Teaching Intelligent Design in Public Schools

[Liberty]

You're hilarious. Asimov was an atheist.

Yep. And that atheist is the one who said, “Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.”

But back to Intelligent Design. I find it interesting that even Richard Dawkins finds ID worth investigating......




.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Liberty, is there a reason why you fled from defending your red herring in regards to the star system being a closed system*, or your complete inability to understand the difference between scientific "disorder" and the layman's definition of the word? Have you ever considered the fact that your very growth from an egg cell to a human being is a disproof of your ridiculous notion that arbitrary "complexity" cannot possibly increase, and that this is an immutable law of physics? Where did all our skyscrapers and monuments appear from, then? You may scream "intelligence"; but then I would ask you what ridiculous professor taught you that scientific laws can be violated by construction workers.

-----------------------------

That your only response is a hilarious misinterpretation of Asimov's quote* (who supported evolution; clearly, he did not mean what you think he meant), followed by an even more hilariouis misinterpretation of Dawkins (who thoroughly rejects the teaching of ID in public schools), is evidence that you really haven't the legs to stand on here.



* - Which is hilariously false, by the way. The solar system is by no means "close" to a closed system.

It's also entirely irrelevant, because the appearance of life does not decrease the entropy of the star system; in fact, it increases it! You really don't understand the term.

* - It's hilarious that you feel the need to quote a science fiction author to justify your butchering of a very well defend scientific law, based on semantical nitpicking, for Christ's sake! Do you think that physics is a legal document?

[Liberty]

SciFi, I fled from nothing. My points were clearly made by experts in the field and they said you are wrong.

Nice try on the spin, but it won't work.

As for Asimov and Dawkins, there has been no "misinterpretation". They were very clear in what they said. There is no need to "interpret" unless you intend to twist and misrepresent which is exactly what you are doing now.

[Liberty]

Sci Fi, I'll put to you the same question that was put to Richard Dawkins a while back.....

Can you provide a concrete example in which an evolutionary process can be seen to have increased information on the genome?

Dawkins was unable to answer it. Can you?

.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Originally Posted by Liberty

SciFi, I fled from nothing. My points were clearly made by experts in the field and they said you are wrong.

Asimov supported evolution; so either he is a bald faced hypocrite (which would question why you cited him as a source) or your interpretation of his statement is incorrect.


That more complex organisms tend to result in increased entropy is an accepted fact. "Disorder", in this case, isn't the typical connotation of the word. Did you honestly think that an immutable law of the universe was based on the subjective human interpretation of what is complex and what is simple? Did you seriously think to interpret Asimov's (who was trying to explain things for someone who had never heard of the law, not someone who claims to have minored in biochemistry) analogy literally?


That you yourself grew from a small egg to an adult man should be impossible, by your own warped interpretation of thermodynamics.



But if you don't believe me (check this site out, it's freaking awesome):


http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/Example10


To compound links:


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

http://2ndlaw.oxy.edu/evolution.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gbi2qInNjg
--------------------------------------------------------------



Dawkins was not stumped - the tape was digitally doctored (and quite obviously fake). Here is an explanation of his stance here:

http://tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html

[Liberty]

Asimov supported evolution; so either he is a bald faced hypocrite (which would question why you cited him as a source) or your interpretation of his statement is incorrect.

Hard to misinterpret what he said.

As to the Dawkins video, it was not "doctored". That is what the pro-Hawkins people claim. He asked for the video to stop recording. It then picked up when he was ready. Nice try. And if you noticed, he never really answered the question.


That said, Sci Fi Fan, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

[Sci Fi Fan]

Really, the level of resounding ignorance in this discussion is simply astounding. It's entirely insane to have to explain to you the 2nd law of thermodyanmics and the fact that "disorder" does not refer to an arbitrary perception of an object's complexity. This should be stuff you learned in high school; that you think the star system is a closed system makes me question precisely where you minored in biochemistry.

Originally Posted by Liberty

Hard to misinterpret what he said.

Which is why it amazes me that you did.

You obviously did, because either you are correct and Asimov is a two faced hypocrite (given that he was pro-evolution), or you are incorrect.

----------------------

A reaction can occur spontaneously if the change in gibbs free energy is negative. In case if you never noticed, the formula includes no indication of arbitrary "complexity". The factors are change in enthalpy, change in absolute temperature and change in entropy.


Really, you don't even have to have studied the law to know this; you just need some common sense. If the 2nd law is immutable (which it is), exactly what formula dictates the "complexity" of an organism?

And why is it that we can produce skyscrapers and you can grow from a fertilized egg cell to an adult human? (let your answer here me a test of my faith in humanity)

That said, Sci Fi Fan, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

Read my link. Darkins explains it perfectly.

[Liberty]

No he doesn't, Sci Fi. He beats around the bush and ignores Behe and Swift.

A recent study in Nature states "Gene duplication and loss is a powerful source of functional innovation. However, the general principles that govern this process are still largely unknown." (Ilan Wapinski, Avi Pfeffer, Nir Friedman & Aviv Regev, "Natural history and evolutionary principles of gene duplication in fungi," Nature, Vol. 449:54-61 (September 6, 2007).)

Now answer the question...... Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

And don't waste my time talking about yeast.

.