Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Join ASA or sign up
Sign In


Forgot your password?

Haven't registered yet?

Calendar

11/1/2014
70th Anniversary Celebratory Conference, Oxford, UK

11/4/2014
“Popularizing Science: Clerical Engagement with Science during the Age of Enlightenment,” Wheaton,

11/5/2014 » 11/7/2014
“Is Life Going Anywhere?: Creation-Biology, Randomness & Purpose,” Wenham, MA

11/7/2014 » 11/8/2014
“Intersections: Summit on Origins,” Roseville, MN

11/11/2014 » 11/15/2014
“Theology and Science of Creation,” Madrid, Spain

Review of End of Darwinism by Eugene Windchy
Moderator(s):
Thread Score:
Page 1 of 1
Thread Actions

3/5/2013 at 5:05:16 AM GMT
Posts: 60
Review of End of Darwinism by Eugene Windchy
Review of The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold (Kindle Edition) by David Roemer (published on Amazon.com)

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 honestly.

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.



David Roemer

 Attached Files: 

Last edited Tuesday, March 05, 2013
7/28/2013 at 12:45:19 PM GMT
Posts: 7
Evolution - delusion or reality?
However much we may wish to deny it, there is overwhelming evidence from studies in paleontology, biology and genetics that evolution is no longer a theory but a fact - a process which is fundamental to the universe and life. The hoaxes about the Piltdown skull, Ernst Haechel's fake drawings (which he later redrew) and the incompatibility between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics (which is not true) do not cast doubt on evolution. Rival ideas such as intelligent design and creationism reveal serious cracks and are contradicted by the various branches of science. The Qur'an which acknowledges the authenticity of previously revealed Books (in their original form), subscribes to evolution. The Book (a 7th century document) lays down the principles of evolution: its tree-like pattern, evolutionary relationship of all living things including man, the role of environment, extinction and survival, mutation and selection, the gradual emergence of modern man from pre-human ancestors and so on. It describes a creative process which is evolutionary in nature; chemical, biological, mental and cultural evolution. These concepts are expressed in precise scientific language. There is no human explanation on account of the time interval during which they were formulated. One is driven to invoke a superior mind to explain such ultra-modern data.

There is no separate, scientific or philosophical truth, only a unified truth whatever its source. - Joseph Noor


7/31/2013 at 7:20:39 PM GMT
Posts: 60
Evolution Hoaxes

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.



David Roemer

 Attached Files: 
Sewell 2013.pdf (578.11 KB)

Last edited Wednesday, July 31, 2013
2/4/2014 at 11:30:09 PM GMT
Posts: 2
thanks

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.



your fellow suffering-servant,
in His Name, by His love,
gregory andeson