Forums → WEPR → Intelligent design Vs Evolution

And what would you call non bias, anything that says God did it by chance? Which they aren't! Because you sure don't seem to think peer reviewed scientific sources are non-bias, which are!

How many times do I have to say the same %^&* thing? I've already explain why. You just refuse to accept it.

I don't need to prove you wrong if you already are wrong.

For the 2nd law of thermodynamics to contradict evolution, the Earth would have to be a closed system. Again with you not understanding the arguments you're parading.

It absolutely isn't. Not at all.

If you're talking about that Christian Apologetic site, then how can you not see the problem in using that as a source for scientific inquiry? There's no explanation going on, just lame attempts at refuting well-established scientific theories.

The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation and repeatability. Neither Creation nor Evolution are scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history.

We have observed evolution. We can observe it.

Holy crap you really don't get it do you. You really don't understand evolution.

Common misconceptions about Evolution

Look here. Many of the flaws people have pointed out in evolution are explained here, as they usually have to do with a misunderstanding of evolution itself.

Yes, I am pointing the finger at you, redace333.

I'm going to go through these two articles and post my thoughts.
2nd Law Of Thermodynamics:

"Scores of distinguished scientists ... [conclude that] Evolution is simply not feasible."

Scores, huh? That would put these scientists firmly in the minority. Part of the pursuit of scientific truth is for a theory to gain peer acceptance. I don't know what the article means by "feasible" - it's an odd word to use in this context. If they mean conceivable or justifiable, then that's just false.
I also don't like the definition or examples the site gives of a "law of science". It makes an extremely strong claim and the examples it cites don't even fall under the definition the site gives. Neither gravity nor the laws of motion are entirely understood. There are also point in the universe that don't seem to obey these laws. They are descriptive mechanisms, supported by contingent theories.

"Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less."

This is a gross misunderstanding of the 2nd law. Energy, like matter, can neither be created nor destroyed. The fact that energy used to do work that is external to a system is simply a consequence of this very law. I stopped reading here because I can see where this is going and the whole argument is going to be based off this false premise. There are some highly specific definitions within this definition and such an oversimplification of a very complex law is unacceptable.

Evolution: Fact or Faith:

"Neither one [creation or evolution] can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history."

This is equivocating on what it means to test something. Under this definition, it is true that evolution is not scientific. But, the condition is too strong - of course history can't be repeated. When scientists try to repeat experiments, they're not under the delusion that the same event is occurring.
What it should say, rather than tested, is something like empirically justified. And there is bountiful empirical evidence in the fossil record.

Also, the description of all these religions with a scientific viewpoint is just false. I'm not even sure what the claim amounts to, but this is a misunderstanding both of what a scientific viewpoint is and the actual doctrine of these religions.

"'Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless'"

I stopped reading here because this quote they gave they intended to be a sleight against evolution. But one of the principles of evolution is that it is random and directionless. And the type of change evolution sees is one of rapid mutation followed by long periods of latency (there's a name for this, but I can't think of it right now).
I realize the common conception of evolution is one of "improvement" - that creatures are somehow getting "better". And while that is an artifact of how we human think about the world, it is a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. Clearly, whoever wrote this article is also operating under that misunderstanding. What that indicates is that they have no business even talking about evolution and everything they say from this point on is suspect.

This just makes true my claim that theists with an agenda have absolutely no business inserting their opinion on scientific methods. They simply aren't evolutionary biologists.

Moegreche I looked through wikipedia looking for this term, because I knew that I had heard of it. I finally found it.

And the type of change evolution sees is one of rapid mutation followed by long periods of latency (there's a name for this, but I can't think of it right now).

I'm sorry, redace333, but what does the decomposition of a wooden house have to do with the second law of thermodynamics?
As far as I remember, it states that the entropy of the universe increases over time and only those processes with a negative gibbs energy happen voluntarily. Actually, nothing in nature contradicts this. Linking endergonic and exergonic processes is obligatory in every metabolic pathway and allows many reactions to take place as long as the sum of Î"G is still negative.
So yeah, how does this disprove evolution again?

@Moegreche

Thanks for the break down of one of those articles.

As far as I remember, it states that the entropy of the universe increases over time and only those processes with a negative gibbs energy happen voluntarily.

Close, it's the entropy of an isolated system increases over time. But your right nothing in nature violates this.

Then please state one system that is in its entirety isolated from the rest of the universe.

Which I doubt will actually ever be the case. I'm well aware of the concept but tried to boil it down to a scale on which it actually matters to our case (the wording is a little different in my native language anyway). As I see no real point in discussing this any further I kindly request an explanation as to how this is considered to disprove evolution. I presume that persons making this claim have neither unterstood this rather simple to grasp concept nor do they really want to anyway. It just seems to be another pseudo-scientific delusion used to impress laymen.

[/quote]"trying to prove evolution to a theist is like talking to a brick wall with a little speaker that only shouts Bible verses."[quote]

*Grumbles* Yea for generalizations, stereotypes, and old views? I think so.