thanks, Jeff!
Oh, and anonymous, I didn`t mean to ignore you. We disagree-and there is nothing wrong with that. You have an informed opinion, and you have expressed yourself well. You have been a polite and courteous person, and I want to thank you for an interesting discussion!
Feel free to drop by any time!
Whether this person writing as "Lev Landau" is dishonest does not allow you to conclude that evolution is itself a sham. (Or, as the other letter states: "JUDGE A THEORY BY ITS DEFENDERS"). The fact of the matter is that there are dishonest people in support of every theory. I could, for example, tell you about the story of Mike Warnke - a Christian evangelist who fabricated his past where he claimed he was a devil worshiper, saw miracles performed, that an angel appeared to him, etc etc. A lot of wild stuff. Someone went back and checked-up on these claimed and discovered they were false. If we really want to hold everyone to a standard of "JUDGE A THEORY BY ITS DEFENDERS" (or "judge a religion by it's followers"), then we should dismiss Christianity as a giant fraud based on Warnke's dishonesty. Is that unfair? Of course it is. Yet, that's exactly the logic you are using to dismiss evolution. No doubt you were a critic of evolution initially, and saw this as an opportunity to exploit this as an argument against evolution itself.
"If Darwinism is on such firm ground, why must its defenders stoop to such low tactics?"
And, by that logic, if Christianity is on such firm ground, why must it's defenders [e.g. Warnke] stoop to such low tactics? No, I don't use that logic for rhetorical ammo against Christianity because that's bad logic. And, you shouldn't use statements like that for rhetorical ammo against evolution.
Post a Comment
<< Home