Forgot your password?
Haven't registered yet?
9/4/2015 » 9/5/2015 Patents on Life: Through the Lenses of Law, Religious Faith and Social Justice, Cambridge, England
9/17/2015“Does God know the Future?: Truth and Models in Science and Scripture,” Socorro, NM
9/21/2015Science and Faith: Are They Really in Conflict, Tampa, FL
9/21/2015“Conflict or Harmony? Historical Perspectives on Science and Religion,” Norfolk, England
9/25/2015 » 9/27/2015Diversity, Inclusion and the Christian Academy, Chicago, IL
This informative and enjoyable book tells about the
Piltdown hoax and the fake drawings of Ernst Haeckel, the famous advocate of
Darwinism in Germany. There is another hoax about evolution that has not yet
been exposed. It is widely believed by physicists that evolution does not
violate the second law of thermodynamics, according to which nature tends to go
from order to disorder. In fact, the American Journal of Physics published an
article ("Entropy and evolution," Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11,
November 2008) and a note ("Evolution and the second law of
thermodynamics," Am. J. Phys., Vol. 77, No. 10, October 2009) with fake
calculations proving that the second law is not violated. The truth is that the
second law does not apply to biological evolution or the evolution of stars.
The idea that a living organism is a thermodynamic system
is similar to the absurd idea that natural selection acting upon innovations
explains how mammals evolved from bacteria in only 3.5 billion years. It takes
a fertilized egg 18 years to produce all of the cells in a human. (I know
because my urologist told me the prostate gland stops growing at this age and
starts growing again at the age of 30, so much for intelligent design.) Not
enough is known about the innovations natural selection acts upon to understand
how the same thing happened with a bacterium as the starting point. Evolutionary
biologists always speak of "adaptive evolution." Darwin expressed
this by saying it was "absurd in the highest degree" to think natural
selection gave us the human eye.
Windchy sees in this quote from Charles Darwin some kind
of self-delusion. He also misrepresents the way mainstream biologists rebut the
idea of "irreducible complexity" put forth by advocates of
intelligent design. It is not rebutted it in peer-reviewed journals and biology
textbooks, but it is ridiculed only in popular books, magazines, and lectures.
Windchy thinks the theory of intelligent design is
reasonable. I think it is irrational because there is no evidence for it. But
it is also dishonest not to admit that intelligent design is a better theory
than natural selection, in some sense. This raises the question of why one side
in this conflict about evolutionary biology is irrational and the other side is
dishonest. The general answer is that evolution is related to religion, and
religion causes conflict between people. Conflict causes anxiety, and
inhibition is a defense mechanism for anxiety. Advocates of intelligent design
and their opponents are inhibited from thinking rationally and behaving
My theory is that both sides don't understand the
cosmological argument for God's existence. See: The One and the Many: A
Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics. They both think the argument has to do with
the Big Bang and a "first cause." The cosmological argument is based
on the observation that human beings have free will. This means humans are
finite beings, as well as embodied spirits. Since a finite being needs a cause,
an infinite being exists if the universe is intelligible. Hindus and Buddhists
have a different terminology, but in the West we call the infinite being God.
God was motivated to create finite beings because He loved
Himself as giving. But He just as well could love Himself without giving. We
don't explain our existence by thinking God created us and keeps us in
existence, and we can't use God's existence to answer scientific questions. The
evidence that the universe is intelligible is the success of the scientific
method and the fact that things don't pop into or out of existence. Windchy
thinks the Big Bang, the origin of life, evolution, and the fine-tuning of the
coupling constants in physics is evidence that God exists. In my opinion, these
phenomena are evidence God does not exist.
I am afraid you have fallen victim to one of the evolution hoaxes. You seem to think there is a connection between the second law of thermodynamics and evolution. There is no connection because thermodynamics is the study of liquids, solids, and gasses. All four laws concern temperature, with the exception of the first law. To promote religion, creationists say evolution violates the second law. To promote atheism, many physicists say that evolution does not violate the second law because the law only says entropy increases in a closed system. An article published in the American Journal of Physics goes so far as to perform a fake calculation to prove evolution does not violate the second law. I'v attached a peer-reviewed article which refutes the absurd AJP article.
I have filed a complaint against the AJP with my congressman (Yvette Clarke) because it undermines the integrity of science. I have been assured by a staff member (Scott) that the matter is being investigated.
I'm new to the forum, having just found ASA and the site here. I'm greatly encouraged by your review of Windchy's work as well as the attachment you gave with the Critical Focus by Granville Sewell. I read both before responding here.
It continues to amaze me that folks who consider themselves rock-solid in the canons of the various Sciences continue to object that they do not believe in abiogenesis, yet at the same time do in fact utilize it in their hypotheses and truth-claims. I'm glad to have read your argument regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and its abuse. Too often, Christians in apologetic or polemic situations go beyond the pale in assuming factors for common ground with unbelievers when often they take as fact those things which are actually not so. Again, thank you. I will keep looking into these things to see if they are so.